Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice
Date lodged:
8 April 2026
Referring court:
Curtea de Apel București (Romania)
Date of the decision to refer:
30 March 2026
Appellant:
Unitatea – Sindicatul Liber Metrou, for and on behalf of its members: GH, JP, AY, QN, TG, LX, MJ, ZE and Others
Respondent:
Societatea Comercială de Transport cu Metroul București Metrorex SA
Subject matter of the main proceedings
Employment law dispute, currently at the appeal stage before the referring court (case No 18342/3/2024), concerning an order requiring Societatea Comercială de Transport cu Metroul București Metrorex SA [the company operating the Bucharest metro] (‘the respondent’), as employer, to pay the applicants at first instance, GH and Others (‘the applicants at first instance’), employees of the latter, represented by the Unitatea – Sindicatul Liber Metrou [a trade union representing employees of Metrotex] (‘USLM’), a portion of the value of certain vouchers for medical/treatment stays (‘the vouchers in question’).
Question referred for a preliminary ruling
Must the second paragraph of Article 19(1) TEU be interpreted as precluding national law from introducing an internal mechanism whereby a resolution adopted by majority vote at a meeting on the unification of judicial practice held at a court of appeal is binding on all courts within that court of appeal’s geographical jurisdiction as uniform practice, on the basis of a technical procedure established by the Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii (Supreme Council of the Judiciary), in circumstances where such a meeting on the unification of judicial practice includes only judges designated by the presidents of the courts within the court of appeal’s geographical jurisdiction, on the proposal of the presidents of the divisions, in each subject area, after consultation with the vice-president of the court of appeal, where those judges might be different from those who have decided or are actually dealing with the cases in which the issue of inconsistent case-law has arisen, including judges who might not be specialised in the subject to which the vote related, before whom the parties do not have the opportunity to put forward their arguments, in a context where failure to comply with the regulations imposed by the Supreme Council of the Judiciary could constitute a disciplinary offence?
Relevant legal provisions
Provisions of national law relied on
Constituția României (Romanian Constitution). Under Article 126, justice is administered by the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice) and by the other courts established by law. The High Court of Cassation and Justice is required to ensure uniform interpretation and application of the law by the other courts, in accordance with its jurisdiction.
This final function of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (the ‘HCCJ’) is also laid down in Article 20(2) of Legea nr. 304/2022 privind organizarea judiciară (Law No 304/2022 on the organisation of the judiciary).
Legea nr. 303/2022 privind statutul judecătorilor și procurorilor Law No 303/2022 on the rules governing judges and prosecutors). Article 271(l) provides that ‘the following shall constitute disciplinary offences: … (l) unjustified failure to comply with administrative provisions or decisions issued in accordance with the law by the head of the court or the public prosecutor’s office, or with other administrative obligations laid down by law or regulations’.
Hotărârea Secției pentru judecători a Consiliului Superior al Magistraturii nr. 3243/2022 pentru aprobarea Regulamentului de ordine interioară al instanțelor judecătorești (Decision No 3243/2022 of the Judges’ Section of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary ratifying the rules of procedure of the courts). Article 22 of that decision essentially provides that, within the courts of appeal, quarterly meetings are to be organised between the judges of each court of appeal and the courts within its district in order to discuss points of law that have given rise to inconsistent practice.
Hotărârea Secției pentru judecători a Consiliului Superior al Magistraturii nr. 148/2015 privind procedura de desfășurare a întâlnirilor trimestriale în care sunt dezbătute problemele de drept care au generat o practică neunitară (Decision No 148/2015 of the Judges’ Section of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary concerning the procedure for holding quarterly meetings at which points of law that have given rise to inconsistent practice are discussed), as most recently amended and supplemented by Hotărârea Secției pentru judecători a Consiliului Superior al Magistraturii nr. 725/2015 (Decision No 725/2015 of the Judges’ Section of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary) (‘Decision No 148/2015’). In essence, under the terms of that decision:
- meetings at which points of law that have given rise to inconsistent practice are discussed are organised on a quarterly basis by subject area, with the participation of judges from the districts of the courts of appeal, appointed by the presidents of the courts on the recommendation of the presidents of the divisions for each subject area, following consultation with the vice-president of the relevant court of appeal;
- at these meetings, each topic for discussion is presented by the president of the relevant division of the court of appeal or by the judge who drafted the report on the topic in question;
iii. every solution, whether proposed in the report or directly during the meeting, is discussed and put to a vote;
- if a solution obtains a majority of the votes of the judges present, it is deemed to have been adopted as uniform practice within the courts of the district of the relevant court of appeal;
- if the solution referred to has not been adopted unanimously and if there are final judicial decisions in which the same point of law has been resolved differently, the governing council of the court of appeal where the meeting is taking place is called upon to consider the possibility of bringing an appeal in the public interest [an appeal on a point of law intended to unify the case-law; ‘the appeal in the interest of the law’];
- if the abovementioned solution has not been adopted unanimously, the courts hearing cases in which the same point of law might arise, as the courts of last instance, may refer the matter to the HCCJ for a preliminary ruling to resolve that point of law;
vii. the decision reached is recorded in minutes, which are published on the intranet of the relevant court of appeal and on the website of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary. Codul de procedură civilă (Code of Civil Procedure)
Article 514 of that code, concerning appeals in the public interest, provides that ‘in order to ensure the uniform interpretation and application of the law by all courts, the Prosecutor General of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the [HCCJ], either on his or her own initiative or at the request of the Minister of Justice, the Governing Council of the [HCCJ], the governing councils of the courts of appeal, and the Avocatul Poporului (Ombudsman), shall be required to request that the [HCCJ] rule on points of law that have been resolved differently by the courts’.
Article 519 of the same code, concerning the subject matter of an appeal to the HCCJ for the purpose of obtaining a preliminary ruling on the interpretation and resolution of points of law, provides as follows: ‘if, in the course of proceedings, a panel of judges of the [HCCJ], the court of appeal or the regional court – which is responsible for deciding the case at last instance – finds that a point of law that requires clarification before a ruling can be made on the merits of the case is new and that, in respect of that point of law, the [HCCJ] has not ruled on it and it is not the subject of a pending appeal in the interest of the law, it may request that the [HCCJ] issue a decision resolving, as a matter of principle, the point of law submitted to it.’
Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 62/2024 privind unele măsuri pentru soluționarea proceselor privind salarizarea personalului plătit din fonduri publice, precum și a proceselor privind prestații de asigurări sociale (Decree-Law No 62/2024 on certain measures for the resolution of proceedings concerning the remuneration of staff paid from public funds and proceedings concerning social security benefits) contains, in Article 2, a provision that is essentially similar to that of Article 519 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Provisions of European Union law relied on
TEU, Article 2 and Article 19(1), second subparagraph.
Relevant case-law
Case-law of the national courts
Decisions Nos 65/2024, 97/2024, 193/2025 and 332/2025 delivered by the Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept (Section for the Resolution of Questions of Law) within the HCCJ. In essence, according to these decisions, a reference to the HCCJ for a preliminary ruling under Article 519 of the Code of Civil Procedure is admissible only under strict conditions, including the requirement that a question of law must be genuine, complex, novel and essential to the resolution of the merits of the case in which that question has been raised. Actions seeking to resolve the substance of the dispute, to examine the facts, or to interpret and apply a statutory provision in relation to the specific circumstances of a case are inadmissible. Similarly, a reference concerning a point of law is inadmissible if it does not raise serious difficulties in interpreting legal provisions that are imperfect, incomplete or contradictory.
Case-law of the EU courts
Judgment of 11 July 2024, Hann-Invest, C-554/21, C-622/21 and C-727/21 (‘the judgment in Hann-Invest’), EU:C:2024:594, paragraphs 34-36, 50-60 and 70-81.
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings
The respondent is the company that operates the Bucharest metro. The applicants at first instance are employees of the respondent, and the USLM is one of the trade unions representing the employees of that company.
