Case C-369/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 2 August 2012 — Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central, representing Constantin Chițea and Others v Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Brașov
Date: 2012-08-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, civil service, equal treatment, indemnification, interpretation of the law, labour law, pay policy, public sector, wage earner








C_2012343EN.01000502.xml










10.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/5





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 2 August 2012 — Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central, representing Constantin Chițea and Others v Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Brașov
(Case C-369/12)
2012/C 343/04
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central, representing Constantin Chițea and Others

Defendants: Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Brașov

Questions referred







1.


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?










2.


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?










3.


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?










4.


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’?










5.


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’?










6.


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?