CONSIDERAȚII REFERITOARE LA DESPĂGUBIREA SALARIATULUI ÎN CAZUL ÎN CARE CONTRACTUL SĂU INDIVIDUAL DE MUNCĂ A FOST SUSPENDAT DE CĂTRE ANGAJATOR [ART. 52 ALIN. (2) DIN CODUL MUNCII]

This study intends to make a critical analysis of the solution enacted by Article 52 (2) of the Labour Code under three aspects: the holder of the obligation to pay damages, the content, their extent and the period for which they are owed. The solution prescribed by Article 52 (2) of the Labour Code is in conflict with other regulations of the same Code. In relation to the second sentence of Article 52 (1) b) of the Labour Code, the author considers that the holder of the payment obligation must be the Romanian State, for the reasons for which it is also liable in the situations regulated by Article 50 (1) g), Article 52 c1) and Article 61 b) of the Labour Code. The author’s opinion is that the damages are unreasonably limited. Provided that, de lege ferenda, reference would be made to the provisions of Article 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code, one can notice that this text does not cover the same limits and it would allow the compensation of the employee in relation to the real damages produced, both material and moral. As a protective measure, for the duration of the suspension motivated by the indictment for acts incompatible with the position held, the employee should have, ope legis, the quality of insured within the health social insurance system. The author also believes that it should be expressly regulated a period in which the employee must notify the employer both on the cause which can determine the suspension and the reason which requires its cessation.