Reparation of the moral prejudices in romanian labor law

AuthorAurelian Gabriel Uluitu
PositionPhD, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, 'Nicolae Titulescu' University, Bucharest - PhD, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, 'Nicolae Titulescu' University, Bucharest
LESIJ NO. XX, VOL. 2/2013
Aurelian Gabriel ULUITU*
Recent decisions issued by national la bor Courts contain interesting references to the pr oblem of the
moral prejudices’ reparation (especially suffered by the employee). During the application of Romanian
Labor Code - Law no. 53/2003
1, the Courts offered a poor practice r egarding the above mentioned problem.
Usually, the employees’ claims having as object the material reparation of a moral prejudice caused by the
employers were rejected. The Courts considered that the claims were not founded, because the employees did
not prove the irregula rity and / or the existence of a mora l prejudice. The present paper is trying to identify
the situations (as categories) which confer the employees the right to ask for the moral prejudices’ (material)
repar ation and the procedur al mechanism in order to obtain a favorable solution (especially from the point
of view of the necessary evidence).
Keywords: labor law, employee, employer, liability, moral prejudice, mater ial repara tion,
labor cour t, court case, evidence.
The juridical liability of the labor individual contract’s parts is one of the most sensitive
issues regarding the labor relation. Romanian Labor Code stipulates four categories of labor
contract parts’ different liability – disciplinary (art. 247 252), patrimony (art. 253 259),
contraventional (art. 260) and criminal (art. 2 61 265). From these categories, only the
disciplinary liability is a Romanian Labor Law specific form of liability2.
The possibility to determine the occurrence of a moral prejudice for one or the other
contractual party exists in case of each form of liability, but the most cases are linked to the
disciplinary and patrimony liabilities.
It is important to observe the framework of discrimination regulation (the principle of the
equal treatment for all employees and emplo yers) art. 5 from Romanian Labor Code,
Government Ordinance no. 137/200 0 on the prevention and punishment of all forms of
discrimination3 and Law no. 202/2002 on equal opportunities and treatment for women and men4.
Observing these regulations, it is possible, in principle, to identify situations which imply
a moral prejudice for one of the labor contract part, caused b y the unfulfillment of one or more
specific obligations.
The labor individual contract’s party who claims the moral prejudice and its material
reparation by the other part has to address to the Labor Court in order to obtain a favorable
* PhD, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, “Nicolae Titulescu” University, Űucharest (e-mail:
** PhD, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, “Nicolae Titulescu” University, Űucharest (e-mail:
1 Republished in the “Official Gazette of Romania”, 1st part, no. 345 of 18 May 2011.
2 See I.T. Ştefnescu, Theoretical and P ractical P aper for Labor Law, Second edition,Universul Juridic
Editor, Űucharest, 2012, p. 725; Al. iclea, Paper for Labor Law, Sixth Edition, Universul Juridic Editor,
Bucharest, 2012, p. 777-778.
3 Published in the “Official Gazette of Romania”, 1st part, no. 431 of 2 September 2000.
4 Republished in the “Official Gazette of Romania”, 1st part, no. 150 of 1 March 2007.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT