In brief

  • The High Court dismissed as inadmissible a question from a court of appeal about what became of the 2016 pay rules once the framework law of 2017 entered into force.
  • The reason has nothing to do with the substance: the Court says the question was framed ambiguously and that, through it, the court hearing the case was passing upwards its own task of identifying the point of law.
  • Even though the outcome is a finding of inadmissibility, the grounds remain binding. Courts hearing pay disputes on the same provisions now have guidance, not an answer.
Act: ÎCCJ Decision no. 79/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 714 of 27 August 2026
Delivered: 22 June 2026

When a judge asks the supreme court to tell him what the point of law in his own file is, the answer is that it cannot be done. That is the conclusion of Decision no. 79 of 22 June 2026 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Panel for the Resolution of Points of Law, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 714 of 27 August 2026. It is the second ruling this summer in which the supreme court settles a matter connected with the remuneration of staff paid from public funds, after the one on the resumption of pension payments to a female civil servant.

The referral came from the Craiova Court of Appeal, Administrative and Tax Litigation Division, in a case opened in 2023. The question was whether Government Decision No 582/2016, which had approved the methodological norms for the application of Article 3^1(2), (3) and (8), Article 3^3 and Article 3^4 of Government Emergency Ordinance No 57/2015 on the remuneration of staff paid from public funds, continued to produce legal effects after Framework Law No 153/2017 entered into force.

The panel was chaired by the Vice-President of the High Court, and the ruling carries an unusual note: for the judge who presided over the hearing, removed from office on retirement between delivery and drafting, the President in office signs.

The same panel reached the same outcome on the referral about firefighters’ overtime: Decision no. 78/2026, also inadmissible, also for want of a shown difficulty.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is that the question stays without an answer of principle. Courts hearing disputes on the same provisions will each decide, in their own case, whether the 2016 norms survived the 2017 framework law. The preliminary ruling mechanism, the domestic procedure under Articles 519 to 521 of the Code of Civil Procedure by which a court can ask the High Court to settle a point of law before it rules, and not the reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union, has not produced the uniformity the referral was after.

The second effect is less obvious but matters more in practice. The Court recalls that findings of inadmissibility are not blank paper: like any judicial act, they carry res judicata over the grounds that support and spell out the outcome. A judge reading this ruling therefore receives binding guidance on what does not amount to a genuine point of law.

The third effect is a line drawn between the role of the trial court and that of the supreme court. The Court says that the ambiguous way the referral was framed suggests that what was being passed to the supreme court was the very identification of the point of law relevant to deciding the case. And the intervention of the supreme court cannot turn into an indirect means of suppressing the role of the court lawfully seised.

The fourth effect concerns the threshold of difficulty. The Court restates the criterion from its own case-law: the point of law must raise serious difficulties that would prevent a ruling from being given, not mere obstacles that can be cleared by more thorough reflection on the part of the judge hearing the case. And in this instance, the Court says, it was precisely the referral order that lacked such reflection.

The fifth effect is methodological. The difficulty of a point of law cannot be assessed in isolation: account is also taken of earlier rulings of the supreme court on similar matters, which already offer interpretative guidance, including through grounds of principle.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

On the substance, nothing. The legal position of Government Decision No 582/2016 after Framework Law No 153/2017 entered into force stays exactly where it was before the referral: a matter each court settles in its own case.

On procedure, the ruling adds one more precedent to the body of case-law the supreme court has been building for years around the admissibility of the preliminary ruling. It cites, to that effect, its own decisions from 2018, 2021 and 2023, and its own contribution is the wording about passing on the identification of the point of law, which it classes as inadmissible.

The third thing worth noting is the procedural basis relied on. The Court frames its analysis not only by reference to Articles 519 and 520 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but also to Government Emergency Ordinance No 62/2024, a sign that the admissibility regime for referrals has been amended in the meantime.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It protects the role of the trial judge: identifying the point of law in his own file remains his task, not the supreme court’s.
  • It confirms expressly that findings of inadmissibility produce binding effects through their grounds, so they are not wasted time.
  • It restates a criterion that can be checked: the difficulty must prevent a ruling from being given, not merely make it harder.
  • It ties the assessment of difficulty to earlier case-law, which discourages referrals on matters already settled.
  • The reasoning is extensive and cites its sources, so it can serve as a benchmark for anyone preparing a referral.

What remains a problem

  • The substantive question, what became of the 2016 norms after the 2017 framework law, remains unsettled as a matter of principle.
  • Pay disputes on these provisions may continue to attract different outcomes from one court to another.
  • The file that gave rise to the referral has been on hold from 2023 to 2026, and now goes back to the trial court without an answer.
  • The „serious difficulties” test remains, by its very nature, assessed case by case.
  • The criticism about ambiguous drafting comes without a model of correct drafting, so the lesson is learnt through dismissal.

