5.  The first, second and third applicants were born in 1950, 2001 and 2007 respectively, and live in Călărași. 6.  The first applicant worked as a foster parent at the Călăraşi office of the Office for Social Care and Child Protection (Direcția Generală de Asistență Socială şi Protecția Copilului, hereinafter “the DGASPC”) from 1999 to 4 July 2011, when she retired. The organisation was part of the Călăraşi County Council (“the County Council”). 7.  In May 2001 and April 2008 respectively the Călăraşi DGASPC placed the second and third applicants with the first applicant, decisions which were confirmed by a court. 8.  In line with the first applicant’s express wishes, the other applicants remained in her care even after she retired. The third applicant is still in her care. Following an express request by the first applicant, the second applicant was removed from her care on 13 September 2016. 9.  On 9 June 2008 the first applicant initiated proceedings against the Călăraşi DGASPC, seeking a court order for payment of her salary rights in respect of financial compensation corresponding to her unspent annual leave for the previous three years, a supplement for extra work she had performed, and overtime pay for work she had done during weekends and public holidays. She also claimed the reimbursement of expenses relating to her regular medical examinations and laboratory tests and argued that for the previous three years the second applicant had not been given the housing, placement and food allowances to which he had been entitled. 10.  On an unspecified date the County Council intervened in the proceedings as a third party supporting the Călăraşi DGASPC. It argued that the first applicant had had no right to claim the benefits allegedly not given to the second applicant because only the President of the County Council had a legal right to exercise rights on behalf of the child. 11.  On 7 October 2008 the Călăraşi County Court (“the County Court”) allowed the first applicant’s action in part, and ordered the Călăraşi DGASPC to pay her financial compensation corresponding to her unspent annual leave for the period 2005-2007 and a supplement for extra work she had performed. The court also ordered the Călăraşi DGASPC to give the second applicant the allowances provided for under Article 1 of Law no. 326/2003 on the rights enjoyed by children in foster care (see paragraph 
37 below) – to which he had been entitled since 8 June 2005 and up to the date of the judgment. It held that, even though the contract between the first applicant and her employer was special in nature because foster parents worked from home and were responsible for raising the children entrusted to their care, the provisions of the Labour Code (“the Code”) applied. Consequently, she had been entitled to compensation for unspent annual leave, and to a supplement for extra work she had performed or overtime pay for work done during weekends and public holidays. Given the specific nature of her contract, which made it impossible to calculate the overtime work done by her, she was entitled to a supplement for extra work she had performed, and not to overtime pay, and could not be granted both. Also, a child was entitled to a food allowance, which had to be paid to the person feeding the child. The argument that only the President of the County Council could claim the allowance (see paragraph 10 above) was “childish” and ill-founded. The claim for housing allowance had to be dismissed, because the applicants had not lived in rented accommodation. 12.  The first applicant appealed against the judgment on points of fact and law. She argued that a week earlier the first-instance court had allowed a trade union’s claims against her employer for overtime pay for work done during weekends and public holidays. Also, the court had failed to examine or had unlawfully dismissed her claims for housing allowance, reimbursement of her expenses relating to her medical examinations and laboratory tests, and overtime pay for work done during weekdays. 13.  By a final judgment of 12 May 2009 the Bucharest Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) dismissed the first applicant’s appeal on points of fact and law. It held that she could not claim overtime pay, given the special nature of her work contract, and given that her job required her to provide constant care to the children. Also, she had not claimed the housing allowance and the reimbursement of her expenses relating to her regular medical examinations and laboratory tests from her employer on a monthly basis by providing supporting evidence for her claims, and therefore her claims lodged with the courts for retroactive payment had been ill-founded. Moreover, she had failed to provide supporting documents for her claims concerning the relevant medical expenses. 14.  On 14 July 2009 the first applicant initiated proceedings against the Călăraşi DGASPC, seeking a court order for: overtime pay for work done during weekdays; overtime pay for work done during weekends and public holidays, starting from July 2006 until 2009, and continuing thereafter; payment of a holiday bonus for the period 2006-2008; payment of the allowances provided for by Article 3 of the relevant collective agreement contract; payment of the personal needs allowances provided for by law for the second applicant in respect of the period September 2004-June 2008; payment of the second applicant’s remaining food allowance for the period January-March 2008; payment of a supplement for the third applicant’s food allowance for the period May 2008-April 2009; payment of the housing allowance for the period 2004-September 2009; reimbursement of fees for her psychological examination; and non-pecuniary damages. 