Are the provisions of Order No 50/1990, as interpreted by judgment No 9/2016 given by the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania) on a matter of public policy — a judgment binding on courts of law, according to which occupations classified in groups I and II are strictly and rigorously limited to those set out in Annex 1 and 2 of that order, and the courts may not extend the provisions of that order to include other similar cases, with the consequence that those former workers cannot receive the pension benefits owed as a result of the hard working conditions in which they have carried out their work — compatible with Articles 114(3), 151 and 153 TFEU, and with the provisions of framework Directive 89/391/EEC and successive specific directives?
DOI: 10.5553/EELC/187791072018003002029
European Employment Law Cases |
|
Pending cases | Case C-392/17, Pension, health and safetySindicatul Energia Oradea – v – SC Termoelectrica SA, reference lodged by the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) on 29 June 2017 |
DOI | 10.5553/EELC/187791072018003002029 |
Show PDF Show fullscreen Statistics Citation |
This article has been viewed times. |
This article been downloaded 0 times. |
Suggested citation
, "Case C-392/17, Pension, health and safety", European Employment Law Cases, 2, (2018):50-50
, "Case C-392/17, Pension, health and safety", European Employment Law Cases, 2, (2018):50-50