Measles epidemic bonus left without a uniform answer: ÎCCJ dismisses the referral as inadmissible

The question of whether a measles epidemic declared by an order of the minister of health falls within the category of „particularly serious epidemics” that give entitlement to the bonus remains without a uniform answer, and each court will decide it on its own. By Decision no. 77 of 22 June 2026, published in the Official Gazette of Romania no. 695 of 21 August 2026, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Panel for the Resolution of Points of Law, dismissed as inadmissible the referral made by the Bucharest Court of Appeal. It is the second decision of this kind delivered on the same day by the same panel, after the one in which it held that a pension and a public post cannot be claimed at the same time.

The referral came from Section VII for labour disputes and social insurance cases of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, in a case concerning the working conditions bonus set out in Annex no. 2 to the framework regulation approved by Government Decision no. 153/2018, for the „Health and social assistance” occupational family.

The question was whether the notion of „particularly serious epidemics and other similar situations established by the Ministry of Health and declared by order” also covers the measles epidemic declared nationwide by Order of the minister of health no. 4.128/2023, read together with Article 6(a) of Law no. 136/2020.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is the absence of any ruling on the substance. The referral was dismissed as inadmissible, so the High Court did not say whether the measles epidemic falls within the notion used in the regulation.

The second effect is the reason for the dismissal, which matters for the future. The admissibility condition that was missing concerns the existence of divergent and settled case law on the question submitted for resolution. The supreme court found that, on this precise issue, such case law is practically non-existent.

The third effect concerns the distinction between epidemics. The judgments identified in the referral order and in the case law communicated by the courts concerned disputes arising from the award of the bonus in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, marked by a distinct legal and factual framework, including the declaration of the pandemic by the World Health Organization and the exceptional measures taken at that time.

The fourth effect concerns the weight of theoretical opinions. The views submitted by the judges of the courts consulted were not uniform, but the High Court pointed out that the mere lack of uniformity among theoretical opinions does not justify triggering the mechanism. What is needed are concrete case law trends pointing towards different solutions.

The fifth effect is one of principle. The purpose of the preliminary ruling is to secure rulings of principle, not to take over the powers of the court hearing the case. The role of the supreme court cannot become that of deciding the case directly.

The sixth effect is procedural. The decision is binding under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, so the file returns to the Bucharest Court of Appeal, which will decide it on the basis of its own interpretation.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In law, nothing. The 2018 framework regulation remains unchanged, and the wording about particularly serious epidemics stays exactly as it was.

What changes is the expectation. Anyone hoping for a uniform interpretation, valid for all hospitals and all courts, will not get one by this route. Each case is decided separately.

The second change concerns the admissibility criterion, explained here through a concrete example. It is not enough for a question to be new and debatable. The courts must already have reached different solutions on that very question, not on a similar one.

The third change is one of nuance, but a useful one. The decision says plainly that case law from the COVID-19 period cannot automatically be used as a benchmark for the measles epidemic, because the legal regime and the facts differ.

What does not change is the right to claim the bonus. Healthcare employees can still go to court, and whether the claim is granted or dismissed depends on the interpretation of the court seised.

On another element of healthcare pay the answer came on the merits: doctors’ on-call hours stay capped at the January 2018 level, and the Constitutional Court rejected the union’s plea.

Advantages and disadvantages

Practical advice

Frequently asked questions