15.  She argued that on 7 October 2008 the County Court had wrongfully dismissed her claims for overtime pay (see paragraph 11 above), even though the same court and other courts in the country had allowed such claims. That court had also wrongfully dismissed her claim for housing allowance and had ignored her claim for payment of a holiday bonus. Consequently, she had lodged a new claim with the court, given that her employer had granted this bonus to public servants and courts across the country had allowed similar claims lodged by foster parents. The principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment of employees of the same unit had been breached by the Călăraşi DGASPC by refusing to pay her benefits. The compensation for non-pecuniary damage was to cover the humiliation and discriminatory treatment she had suffered at the hands of her employer. 16.  On 24 November 2009 the County Court allowed the first applicant’s claims in part. It held that, in accordance with legislation which had entered into force in April 2008, she had been entitled to payment of a supplement for the third applicant’s food allowance for the period May 2008-April 2009. However, it noted that as of May 2008 the first applicant had received the above-mentioned supplement for the other child in her care. She had also been entitled to the reimbursement of fees for her psychological examination, as the Călăraşi DGASPC had refused to reimburse her. In addition, she was entitled to the special allowances provided for by Article 3 of the collective agreement for the period 2007‑2009. However, the court dismissed as res judicata her claims concerning overtime pay, the housing allowance and the second applicant’s rights under Article 1 of Law no. 326/2003 for the period 2006-2007. It also dismissed her claim for overtime pay and housing allowance for the period 2008-2009, relying on similar reasons to those relied on by the Court of Appeal in its judgment of 12 May 2009 (see paragraph 13 above). Lastly, the court dismissed her claim for a holiday bonus on the grounds that the collective agreement concerning her employer for the relevant period did not provide that employees were entitled to it. 17.  There is no evidence in the file that the first applicant appealed on points of fact and law against the judgment of 24 November 2009. 18.  On 8 December 2010 the first applicant initiated proceedings against the Călăraşi DGASPC, seeking a court order for payment of her salary for seven days in November and December 2009, and for a supplementary payment for work done during weekends and public holidays for the period 2008-2010. 19.  On 10 February 2011 the County Court allowed the first applicant’s claims in part. It held that, in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the relevant collective agreement concerning her employer, all the employees of that office, including her, were entitled to a supplementary payment for work done during weekends and public holidays for the period 2008-2010. Moreover, she was entitled to be paid for the work she had done on three days in November 2009. However, she had received compensation for the work she had done on the other four days in question. Lastly, the court dismissed the Călăraşi DGASPC’s arguments that her claims had already been examined in the final judgments of 12 May and 24 November 2009 (see paragraphs 13 and 16 above). 20.  The Călăraşi DGASPC appealed against the judgment on points of fact and law. 21.  By a final judgment of 6 December 2011 the Court of Appeal allowed the Călăraşi DGASPC’s appeal in part. The court dismissed as res judicata the first applicant’s claim for a supplementary payment for work done during weekends and public holidays for the period 2008-2009 because it had already been examined in the judgment of 24 November 2009 (see paragraph 16 above). It held that even though she had used different terminology, in fact her claim concerned the payment of overtime for work done during weekends and public holidays. She had also relied on legal grounds which were similar to those used to justify her claim in the previous proceedings. The court further dismissed her claim for overtime pay for 2010. It held that in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code (see paragraph 11 above) and of the relevant collective agreement concerning her employer, all the employees of that office for whom overtime could be calculated were entitled to such payments. However, the special nature of foster parents’ work and contracts, which implied the acceptance of the extra work which had to be performed and which could not be quantified, excluded them from the categories of employees who could be granted overtime pay. Given the provisions of the special legislation concerning foster parents, the legal provisions invoked by the first applicant could not be a foundation for her claim. Lastly, the court upheld the remaining part of the first-instance court’s judgment. 22.  On 18 August 2011 the first applicant initiated proceedings against the Călăraşi DGASPC, seeking a court order for payment of financial compensation corresponding to her unspent annual leave, and for a supplementary payment for work done during weekends and public holidays for the period January-July 2011. 23.  On 3 November 2011 the County Court allowed the first applicant’s claims. It held that her employer had failed to prove that it had paid her during her annual leave. Also, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code and of the relevant collective agreement concerning her employer she was entitled to a supplementary payment for work done during weekends and public holidays. 24.  The Călăraşi DGASPC appealed against the judgment on points of fact and law. 25.  