CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 avril 2022

.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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB1D40282 { width:96.88%; margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .sB71C1C6 { width:7.76%; 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 } .s27F91464 { width:28.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBEF24FD1 { width:15.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1237796D { width:21.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3984BAEE { width:27.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s274C830C { width:7.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s519FCD31 { width:28.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCA35C7 { width:15.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE8C93DD7 { width:21.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC2F2E002 { width:27.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 25 April 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 44628/19 Eugen ANGHELACHE and Others against Romania lodged on 19 August 2019 communicated on 8 April 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the conflicting case-law of the domestic appellate courts which delivered final decisions in litigations regarding the acknowledgment of whether or not claimants, such as the applicants in the present case, employees of the Prahova Sanitary-Veterinary and Food Safety Directorate, were entitled according to the law (the Government Decision no.   917/2017) to receive specific allowances in addition to their salaries, allowances which were meant to compensate for the “dangerous working conditions” in which they were working. Following the entry into force of the GD no. 917/2017 on 1 January 2018, an expert report was issued according to which all employees of the Prahova Sanitary-Veterinary and Food Safety Directorate were working in dangerous conditions. The employer subsequently awarded the corresponding allowances only to some of its employees, excluding the applicants, who therefore challenged this decision before the courts. On 13 March 2019 the Ploiești Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision of 31 October 2018 and dismissed the applicants’ claims. It found that the request of the applicants was implicitly a request for the annulment of individual decisions establishing salaries, which were supposed to be lodged only after a preliminary administrative procedure with the employer, as prescribed by Article 37 of Law no. 153/2017. As the applicants had not exhausted that preliminary procedure, their claims were inadmissible. The court further agreed with the employer that according to the relevant law, namely Articles 38 § 3(a) and 38 § 6 of Law no. 153/2017 regulating the public salaries framework, such allowances were to be awarded starting with 2018 exceptionally to those whose salaries, following their increase at the end of 2017, reached a specific level as set out in the law. In so far as the relevant legal provisions seemed to be divergently interpreted by the domestic courts, the Ombudsman lodged an appeal in the interests of the law seeking the clarification of the matter; she argued that the impugned allowance aimed to counterbalance specific working conditions, hence, it should not have been linked to any salary level. Also, the differential treatment thus applied to employees who were working in similarly difficult conditions was not justified. The said discrimination had in fact been confirmed by the National Council for Combatting Discrimination in a 2019 decision. On 26 October 2020 the High Court of Cassation and Justice established that the allowances were to be given as prescribed for by Law no.   153/2017, namely, in connection with the progressive levels of salaries. The High Court confirmed that discrimination existed but considered that in so far as it had been created by the law, the judge was not capable of remedying it by issuing individual decisions against the law. Furthermore, the High Court noted that in view of that discrimination, the Chamber of Deputies was discussing a