The procedure of determining the patrimonial liability within the employment relationship

• Author: Florian Radu-Gheorghe
• Position: Law and Economics Faculty, Social Sciences Department, Agora University of Oradea, Oradea, Romania
• Pages: 44-53

AGORA International Journal of Juridical Sciences, www.juridicalj ournal.univagora.ro

ISSN 1843-570X, E-ISSN 2067-7677

No. 2 (2012), pp. 44-53

44

THE PROCEDURE OF DETERMINING THE PATRIMONIAL

LIABILITY WITHIN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP

R. Gh. Florian

Radu-Gheorghe Florian

Law and Economics Faculty, Social Sciences Department

Agora University of Oradea, Oradea, Romania

*Correspondence: Radu Gheorghe Florian, Agora University of Oradea,

8 Piaa Tineretului St., Oradea, Romania

E-mail: raduflorian@rdslink.ro

Abstract

Through the hereby survey I have tried to explain the judicial ways of the parties of a

judicial employment relationship in order to settle the litigation arisen between them and

created by the production of a prejudice because of one of the parties’ guilt, taking into

consideration the legal boundaries in which an agreement between the parties can interfere

in, given the latest modifications brought to the Labor code through Law no. 40/2011

1

.

Key words: patrimonial liability, payment commitment, parties’ consent, caducity of

the proceeding in determining the patrimonial liability.

Introduction

The Labor code

2

– Law no. 53/2003 regulates the patrimonial liability in a different

chapter – the third chapter with the title: “Judicial liability” comprising the art. 253-259

from the Labor code republished in May 2001, following the issuance of Law no. 40/2011.

In the specialized literature, the patrimonial liability was defined as being a form of

the judicial liability which resides in its obligation to make good the material damages

brought to the employer because of and in connection with their work

3

.

The procedure of determining the responsibility of the employee towards its employer

for the prejudice caused due to the wrongful non-observance of the duty obligations has gone

through many modifications.

The common life confronts us with many conduct deviations that are not equal as

importance and in a way or another, break what is considered to be the ordinary course of

things

4

.

Therefore, according to Labor code from 1950 (Law no. 3/1950

5

) when the material

liability of the employee was regulated, the way to recover the damage was for the employer

to issue a withholding order with enforceable title.

Subsequently, on one hand, in accordance with the Labor code from 1972 (Law no.

10/1972

6

) the withholding order was entitled imputation order, and, on the other hand, such

1

Published in Official Gazette of Romania, no. 225/March 31

st

2011.

2

Forward Labor code used as Raomanian Labor code.

3

Al. iclea, Tratat de dreptu l muncii, “Universul Juridic” Publishing House, Bucharest, 2007, p. 798;

I.T. tefnescu, Tratat de dreptul muncii, vol. I, “Lumina Lex” Publishing House, Bucharest, 2004, p. 680;

 Beligrdeanu, I. T. tefnescu, Prezentare de ansa mblu i observaii critice asupra noului Cod al muncii,

“Revista român de dreptul muncii” Review, no. 4/2003, p. 72.

4

L. R. Popoviciu, N. C. Popoviciu, Comparative stud y regarding the delinquent criminal and civil

responsibility, Agora International Journal of Juridical Sciences, Agora Univer sity Press, Oradea, 2008, p. 234.

5

Published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 50/June 8

th

1950.

6

Published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 140/December 1

st

1972.