December 2025 – In a legal landscape marked by inconsistencies and uneven practices in labour law, the correct application of legal rules is becoming an increasingly difficult goal to achieve.
However, Romania’s High Court of Cassation and Justice (“ICCJ”) has recently intervened with a series of key decisions that not only provide important clarifications but also reconfigure principles of Romanian labour law, addressing issues of utmost importance, such as:
- prohibition of dismissal during sick leave;
- the procedure for reinstating an employee who has been unlawfully dismissed;
- suspension of individual employment contracts in cases of leave of absence for maternity risk.
These decisions are binding and will have a decisive influence on the application of the law in labour relations.
Below we briefly explore these decisions and their major implications.
1. Prohibition of dismissal during sick leave
By Decision No. 18 of 29 September 2025, the ICCJ upheld an appeal in the interest of the law and provided a clarifying interpretation of Article 60 para. (1) let. a) of the Labour Code, which prohibits the dismissal of an employee who is temporarily unable to work as established by a medical certificate.
The Court ruled that the phrase "dismissal cannot be ordered" used by the legislator in Article 60 para. (1) let. a) of the Labour Code applies strictly to the moment when the dismissal decision is issued. Thus, from the perspective of the prohibition of dismissal, the date of communication of the decision or the date on which the measure taken by the employer takes effect on the termination of the employment contract is irrelevant.
In this regard, if the employer issues the decision during the period when the employee is on leave for temporary incapacity for work as established by a medical certificate, the act becomes absolutely null and void, even if it is communicated subsequently.
Given the suspensive effect that the employee's temporary incapacity for work has on the individual employment contract, in the presence of a cause for its suspension by operation of law that occurs by virtue of the law, ope legis, even from the date on which the temporary incapacity for work occurred and for the entire period of incapacity for work, the prohibition on dismissal provided for in Article 60 para. (1) let. a) of the Labour Code applies, so that no measure leading to the termination of the individual employment contract may be ordered.
It should be noted that if the temporary incapacity for work occurs after the dismissal decision has been issued but before the communication and effect of the termination of the individual employment contract, the provision of Article 60 para. (1) let. a)) of the Labour Code, which refers to dismissal ordered by an employer during temporary incapacity for work, does not apply. Where the dismissal decision has not yet taken effect and the employment contract is suspended by operation of law, in accordance with Article 50 let. b) of the Labour Code, the provisions of Article 49 para. (6) of the Labour Code shall apply, and the termination of the individual employment contract ordered by the dismissal decision will take effect upon the expiry of the period of suspension of the employment contract.
This interpretation emphasises the need to effectively protect employees in a vulnerable position, but also the fundamental purpose of the legal provision—to prevent abuse and ensure the stability of employment relationships during periods of temporary incapacity for work.
2. Procedure for the reinstatement of unlawfully dismissed employees
The ICCJ Decision – Panel for the Resolution of Legal Issues No. 362 of 20 October 2025 clearly establishes an aspect that has been interpreted contradictorily until now: the reinstatement of an unlawfully dismissed employee does not take place automatically upon the pronouncement of the judg ment but requires concrete action on the part of the employer. More specifically, the employer must inform the employee about the reactivation of the employment contract and specify the exact date of the resumption of work.
According to the ICCJ, the provision for the reinstatement of an unlawfully dismissed employee contained in the judg ment handed down by the court of first instance is enforceable either voluntarily, at the initiative of the debtor employer, or through provisional enforcement, at the initiative of the creditor employee.
The mere pronouncement of the reinstatement ruling, if not enforced, does not automatically reactivate the individual employment contract concluded between the parties, and its communication does not automatically restore the previous situation. Therefore, the measure of effective reinstatement does not occur automatically upon the pronouncement of the judg ment, but only upon its enforcement, in the manner provided by law.
Although the courts have had different opinions in the past, the ICCJ definitively clarifies that the law does not require the employer to issue a formal reinstatement decision. However, the employer is obliged to send the employee a notice, regardless of the name chosen, which explicitly states the intention to effectively reinstate the unlawfully dismissed employee and indicates the exact date of the resumption of work.
The employer's possibility to voluntarily initiate the enforcement of the court decision to reinstate an unlawfully dismissed employee is justified by the interest in quickly obtaining the performance of work, especially since the employer is obliged to pay compensation equivalent to the outstanding wages until it fulfils the obligation imposed by the court, i.e., until the effective reinstatement of the employee to the position he or she previously held. In addition, the employer's interest in voluntarily enforcing the judg ment may also be motivated by the desire to avoid subsequent enforcement or, more seriously, a criminal complaint for failure to enforce the court decision on reinstatement, in accordance with Article 287 para. (1) let. d) of the Criminal Code.
3. Suspension of the individual employment contract in the case of maternity risk leave
Decision No. 361 of 20 October 2025, issued by the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Panel for the Resolution of Legal Issues, establishes that, in the interpretation of Article 2 h) of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 96/2003 on the protection of maternity risk at work, maternity risk leave represents an automatic suspension of the individual employment contract, in accordance with Article 50 b) of the Labour Code.
Article 2 h) of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 96/2003 defines maternity risk leave as the period granted to pregnant, postpartum, or breastfeeding employees when working conditions may affect their health or pregnancy and the employer cannot temporarily modify their work or working conditions.
In practice, some employers considered that the suspension of the contract should only take effect after a written decision had been issued. The ICCJ decision clarifies that the effect of the suspension is automatic and legal, without depending on the issuance of an internal decision.
In its reasoning, the ICCJ emphasised that the effects of maternity risk leave are immediate, based on the law, without the need for the employer's consent. Thus, the submission of the application and supporting medical documents automatically leads to the suspension of the employment relationship, ensuring the necessary protection for employees in this situation.
Until the Labour Code is amended in accordance with this decision, we consider that, in the case of maternity risk leave, the suspension of the employment contract will be registered in REGES-ONLINE system under "leave for temporary incapacity to work" (Article 50(b) of the Labour Code).
4. Takeaway
The three above-described decisions of the ICCJ provide essential clarifications and impose a much more rigorous application of labour law rules by employers, as follows:
- a dismissal decision issued during sick leave is absolutely null and void, regardless of when it is communicated;
- the reinstatement of an unlawfully dismissed employee does not occur automatically based on the court decision —the employee must be explicitly informed and the decision must be effectively enforced;
- maternity risk leave automatically suspends the employment contract, regardless of whether an internal decision has been issued.
Therefore, our recommendations for employers are:
- check the status of sick leave before issuing any dismissal decision;
- thoroughly document dismissal decisions to avoid their annulment by the courts;
- promptly send reinstatement notifications, indicating the date of resumption of work.
- immediately record suspensions for maternity risk leave and adapt internal workflows for their automatic operation.
These decisions mark an increased accountability for employers and require clear, rapid, and fully compliant internal processes. A preventive and well-documented approach remains the most effective solution for avoiding disputes and maintaining a stable and legal working environment.
For more information or personalised advice, please do not hesitate to contact us.