Constantin believes that there is a similarity

Acourt panel gave the floor to the representative of the general prosecutor on the appeal in the interest of the law. Ms. Prosecutor Antonia Constantin the representative of the Prosecutor General of the Prosecutors Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice requested the admission of the appeal in the interest of the law as it was formulated in writing appreciating that the majority orientation of the jurisprudence is in the letter and spirit of the law in the meaning that it is not possible to establish judicially the special working.

Conditions in which the employees carried out Country Email List their activity after April i.e. obliging employers to assign jobs under these conditions when the mandatory approvals were not obtained for the placement of jobs under these conditions. It is also not possible to compel the employer to recognize or judicially establish the inclusion of the plaintiffs jobs under special conditions when the cumulative conditions regarding the registration of the activity and the employing unit in annexes no. and to Law no. and respectively in annexes no. and to Law no. with subsequent amendments and additions. To the question of the president of the board Mrs.




Prosecutor Antonia in terms of the object and the referral to the court between the present appeal in the interest of the law and the one that was the object of File no. resolved by Decision no. of May of the High Court of Cassation and Justice The panel competent to judge the appeal in the interest of the law but there is a difference in the legislative framework. The legal situation in the present case is different in the sense that the detailing of the methodology is done at the infralegislative level through Government decisions. It shows that in the case of special working.