Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:878
Date: 2025-11-13
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Summary C-678/23 – 1 
Case C-678/23 
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:  
14 November 2023 
Referring court:  
Curtea de Apel Iași (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
10 October 2023 
Appellant (applicant at first instance):  
JU 
Respondent (defendant at first instance):  
Spitalul Clinic de Pneumoftiziologie Iași 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal brought against the judgment of the Tribunalul Iași (Iași Regional Court, 
Romania) dismissing the action by which the appellant JU requested that the 
respondent Spitalul Clinicul de Pneumoftiziologie Iași be ordered to classify her 
workplace in the corresponding category of ‘particular working conditions’ as 
from 2007 and to pay the difference in social security contributions. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
On the basis of Article 267 TFEU, the referring court seeks an interpretation of 
Articles 9 and 11(6) of Directive 89/391, in conjunction with Article 31(1) and 
Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1) Do Article 9 and Article 11(6) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC on the 
introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-678/23 
 
2  
workers at work preclude mandatory national legislation and practice under which 
workers do not have the right to bring an action directly before the authority 
responsible for safety and health protection at work if they consider that the 
measures taken and the means employed by the employer are inadequate for the 
purposes of ensuring safety and health at work and cannot bring an action before 
the courts if they consider that the employers have not fulfilled their obligations 
with regard to classification as workplaces [exposing workers to] particular 
working conditions, either for the period of time already worked or for the future 
period of the employment relationship? 
2) Does Article 11(6) of Directive 89/391 have vertical direct effect and, in 
conjunction with Article 31(1) and the Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European Union, does that article recognise the right of workers to 
judicial protection in the event of failure by those legally responsible to fulfil their 
obligations under the legislation? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to 
encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work: Article 9(1) 
and (2) and Article 11(6); 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 31(1) and 47. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
The national legislation in the pensions sector in force until 1 April 2001 – Legea 
nr. 27/1966 (Law No 27/1966) – established three categories of workplaces: those 
classified as workplaces [exposing workers to] normal conditions, those classified 
in Work Group II and those classified in Work Group I. After that date, the new 
pensions law, Legea nr. 19/2000 (Law No 19/2000), replaced the previous 
categories with new ones, namely workplaces classified as workplaces [exposing 
workers to] normal conditions, workplaces classified as workplaces [exposing 
workers to] particular conditions and workplaces classified as workplaces 
[exposing workers to] special conditions. This classification was maintained by 
Legea nr. 226/2006 (Law No 226/2006) on the classification of workplaces as 
workplaces [exposing workers to] special conditions. 
According to the relevant legislation, classification as workplaces [exposing 
workers to] particular or special conditions confers certain economic benefits on 
the persons concerned, namely an increase in their pension points by 25% and 
50%, respectively, for the periods during which they worked under such 
conditions. Furthermore, employees who have [been exposed to] special 
conditions for a contribution period of at least 25 years are entitled to a retirement 
pension 15 years earlier than the standard pension age provided for by Romanian 
pension legislation. 
SPITALUL CLINIC DE PNEUMOFTIZIOLOGIE IAȘI 
 
3 
The criteria and arrangements for classification as workplaces [exposing workers 
to] particular conditions were initially laid down in Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 
261/2001 (Government Decision No 261/2001). According to Article 2 of that 
decision, the criteria for classification as workplaces [exposing workers to] 
particular conditions are essentially the presence in the working environment of 
harmful agents/factors of a physical nature (noise, vibrations, electromagnetic 
waves, pressure, ionising radiation, heat radiation, powerful unshielded laser 
radiation), as well as harmful agents/factors of a chemical or biological nature, as 
specified in the general rules for the protection of work and which exceed the 
limits permitted by those rules, the body’s specific response to the effects of 
harmful agents/factors, demonstrated by evidence of exposure and/or biological 
effects and the existence of occupational disease recorded in the workplace over 
the preceding 15 years. 
As regards the arrangements, the classification procedure begins with 
identification of the workplaces in question by the employer together with the 
trade unions or employees’ representatives and continues with an inspection 
carried out by the local authorities responsible for employment on the basis of 
technical and medical expert reports. 
Article 4 of that decision specifies what documents are required in order to obtain 
a permit from the regional labour inspectorate for the classification of workplaces 
[exposing workers to] particular conditions and states that the period of validity of 
that permit is a maximum of three years with the possibility of extension. 
Subsequently, Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 246/2007 (Government Decision 
No 246/2007) established the possibility of renewing permits for classification as 
workplaces [exposing workers to] particular conditions – granted in accordance 
with Government Decision No 261/2001 – and determined the corresponding 
arrangements. 
Under Article 2(1) of that decision, the renewal of a permit for classification as 
workplaces [exposing workers to] particular conditions is granted by the regional 
labour inspectorate on the basis of an application signed by the employer’s legal 
representative or another person authorised by the employer, along with the 
representatives of corresponding trade unions or, as the case may be, the 
employees’ representatives, submitted within a maximum period of 30 days from 
the date on which the decision entered into force. The request must be 
accompanied by reports on the presence of harmful agents/factors in the 
workplaces, drawn up by authorised laboratories, attesting to the fact that the 
occupational exposure limit values in workplaces classified as [exposing workers 
to] particular conditions have been exceeded, and by the prevention and protection 
plan, which guarantees the improvement of the level of safety and health 
protection of workers. 
Article 4 of that decision provides for the possibility for employers to appeal: 
‘Employers that have not been granted a renewal of a permit for classification as 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-678/23 
 
