- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-134/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 12 March 2012 — Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central (on behalf of and in the interest of its members — public officials with a special status — police serving with the IPJ Tulcea) v Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Tulcea
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012CN0134
62012CN0134
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 138/8
(Case C-134/12)
(2012/C 138/14)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central (on behalf of and in the interest of its members — public officials with a special status — police serving with the IPJ Tulcea (the Tulcea Inspectorate of Police))
Defendant: Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Tulcea
Questions referred
1.Must the provisions of Articles 17(1), 20 and 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding reductions in remuneration such as those imposed by the Romanian State under Law No 118/2010 and Law No 285/2010?
2.Must the provisions of Article 15(3) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, whereby the Romanian Government was required to inform the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of its intention to adopt measures to reduce remuneration and to specify the time-limit laid down for implementing them, be interpreted as rendering invalid Law No 118/2010 and Law No 285/2010?