By a final judgment of 14 March 2012 the Court of Appeal allowed the Călăraşi DGASPC’s appeal. In dismissing the first applicant’s claim for a supplementary payment for work done during weekends and public holidays, the court relied on similar reasons to the ones provided by the same court on 6 December 2011 when it had dismissed a similar claim raised by her for the year 2010 (see paragraph 21 above). Also, according to the available evidence, the applicant had taken her annual leave in May and June and had been paid for it. It could not be argued that she had not taken her annual leave in May 2011 because she had spent it in the company of her foster child. She had the option of asking the DGASPC to take the foster child during her leave. 26.  On 14 December 2010 the first applicant initiated proceedings against the Călăraşi DGASPC, seeking a court order for payment of financial compensation corresponding to her unspent annual leave for the period 2008-2010 and payment of the second applicant’s remaining food allowance for the period January-March 2008. 27.  On 24 March 2011 the County Court allowed the first applicant’s claims. It held that, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code, all employees were entitled to paid leave. Since the applicant had spent her annual leave for the period 2008-2010 in the company of her foster children and had not been relieved of her duties, she was entitled to the financial compensation she claimed. Moreover, her employer had failed to prove that it had paid the second applicant’s remaining food allowance for the period in question. 28.  The Călăraşi DGASPC appealed against the judgment on points of fact and law. 29.  By a final judgment of 15 December 2011 the Court of Appeal allowed the Călăraşi DGASPC’s appeal in part. It held that the second applicant had not been entitled to an increased food allowance for the period January-March 2008. The legal provisions entitling the first applicant to receive the above-mentioned allowance had entered into force only in April 2008. 30.  The first applicant submitted to the Court three judgments delivered by three different courts of appeal. The judgments allowed various claims lodged by foster parents and/or trade unions across the country (representing the interests of their members working as either public servants or foster parents) for payment of financial compensation corresponding to unspent annual leave rights and overtime pay. By a final judgment of 19 June 2007 the Piteşti Court of Appeal held that, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the Code, the claimants were entitled to compensation for unspent annual leave for the period 2003-2005. To hold otherwise would be to discriminate against them in relation to other categories of employees. By final judgments of 28 January and 28 April 2009 the Cluj and the Bucharest Courts of Appeal held that, in accordance with the provisions of the relevant collective agreement and the Code, the claimants were entitled to overtime pay for work done during weekends and public holidays, and/or to compensation for unspent annual leave for the period 2005-2008. The Bucharest Court of Appeal also held that the claimants were entitled to overtime pay for work done during weekends and public holidays also for the period after 2008. 31.  On 17 March 2010 and 8 March 2011 the Călăraşi DGASPC informed the first applicant that following the entry into force of Government Ordinance no. 71/2009 (see paragraph 39 below), only parts of the judgments of 12 May and 24 November 2009 (see paragraphs 13 and 16 above) had been enforced and that the remaining amounts would be paid in two instalments. The first applicant informed the Court on 27 April 2012 that because of the above-mentioned government ordinance, the judgments of 6 and 15 December 2011 (see paragraphs 21 and 29 above) had also remained unenforced. Subsequently, she acknowledged on 31 July 2013 that the authorities had enforced all the judgments. 32.  On 4 January and 9 February 2017 the Călăraşi DGASPC informed the Government that the amount corresponding to the first applicant’s unspent annual leave for the period 2008-2010 had been paid to her in full in five instalments between January 2013 and June 2016. In addition, prior to her retirement, she had never asked the Călăraşi DGASPC for financial support for her foster children’s possible extracurricular activities, or to be relieved of her duties during her annual leave. 33.  On an unspecified date in 2015 the Iași Court of Appeal asked the bench of judges of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“the Court of Cassation”) in charge of delivering advisory opinions to clarify the divergent practice of the courts of appeal which had existed both before and after 3 October 2013 as regards the question of whether foster parents who continued to work voluntarily during their annual leave were entitled to financial compensation corresponding to their unspent annual leave. 34.  On 17 October 2016 the Court of Cassation dismissed the above‑mentioned proceedings as inadmissible. It held that the impugned question was not a novel legal issue. The courts had examined it repeatedly between 2008 and 2016, and the judgments suggested that a divergent practice existed in this regard. However, that divergent practice could be solved by way of an “appeal in the interests of the law”. 35.  On 14 February 2017 the Iași Court of Appeal lodged an “appeal in the interests of the law” with the Court of Cassation in respect of the above‑mentioned legal matter (see paragraphs 33-34 above). It appears that at the date of the latest information available to the Court (4 October 2017) those proceedings are still ongoing.