Pursuant to Article 82 of the collective bargaining agreement covering the years 2020 and 2021 (‘the CBA’), concluded between the respondent and the trade unions representing its employees, the latter are entitled, under the conditions laid down in that article, to compensation amounting to 75% of the value of the vouchers in question. That article does not appear to specify with sufficient clarity certain matters including whether, in order to qualify for the compensation, such vouchers must be issued solely by the tour operator providing the services, whether their value must be paid exclusively by the beneficiary, and whether invoices must be issued individually to each employee.
USLM entered into a contract with a tour operator under which it provided the applicants at first instance with vouchers for stays involving medical care and treatment at a spa resort in Romania. The cost of these vouchers was paid by USLM on behalf of the applicants at first instance. The sums thus paid were to have been reimbursed by those individuals once they had been compensated by the respondent. Having made use of the care and treatment services, the applicants at first instance submitted individual claims to the respondent for reimbursement of 75% of the value of the vouchers in question. They attached to their claims the invoices issued by the tour operator, which included an annex listing the names and personal identification numbers (CNP) of each of the applicants at first instance, proof of payment of that invoice and the individual vouchers in question issued in the beneficiaries’ names. The respondent refused to reimburse these amounts, arguing that the conditions laid down in Article 82 of the collective bargaining agreement had not been met, among other reasons because it was USLM and not the applicants at first instance that had paid the value of the vouchers in question. Article 82 stipulated that the right to compensation would arise only if the price was paid by the employee.
The applicants at first instance, represented by the USLM, brought an action before the Tribunalul București (Regional Court of Bucharest, Romania), seeking an order requiring the respondent to pay 75% of the value of the vouchers in question. That court dismissed the action as unfounded. The USLM has lodged an appeal with the referring court against the judgment of the Bucharest Regional Court.
The present dispute forms part of a series of cases that has given rise to conflicting decisions among the judges of the Curtea de Apel București (Bucharest Court of Appeal). With a view to unifying judicial practice regarding this point of law, a meeting was held on 13 November 2025 at the Bucharest Court of Appeal, on the basis of Decision No 148/2015, chaired by one of the vice-presidents of that court. That meeting was attended by 29 judges, 28 of whom specialised in labour and social security disputes and were assigned to the Bucharest Court of Appeal and the regional courts within its jurisdiction. The 29th participating judge was the abovementioned Vice-President of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, who specialises in administrative and tax litigation.
By 15 votes in favour [including one vote from the Vice-President of the Bucharest Court of Appeal] and 14 votes against, the solution consisting of upholding the claims of the respondent’s employees and ordering the respondent to pay 75% of the value of the vouchers in question was adopted as uniform practice (‘the uniform solution’).
The referring court points out that it is required to apply that uniform solution in the case before it, and this could infringe the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU.
Essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings
10 The USLM asserts that the request for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible, as there is no provision of EU law that would be applicable to the present case, given that the case concerns solely the interpretation of clauses in a collective bargaining agreement and provisions of national law.
11 The respondent argues that the request for a preliminary ruling is admissible and that the answer to the question raised is necessary for the resolution of the dispute. Indeed, the interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU is essential in determining whether the procedure for unifying practices established by Decision No 148/2015 could compromise the independence of the judge hearing the case, given that the latter is required to comply with administrative measures or decisions adopted by a majority of judges who are not specialised in labour disputes, and the outcome of the case is determined by means of an administrative settlement rather than a judicial decision. The respondent also points out that the parties are not being heard in the abovementioned proceedings, a fact that could infringe their rights of defence.
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling
12 With reference to paragraphs 34 to 36 of the judgment in Hann-Invest, the referring court notes that Article 19(1) TEU applies to courts and tribunals that exercise their jurisdiction ‘in the fields covered by Union law’, which means that it applies to any national court or tribunal that might interpret or apply EU law, even if that law is not directly at issue in the case before it.
13 Therefore, the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU is intended inter alia to apply to any national body that can rule, as a court or tribunal, on questions concerning the application or interpretation of EU law and that therefore fall within the fields covered by that law.
14 That is the case with the referring court, which may be called upon to rule on questions relating to the application or interpretation of EU law and, as a ‘court or tribunal’ within the meaning of that law, is subject to the Romanian system of legal remedies in the ‘fields covered by Union law’ within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, and that court or tribunal must therefore satisfy the requirements of effective judicial protection.
