Search results

Referral to the CJEU for the pronouncement of preliminary rulings regarding the interpretation of European Union law cannot have a purely theoretical purpose (e.g. the Court Ordinance of October 7, 2013 in case C-82/13) but a necessarily practical one, such as to allow the national court to resolve the specific dispute with which it is vested. Therefore, knowledge of the judicial decisions pronounced by the national courts after receiving the answer to the preliminary question from the CJEU is very important to evaluate the implications of the CJEU jurisprudence in the law of the member states and the effectiveness of the dialogue between it and the national courts. Next, the decisions of the courts in Romania are presented in some cases in which the CJEU was referred with preliminary questions, respectively those that were resolved in the cases registered on its roll with no. C-62/19, C 354/18 and C 644/19.

The article presents the judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights of 5 March 2020 in GROBELNY v. Poland, by which the Court found that Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights had been infringed following the rejection by national courts of the applicant's claim for compensation equal to the invalidity pension which he was unlawfully deprived of by applying the res judicata principle, despite the existence of relevant and sufficient grounds for departing from that principle, namely the fact that the applicant's deprivation of pension rights was the consequence of a manifest error attributable to the public authority, found as such by the court in the second dispute. The Court held that, in this way, the national authorities had failed to ensure compliance with the principles of social justice and fairness or good governance and that the burden to which the applicant was subject was disproportionate, since he was required to bear the consequences of the errors attributable to the public authorities on his own, even though he did not have any other legal means to compensate for the damage. The article also contains an analysis by the author of the ECtHR ruling.