CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 octobre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 22 October 2020 Published on 9 November 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 31390/18 Amelia-Nicoleta PETRESCU against Romania and 9 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the conflicting case-law of the domestic appellate courts which delivered the final decisions in litigations regarding the acknowledgment of whether or not the claimants, employees of forensic medicine services, worked in “special conditions” ( condiţii deosebite de muncă ). Such acknowledgment triggered specific pension-related rights and impacted on the claimants’ seniority in their job. According to the case-law of some of the appellate courts, all employees working in forensic medicine services had to be considered by default as working in “special conditions”; according to another line of case-law applied by the domestic courts in the applicants’ cases, such conditions had to be first acknowledged by the Regional Labour Department, which had to assess the steps taken by each employer on a case-by-case basis and to confirm whether or not they complied with the conditions set out by the general law on the granting of this status. The final decisions dismissing the applicants’ claims to be considered as having worked in “special conditions” for several years are mentioned in the appended table; in parallel proceedings lodged by the applicants’ colleagues, working in the same field, the same claim was allowed by other appellate courts. On 14 October 2019 the High Court of Cassation and Justice rendered its decision in an appeal in the interests of the law, holding that the working conditions in forensic medicine services had to be considered by default as “special conditions”. According to the domestic law, the High Court’s interpretation of the legal provisions in question is binding on all the domestic courts only once the High Court’s extensive decision is published in the Official Gazette, namely, in the present case, on 12 December 2019. A decision delivered on an appeal in the interests of the law cannot alter the outcome of cases already decided. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants had a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as similar actions before the domestic courts, concerning the interpretation of certain legal provisions defining whether or not work was to be considered as being performed in “special conditions”, had different outcomes? In particular, was the principle of legal certainty, as developed in the Court’s case-law in the interpretation of Article 6 of the Convention (see for instance Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v.   Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, §116, 29 November 2016; and Albu and   Others v. Romania , nos. 34796/09 and 63 others, §§ 34 and 42, 10   May 2012), complied with by the domestic courts?   2.     Has the alleged inconsistent approach taken by the domestic courts in the applicants’ case, as opposed to other similar cases, constituted an infringement of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in particular of their alleged right to obtain specific pension rights and benefits linked to the special working conditions’ acknowledgment, as claimed before the domestic courts (see mutatis mutandis, Tudor Tudor v.   Romania , no.   21911/03, 24 March 2009 and Ştefănică and Others v.   Romania , no.   38155/02, §§ 41-42, 2 November 2010)?   3.     Have the applicants been subjected to discriminatory treatment contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with respectively Article 6 of the Convention and with Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention, having regard to the fact that other claimants’ relevantly similar actions before the domestic courts had a favourable outcome (see, mutatis mutandis , Ştefănică and Others , cited above, §§   41 ‑ 42 and Driha v. Romania , no. 29556/02, § 38, 21 February 2008)? Appendix List of 10 applications No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality   Represented by Final decision 1 31390/18 28/06/2018 Amelia-Nicoleta PETRESCU 1958 Bucharest Romanian Iulia Monica DUMITRU 7/03/2018 Bucharest Court of Appeal 2 31399/18 28/06/2018 Claudia-Nicoleta MATAC 1970 Bucharest Romanian   Iulia Monica DUMITRU 7/03/2018 Bucharest Court of Appeal 3 31401/18 28/06/2018 Florența-Narcisa MANEA 1974 Bucharest Romanian   Iulia Monica DUMITRU 7/03/2018 Bucharest Court of Appeal 4 32201/18 02/07/2018 Mihaela Gabriela BERDAN 1967 Bucharest Romanian   Iulia Monica DUMITRU 7/03/2018 Bucharest Court of Appeal 5 33778/18 10/07/2018 Nicoleta CARAMAN 1969 Bucharest Romanian   Mariana RAPEA 1974 Bucharest Romanian   Virginica APOSTOL 1958 Bucharest Romanian   Sabin Ovidiu SĂRARU 7/03/2018 Bucharest Court of Appeal 6 34299/18 04/07/2018 Elena TURCU 1973 Bucharest Romanian   Iulia Monica DUMITRU 7/03/2018 Bucharest Court of Appeal 7 34575/18 04/07/2018 Ștefania PETRE 1966 Bucharest Romanian   Iulia Monica DUMITRU 7/03/2018 Bucharest Court of Appeal 8 39156/18 06/08/2018 George OPRIȘ 1967 Bucharest Romanian   Iulia Monica DUMITRU 7/03/2018 Bucharest Court of Appeal 9 59983/18 07/12/2018 Jadranka SHANAZO-STANISICI 1979 Constanța Romanian     n/a 8/06/2018, Constanţa Court of Appeal 10 42447/19 05/08/2019 Florentina PORUMBOI 1984 Sfântu Gheoghe Romanian   Gabriela TRUȚA 1966 Sfântu Gheorghe Romanian   Adorjan LUKÁCS 1971 Sfântu Gheorghe Romanian   Elena-Felicia CLIMESCU 1974 Sfântu Gheorghe Romanian   Ionel BRĂNESCU 1973 Sfântu Gheorghe Romanian   Enikő GIERLING 1956 Sfântu Gheorghe Romanian   Tibor TUNYA 1969 Sfântu Gheorghe Romanian   Blanka RÁPOLTI 1981 Coseni Romanian   Carmen-Marcela BARBU 1971 Sfântu Gheorghe Romanian   Stefan-Leontin JOÓS 1973 Sfântu Gheorghe Romanian   Mihaela Elena PETCU 11/03/2019, Braşov Court of Appeal