15 Consequently, the referring court considers that, although [the USLM] does not expressly rely on the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU in support of its appeal, that provision is applicable given the circumstances in which it is required to rule on the case before it.
16 That court points out that, on the basis of Decision No 148/2015, the uniform solution – adopted by a majority of 15 votes to 14 among the judges present – must be regarded as having been adopted as uniform practice within the courts and tribunals of the district of the Bucharest Court of Appeal. Consequently, the referring court is required to apply it as such.
17 On this point, the abovementioned court notes, first of all, that, pursuant to Article 271(l) of Law No 303/2022, any failure to comply with this provision would constitute a disciplinary offence.
18 Second, although the uniform solution was not adopted unanimously, the Governing Council of the Bucharest Court of Appeal did not decide to bring an appeal in the public interest so that the HCCJ might rule definitively on this point of law. Furthermore, the referring court cannot itself bring such an appeal before the HCCJ, as it lacks standing to do so, in accordance with Article 514 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
19 Third, any referral by the abovementioned court to the HCCJ for a preliminary ruling to resolve the point of law in question would be dismissed as inadmissible, in the light of the established case-law set out in Decisions Nos 65/2024, 97/2024, 193/2025 and 332/2025 delivered by the Section for the Resolution of Questions of Law within the HCCJ.
20 In such circumstances, the referring court must take into account, in the case before it, the unification of case-law brought about by an administrative decision adopted by a vote of certain judges of the regional courts and the court of appeal, appointed by the presidents of the courts within the geographical jurisdiction of the court of appeal, on the proposal of the presidents of the divisions of those courts, in each subject area, after consultation with the vice-president of the court of appeal. Furthermore, these judges might be different from those who actually hear cases in which this point of inconsistent case-law has arisen, including judges who might not be specialists in the subject area under consideration.
21 Furthermore, the parties are not given the opportunity to present their arguments at such a hearing on the unification of judicial practice, and the reasoning supporting the uniform solution adopted by majority vote is not published. Consequently, any potential change in case-law is unforeseeable for the parties.
22 The referring court wonders whether such a mechanism – established by means of a regulation adopted by the Supreme Council of the Judiciary, but not by statute – is compatible with the requirements relating to the right to effective judicial protection and to a fair trial. By establishing a ‘legal position’, it has the effect of compelling the courts hearing this type of case to alter the practice they had previously adopted in numerous other cases. There is also the possibility that the votes determining the uniform solution could be those of judges from lower courts, which could compromise the position of the judges from the court that issues final rulings and reviews the rulings of those lower courts.
23 Furthermore, regarding the point of law under discussion, a meeting on inconsistent case-law had also been held by the Secția a VII-a Conflicte de muncă și asigurări sociale a Curții de Apel București (7th Division for Labour Disputes and Social Insurance of the Bucharest Court of Appeal) on 7 April 2025, during which an opinion contrary to the uniform solution of 13 November 2025 was adopted, thereby creating a situation of legal uncertainty that gave rise to divergent rulings, which were incomprehensible to the parties to the dispute.
24 The need to ensure consistent case-law – and, consequently, an interpretation of the law that is as uniform as possible – clearly stems from the principles of legal certainty, foreseeability and equality before the law and the prohibition of any discrimination between comparable persons. The guarantee of consistent case-law is intended, first and foremost, to protect the parties to the proceedings and, indirectly, to preserve the internal consistency of the legal system as a whole, thereby enabling individuals to adapt their conduct accordingly.
25 On the other hand, from the perspective of the right to a fair trial, these mechanisms could give rise to specific concerns, depending, inter alia, on the composition of the panel of judges, the manner in which that panel may be supplemented, the legal foreseeability of that panel, and the functions performed by all the judges assigned to sit on it.
26 In the light of all these considerations, the referring court considers that the question arises as to whether the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU should be interpreted as precluding national law from introducing an internal mechanism whereby a solution adopted by a majority vote at a meeting to unify judicial practice, held under the conditions described above, is binding on all courts within the geographical jurisdiction of the [referring court] as a uniform practice.
No related posts.