4  
workplaces [exposing workers to] particular conditions may lodge a complaint 
within 15 days from the date of notification with the labour inspectorate, which 
will make a decision within a period of 30 days, or apply directly to the competent 
court, in accordance with the law’. 
The possibility of renewing permits was regulated in the subsequent Hotărârea 
Guvernului nr. 1622/2008 (Government Decision No 1622/2008) and Hotărârea 
Guvernului nr. 1014/2015 (Government Decision No 1014/2015). 
Legea securității și sănătății în muncă nr. 319/2006 (Occupational Safety and 
Health Law No 319/2006), Articles 12 and 18, transposing Articles 9 and 11 of 
Directive 89/391. 
Article 12: ‘(1) Employers have the following obligations: 
a) to carry out and maintain an assessment of the risks to safety and health at 
work, including for groups sensitive to specific risks; 
b) to decide on the protective measures to be taken and, if necessary, the 
protective equipment to be used; 
… 
(2) A decree enacted by the Minister of Labour, Social Solidarity and Family 
Affairs will determine, in the light of the nature of the activities and size of the 
undertakings, the obligations to be met by the different categories of undertakings 
in respect of the drawing-up of the documents provided for in paragraph (1)’. 
Article 18(7): ‘Workers’ representatives with specific responsibilities in the field 
of workers’ safety and health and/or workers themselves have the right to appeal 
to the competent authorities if they consider that the measures taken and the 
means employed by the employer are inadequate for the purposes of ensuring 
safety and health at work’. 
Decision No 12 of 23 May 2016 of the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High 
Court of Cassation and Justice), ruling on an appeal on a point of law intended to 
unify the case-law [‘appeal in the interest of the law’], which is binding, held that 
‘in interpreting and applying Article 19 of Law No 19/2000 …, Article 29(1) of 
Law No 263/2010 …, read in conjunction with … Government Decision 
No 261/2001 …, and … Government Decision No 246/2007, on the procedures 
for the renewal of permits for the classification of workplaces [exposing workers 
to] particular conditions, as amended and supplemented, it is not possible to bring 
an ordinary action to establish the particular conditions of work in which the 
workers carried out their activities after 1 April 2001, or any action to require 
employers to classify workplaces as covered by such conditions, where those 
employers have not obtained or, as the case may be, have not renewed permits for 
classification of workplaces as covered by such conditions’. 
SPITALUL CLINIC DE PNEUMOFTIZIOLOGIE IAȘI 
 