law project, aiming to grant the allowances to all employees working in difficult 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 22 January 2021. A decision delivered on an appeal in the interests of the law cannot alter the outcome of cases already decided. The draft law mentioned by the High Court in its decision was adopted by the Chamber of Deputies on 4   November 2020, the allowances being granted as of the moment of the entry into force of the amended law. The applicants complain of violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 14 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, arguing mainly that the Ploiești Court of Appeal wrongfully denied their right to the said allowances, underlining that there was divergent case-law on the matter. To substantiate their claims, they submitted five final decisions issued by the same but also by other appellate courts, which found that the interpretation proposed by the employer was arbitrary.   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 they were entitled to specific allowances relating to their working 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.     Have the applicants been subjected to discriminatory treatment contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article   6 of the Convention and to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 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 , Napotnik v. Romania , no. 33139/13, §§ 54-55, 20 October 2020; Albu and   Others , cited above, § 44)? Appendix List of applicants   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Eugen ANGHELACHE 1972 Romanian Băicoi 2. Liviana-Rodica ȚANE 1967 Romanian Ploiești 3. Adrian-George BOTOACĂ 1985 Romanian Comarnic 4. Sorela BUȘĂ 1969 Romanian Ploiești 5. Gabriel CAZAN 1976 Romanian Drajna de Jos 6. Camelia CHIRIȚESCU 1977 Romanian Ploiești 7. Mircea-Horia CHIRIȚESCU 1974 Romanian Ploiești 8. Marian CIU 1966 Romanian Ploiești 9. Mariana-Ramona COLȚ 1976 Romanian Șipotu 10. Ion-Cristian COLŢ 1975 Romanian Șipotu 11. Nina-Mirela CONSTANTIN 1976 Romanian Băicoi 12. Iolanda-Silvana CRĂCIUN 1970 Romanian Ploiești 13. Luella DĂNILĂ 1980 Romanian Ploiești 14. Elisa-Florentina DASCĂLU 1974 Romanian Ploiești 15. Vasilica DELIU 1980 Romanian Ploiești 16. Octavian DINU 1978 Romanian Strejnicu 17. Adrian DIŢU 1960 Romanian Ploiești 18. Anca-Nicoleta DIȚU 1964 Romanian Ploiești 19. Dan DRUGEA 1967 Romanian Bucov 20. Emanuel DUMA 1986 Romanian Ploiești 21. Paul-Laurențiu DUMITRESCU 1967 Romanian Ploiești 22. Viorel DUMITRESCU 1964 Romanian Ploiești 23. Dumitru ENACHE 1955 Romanian Ploiești 24. Cătălina-Victoria GHIUŢĂ 1968 Romanian Ploiești 25. Maria-Cătălina IACOB 1974 Romanian Ploiești 26. Elena ILIE 1983 Romanian Ploiești 27. Gabriel-Dorin IORDACHE 1973 Romanian Ploiești 28. Luminița-Maria MURARIU 1961 Romanian Ploiești 29. Gina-Camelia NICOLESCU 1968 Romanian Ploiești 30. Georgeta-Alina OANCEA 1978 Romanian Ploiești 31. Niculina OLARU 1963 Romanian Ploiești 32. Constanţa PĂUNOIU 1971 Romanian Ploiești 33. Geana PENEŞ 1960 Romanian Cosmina de Sus 34. Răzvan PETICILĂ 1967 Romanian Comarnic 35. Adriana PETRE 1965 Romanian Ploiești 36. Bogdan PETRE 1974 Romanian Florești 37. Nicolae-Sebastian PETRE 1975 Romanian Băicoi 38. Mihaela POPA 1969 Romanian Câmpina 39. Mariana PREDA 1968 Romanian Ploiești 40. Luminiţa-Florentina RĂDULESCU 1974 Romanian Cornu de Jos 41. Lucian-Daniel RUSNAC 1962 Romanian Cioranii de Jos 42. Cristina-Petruţa SORESCU 1969 Romanian Vălenii de Munte 43. Aurelia-Roxana STOICA 1973 Romanian Bătești 44. Laurențiu-Vasile STOLNICU 1972 Romanian Ploiești 45. Viorel-Cătălin SURLARU 1976 Romanian Ploiești 46. Andreica TĂNASE 1964 Romanian Ploiești 47. Vasile TĂNASE 1957 Romanian Ploiești 48. Elena TELEANU 1968 Romanian Ploiești 49. Gheorghe-Marian TOADER 1978 Romanian Cornu 50. Adrian-Claudiu UDROIU 1977 Romanian Ploiești 51. Loredana UDROIU 1975 Romanian Ploiești 52. Alina-Georgeta VĂCĂREL 1977 Romanian Ploiești 53. Lucian-Marian VĂCĂREL 1975 Romanian Ploiești 54. Liliana-Gabriela VOINOIU 1967 Romanian Ploiești 55. Argentina-Veronica ZAHARIA 1973 Romanian Băicoi 56. Iudita ZAMFIRESCU-MIHAI 1965 Romanian Ploieşti