The obligation to refund of employees

• Author: Florian Radu-Gheorghe - Laura Roxana Popoviciu
• Position: University lecturer, Candidate to PhD, AGORA University Oradea, Faculty of Law and Economics, Law Department - University lecturer PhD, AGORA University Oradea, Faculty of Law and Economics, Law Department
• Pages: 153-157

THE OBLIGATION TO REFUND OF EMPLOYEES

Florian Radu-Gheorghe

∗

∗∗

∗

Popoviciu Laura-Roxana

∗

∗∗

∗∗

∗∗

∗

Abstract

The reimbursement obligation of employees appears as a component of economic

responsibility that occurs in situations where the employee against the employer receives an

unfair amount of money, without having the right, or receives goods and services provided by

the unit.

Key words: asset liability, employee, employer, work payment due.

Introduction

Labor Code - Law no. 53/2003 governs asset liability in a separate chapter - III from

Title XI called „legal liability", including Labour Code, art. 269-275.

In the specialized literature asset liability was defined as a form of legal liability

which consists of their obligation to repair the employer's material damage produced

because of them or in connection with their work

1

As regarding the civil contracts there are general rules that apply in principle to all

contracts and special rules applicable only to one or some of the civil contracts, and in the

matter of economic responsibility we are in the presence of specific rules which derogate

from the common law rules that make general rules and regulations if they do not contravene

the mandatory labour law.

The institution of the obligation of restitution has its origins in the old labour code

since 1972, which in art. 106 established the obligation of the person assigned to either return

the amounts they received from it without being legally due, or to pay the unit, an appropriate

value of goods received from the unfair establishment and no longer may be returned in kind,

or what the services were provided by the unit without the right to be returned in nature or the

value of the services provided.

In the same terms of the employee restitution legislation is repeated in the new labour

code in 2003 in art. 272, which states:”An employee who has received from the employer an

amount which was not due is required to pay it back. If the employee has received goods

which he / she has earned goods and cannot be resituated in kind or if he / she were provided

services that were not entitled, he /she will bear their value. The value of goods or services

shall be established according to their value at the date of payment.

As rightly noted in the literature, that the obligation of the employee shall be

examined independently of the fault, because the foundation of these obligations is to pay the

undue, work and to prevent unjust enrichment

2

.

∗

University lecturer, Candidate to PhD, AGORA Univers ity Oradea, Faculty of Law and Economics, Law

Department, e-mail: raduflorian@rdslink.ro;

∗∗

University lecturer PhD, AGORA University Oradea, Fa culty of Law a nd Economics, Law Department, e-

mail: lpopoviciu@yahoo.com;

1

IT Stefanescu, Treaty employment law,, W olters Kluwer Publishing, 2007, p. 490; al. Concoct, Treaty of

employment law, Legal Publishing House, 2007, p. 803, I. Albu, Contractual Civil Liability for Non-pecuniary

Damage (material damage), the La w no. 8 / 1992, p. 29; Ş. Beligrădeanu, op.c it., P. 97, Al. Athanasiu, AC

Moarcas, The Worker and the Law. Labor and Employment, Oscar P rint Publishing, 1999, p. 271.