The High Court of Cassation and Justice ruled that the mere fact that certain employees of the same society representing the defendant were not refused to take legal action, while the claims referring to the entitlements of some others (namely, the situation of the claimant in revision) were rejected, can build up to unitary case law, and not to the act of overlooking res judicata. This is only possible if identifying the legal context between the parties which acted separately when benefitting from certain rights that sprung from the collective labour agreement. Therefore, in the present case, what the claimant in revision complains against is the passing of different rulings in similar causes, causes which appeared between different claimants, but against the same defendant. It is, thus, not the case of contrasting rulings with regards to the claimant in revision, making the motion for revision inadmissible.(Decision no. 2240 of the 18th of September 2014, given by the 1st Civil Division of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, covering revision)
:: The Source: JURIDICE.ro