5 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The appellant is a general practitioner – specialising in respiratory medicine – who 
has been employed for over 30 years at the Spitalul Clinic de Pneumoftiziologie 
Iași (the Iași Clinical Hospital for Respiratory Medicine and Respiratory 
Physiopathology, ‘the hospital’), the respondent in the present case, which is a 
health care facility with public beds, with legal personality, run by local 
administrative authority. From 1 July 1989 to 31 March 2001, the appellant was 
classified in Work Group II, and from 1 April 2001 to 31 December 2006, her 
activities were classified in the category of ‘particular working conditions’. 
2 The appellant claims to have learned by chance that, since 2007, she had not been 
paid social security contributions for her work under particular conditions. She 
states that her workplace, conditions and her professional risks and responsibilities 
have not changed to date. 
3 The appellant therefore brought an action before the Tribunalul Iași (Iași Regional 
Court), requesting that her employer – the hospital – be ordered to classify her 
activities [in the category of] particular working conditions as from 2007 and that 
the employer pay the difference in social security contributions. 
4 The appellant alleges negligence or bad faith on the part of the employer, which 
had not initiated the procedure for renewal of the authorisation for classification of 
her activity [in the category of] particular working conditions since 2007. 
5 The Iași Regional Court dismissed the action and held that the respondent could 
not be required to classify the appellant’s work [in the category of] particular 
working conditions when it had not followed the procedure laid down by law for 
the renewal of the required permit. To reject the respondent’s arguments 
concerning the necessary activities undertaken by it in respect of the public health 
authorities and the labour inspectorate, the court of first instance notes that, if it 
had received no response from the competent bodies, the respondent would have 
had the option of bringing an action against them in order to induce them to fulfil 
their obligation to issue a permit. 
6 The appellant appealed the judgment of the Iași Regional Court before the 
referring court, the Curtea de Apel Iași (Iași Court of Appeal). 
7 At the request of the referring court, the Inspectoratul Teritorial de Muncă Iași 
(Iași Regional Labour Inspectorate) stated that the employer, the hospital, had not 
submitted the required documents within 90 days and that, as a result, the labour 
inspectorate had not issued a new permit for the classification of the workplaces 
indicated by the respondent [in the category of] particular conditions. 
Furthermore, that inspectorate notes that according to Government Decision 
No 246/2007, it is possible to obtain only the extension of permits existing before 
the date when the legislative act was adopted, not the issuance of new permits. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-678/23 
 
6  
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
8 According to the referring court, the decision on the appeal against the judgment 
dismissing the action depends solely on the determination of the meaning and 
scope of the State’s discretion in the process of transposing Article 11(6), in 
conjunction with Article 9, of Directive 89/391. 
9 An activity classified as being [in the category of] particular working conditions is 
carried out according to the risk factors of occupational disease and this 
presupposes the existence of harmful agents/factors that directly affect the 
workers’ bodies in the medium or long term. 
10 To offset these effects, employees working under such conditions are granted the 
right to additional rest leave and they are covered by a reduced contribution period 
for their old-age pensions. On the other hand, for the employer, the classification 
of the activity [in the category of] particular working conditions entailed an 
additional tax burden – more specifically, higher rates of social security 
contributions for employees working under particular working conditions. 
11 The classification of working conditions is the responsibility of the employer, 
which makes such decisions with representative trade unions or, as the case may 
be, workers’ representatives, within the framework of an administrative procedure 
involving technical assessment of health and safety risks, on the basis of a permit 
issued by the labour inspectorate. Employers that have not been granted a permit 
for classification as workplaces [exposing workers to] particular conditions may 
lodge a complaint within 15 days from the date of notification with the labour 
inspectorate, which will make a decision within a period of 30 days. 
12 Furthermore, Government Decision No 246/2007 established only the possibility 
of renewing classification permits, which was granted only to employers that had 
valid classification permits as workplaces [exposing workers to] particular 
conditions and had not, through the measures implemented up to that date, 
brought working conditions into compliance. After 9 March 2007, the date on 
which Government Decision No 246/2007 came into force, it is no longer possible 
to issue permits for classification as workplaces [exposing workers to] particular 
conditions. There is only the possibility of renewing permits already issued. 
13 The referring court has noted that, although the national provision transposing 
Article 11(6) of Directive 89/391 – namely Article 18(7) of Law No 319/2006 – 
expressly lays down a right for workers to appeal to any competent authority to 
verify whether the measures taken and the means employed by the employer are 
inadequate for the purposes of ensuring safety and health at work, that provision 
has not been reproduced in the secondary legislation concerning the assessment of 
medium- or long-term occupational risks for workers. Therefore, in domestic law, 
neither workers nor trade union representatives have any procedural means to 
request the verification or examination of the workplace with regard to the 
existence and intensity of harmful agents/factors, or to claim additional legal 
SPITALUL CLINIC DE PNEUMOFTIZIOLOGIE IAȘI 
 
