Prin Decizia nr. 39/2024, pronunțată ca hotărâre prealabilă de Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, „iarba e mai verde în curtea altuia”
By Decision no 39/2024, delivered as a preliminary judgement by the High Court of Cassation and Justice, „the grass is greener in another’s yard”

Summary/Abstract: In this study is analyzed the Decision no. 39/2024, pronounced by the High Court of Cassation and Justice - the Panel for the absolution of a legal issue, through it was admitted the referral of the Bucharest Court of Appeal — Section VII-a for cases concerning labour conflicts and social insurance.Thus, in the interpretation and application of Article 341 par. (2) of the Civil Procedure Code and in relation to the provisions of Articles 74 and 75 of the Civil Code, it has been established that the evidence of recording a telephone conversation between an employee and another employee or representative of the employer, requested in a dispute against the employer, is admissible, even if the registration was made without the prior consent and/or information of the interlocutor, provided that a fair balance between the right to proof on the one hand and the right to privacy on the other, on the other hand, in the sense that the consent of proof must be indispensable to the exercise of the right to proof and strictly proportional to this purpose.Contrary to the solution adopted, the authors demonstrate that the complaint was inadmissible, but on the substance they agree with the solution pronounced.However, we are in the presence of a partial absolution, because all courts will have to on the case, on the case, on the case, determine whether or not to agree with the administration of the evidence with the recording of the telephone conversation when one of the parties was unaware of this fact.

• Details
• Contents