Order — ECLI:EU:C:2012:725
Date: 2012-11-15
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Anti-discrimination;Fundamental rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Romania

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Braşov (Romania) lodged on 2 August 2012 - Corpul Naţional al Poliţiştilor - Biroul Executiv Central, representing Constantin Chiţea and Others v Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliţiei Române, Inspectoratul de Poliţie al Judeţului Braşov (Case C-369/12) Language of the case: Romanian Referring court Curtea de Apel Braşov (Romania) Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: Corpul Naţional al Poliţiştilor - Biroul Executiv Central, representing Constantin Chiţea and Others Defendants: Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliţiei Române, Inspectoratul de Poliţie al Judeţului Braşov Questions referred Must the second sentence of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted, with reference to Article 20 of that Charter, as meaning that employees paid from public funds have the same rights as the employees of commercial companies which are State-owned or subsidised by the State budget? Must the second sentence of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted, with reference to Article 21(1) of that Charter, as precluding discrimination between employees paid from public funds and employees of commercial companies which are State-owned or subsidised by the State budget? Must the phrase 'his or her possessions' (with reference to citizens) in the second sentence of Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as also covering remuneration rights? Must the phrase 'in the public interest' in the second sentence of Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as relating to 'economic crisis'? Must the words 'use of property ... in so far as is necessary for the general interest' in the third sentence of Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as covering a '25% reduction of the salaries of public sector employees'? If the Romanian State were to reduce by 25% the remuneration of employees paid from public funds, citing as justification the economic crisis and the need to balance the State budget, would that mean that, subsequently, in accordance with the second sentence of Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the State would be under an obligation to pay those employees fair compensation in good time for the loss sustained? ____________