7 
protection relating to classification as workplaces [exposing workers to] particular 
working conditions. The legislative provisions grant the possibility only to an 
employer that has not obtained a renewal of a permit for classification as 
workplaces [exposing workers to] particular conditions to challenge the public 
authority’s refusal with the labour inspectorate or directly through the competent 
court. 
14 This interpretation of the national legislation is binding by virtue of Decision 
No 12/2016 following the appeal on a point of law intended to unify the case-law 
delivered by the High Court of Cassation and Justice, which stated that: ‘If the 
process of permit issuance has not been concluded with the issuance of a 
renewable permit, the conditions laid down in Government Decision 
No 246/2007, … and Government Decision No 1014/2015 relating to the 
initiation of a workplace reassessment procedure are also not met, given the 
express statement that the reassessment procedure applies only to establishments 
that have a classification permit. Consequently, it is beyond the power of the 
ordinary court to rule on the classification/reassessment of the workplace, since 
the legislature has not, in this situation, established an instrument of ordinary law 
authorising the court to assume the powers of the administrative body in the 
corresponding procedure (with regard to the technical, scientific and medical 
assessment and authorisation of the workplace as classifiable [in the category of] 
particular/special working conditions)’. 
15 The Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) confirmed this interpretation 
when it held that the provisions of Article 20(2) and (3) of Legea nr. 19/2000 
privind sistemul public de pensii și alte drepturi de asigurări sociale (Law 
No 19/2000 on the public pension system and other social security rights), 
Article 1(1) and (2) and Article 2(2) of Legea nr. 226/2006 privind încadrarea 
unor locuri de muncă în condiții speciale (Law No 226/2006 on the classification 
of workplaces as workplaces [exposing workers to] special conditions) and 
Article 30(1)(e) of Legea nr. 263/2010 privind sistemul unitar de pensii publice 
(Law No 263/2010 on the unified system of public pensions), as interpreted by the 
High Court of Cassation and Justice – the institution competent to rule on the 
appeal on a point of law seeking to unify the case-law by Decision No 12 of 
23 May 2016 – are constitutional. 
16 Although the application of the national legislation in the binding interpretation of 
the High Court of Cassation and Justice does not generate any debate in domestic 
case-law, the referring court, as the court of last instance in these proceedings, 
nevertheless has doubts as to the compliance of the national practice with the 
overriding provisions applicable at EU level. In that respect, the short deadlines 
for the initial assessment of workplaces for the purpose of classification [in the 
categories of] working conditions, combined with the exclusive establishment of a 
procedure for the renewal of permits and the restrictive interpretation adopted by 
the High Court of Cassation and Justice, confirmed by the judgment of the 
Constitutional Court, have resulted in practice in there being no possibility for 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-678/23 
 
8  
workers to appeal in order to obtain the legal benefits deriving from the 
recognition of particular working conditions. 
17 As far as concerns Article 12 of Law No 319/2006, which transposed Article 9 of 
Directive 89/391, the referring court notes that employers’ obligations relating to 
occupational safety and health risks have not been linked to an obligation of 
truthful and accurate classification of working conditions at company level and 
that no subsequent secondary legislative act has established the effects of a breach 
of the obligations to assess and monitor occupational risks by companies in which 
there are serious risks to the health of workers. 
18 In its judgment in Podilă and Others (C-133/17 and C-134/17), concerning two 
disputes relating to the classification of workplaces for the purposes of 
determining old-age pensions, the Court of Justice of the European Union held 
that Article 114(3) of the EC Treaty and Articles 151 and 153 TFEU, along with 
the provisions of Directive 89/391, must be interpreted as not being applicable to 
national laws, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which lay down 
strict deadlines and procedures not allowing national courts to review or establish 
the classification of the activities of workers in various risk groups, on the basis of 
which the retirement pensions of those workers are calculated. However, the 
present case does not concern the determination of pension rights, but rather the 
recognition of the specific occupational risks of particular working conditions in 
the context of the appellant’s activities, and the appellant’s access to the courts in 
accordance with national law and practice is not possible with regard to either the 
past or the future. 
19 As regards the second question, the referring court seeks to clarify whether 
Article 11(6) of Directive 89/319 has vertical effect and, more specifically, 
whether the rule is unconditional, complete and precise in nature, such that it can 
apply directly to the legal relationship at issue. The principle that national law 
must be interpreted in conformity with EU law precludes the application of the 
legislation on classification [in the categories of] working conditions as sought by 
the appellant, given the extremely restrictive nature of the legislation. At the same 
time, no national source of law has been identified which can achieve the result 
required by the text of the directive. 
20 Even assuming that the rule in Article 11(6) of Directive 89/391 fulfils the criteria 
in the case-law for categorisation as having vertical direct effect, this does not 
seem sufficient for recognition of an effective remedy before a court, if the 
applicability of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union, in conjunction with Article 31(1) of the Charter itself, which enshrines the 
right of workers to healthy, safe and dignified working conditions, is not 
established. Thus, according to the case-law of the court of Justice, the right to an 
effective remedy before an impartial tribunal presupposes – on the basis of 
Article 47(1) of the Charter – that the person invoking it avails himself or herself 
of rights or freedoms guaranteed by EU law.