Practical advice

  1. If you are a party to a pay dispute based on the 2016 norms, do not wait for clarification from the supreme court: the case will be decided on the interpretation given by the court seised of it.
  2. Lawyers preparing a request for a referral should frame the point of law as a single precise question, with the statutory provision identified, not as alternatives for the supreme court to choose between.
  3. Check first whether the supreme court has already ruled on a similar matter: the decision says expressly that the existence of earlier rulings feeds into the assessment of difficulty.
  4. Read the grounds of findings of inadmissibility, not just the operative part. The Court confirms that those grounds carry res judicata.
  5. Keep the threshold in mind: the difficulty must prevent a ruling from being given. A provision that is hard to read but can be interpreted through careful analysis does not justify a referral.
  6. For accurate citation, watch the superscripts: the provisions at issue are Article 3^1, Article 3^3 and Article 3^4 of Government Emergency Ordinance No 57/2015, not Articles 31, 33 and 34.

Frequently asked questions

What did the High Court decide?
It dismissed as inadmissible the referral from the Craiova Court of Appeal, so it gave no answer of principle to the question put to it.
What was the question?
Whether Government Decision No 582/2016, which approved the methodological norms for the application of certain articles of Government Emergency Ordinance No 57/2015 on the remuneration of staff paid from public funds, continued to produce legal effects after Framework Law No 153/2017 entered into force.
Why was it dismissed?
Because the requirement of a genuine point of law, of a degree of difficulty that would justify a preliminary ruling, was not met. The Court also held that the ambiguous drafting of the referral passed to the supreme court the identification of the relevant point of law.
Does the ruling have any binding effect?
Yes. It is binding under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the grounds explaining the finding of inadmissibility carry res judicata.
What happens to the Craiova case?
It goes on before the court seised of it, which will itself interpret the provisions at issue.
What does „preliminary ruling” mean?
A mechanism by which a court ruling at last instance can ask the High Court to settle, as a matter of principle, a new and difficult point of law before it decides the case. It is governed by Articles 519 to 521 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is a domestic procedure, distinct from a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
What threshold of difficulty is required?
The matter must raise serious difficulties that would prevent a ruling from being given, not mere obstacles that can be cleared by more thorough analysis on the part of the judge hearing the case.
Why is the ruling signed by a different judge?
Because the judge who presided over the panel on the date of delivery was removed from office on retirement, and the ruling is signed by the President in office of the High Court.

Editorial analysis

The ruling is, in essence, a lesson in procedure delivered politely, and its most valuable part is not the outcome but the wording in the closing paragraph of the reasoning: the intervention of the supreme court cannot turn into an indirect means of suppressing the role of the court lawfully seised. That is exactly the risk built into the preliminary ruling mechanism, and the Court names it without softening. A judge who does not know what is holding him up in his own file has nothing to ask, and if he asks all the same, he passes on a responsibility that cannot be passed on.

Just as useful is the restatement that findings of inadmissibility produce effects through their grounds. Practice tends to treat them as non-decisions; the Court says, citing its own case-law from 2021, that they are not. Anyone hearing a dispute on the same provisions therefore has more than a refusal: they have the markers the Court used to arrive at it.

What remains unpleasant is the arithmetic of time over the whole exercise. The file that gave rise to the referral dates from 2023, the ruling was delivered in June 2026 and published in August, and at the end of that road the substantive question, whether a 2016 act still produces effects after a 2017 law, is right where it started. That is not the Court’s fault; it cannot answer a badly put question. But the practical result is that the litigant in the Craiova case waited three years to find out that he has to wait longer, and the risk of divergent outcomes on the same matter is untouched.

What should be changed

  • A formal filter at the level of the referring court. Checking how the question is framed before the file is sent up would spare years of waiting for referrals that fall at the admissibility stage.
  • Publishing, alongside findings of inadmissibility, a summary of the requirements. The Court has been repeating the same criteria for years; a consolidated guide would make them visible before a referral, not after.
  • A way of flagging the divergence that is left behind. Where a referral falls on form but the substantive problem is real, it would help if the supreme court could trigger an appeal in the interest of the law, which does not depend on how a single court frames its question.
  • Internal deadlines for drafting and publishing rulings. Two months between delivery and publication, in a case that had been waiting since 2023, add to a delay that is already long.

Original text of the legal act

The text below is reproduced in Romanian, the official form of publication.

The full text, as published in the Official Gazette of Romania

Official Gazette of Romania no. 714 of 27 August 2026 16 pages PDF, 111 KB the act starts on page 6

Open the official PDFDownload the PDF

The viewer is not shown on small screens. Use the buttons above to open or download the file.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult a licensed attorney or tax advisor.