4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Iaşi. 5.  On 1 October 2002 the applicant was appointed to the post of director of the Economics Department of the Romanian Waters Agency (“the Agency”), a public institution under the authority of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Water and the Environment (“the Ministry”). 6.  In July 2003 the audit office of the Ministry investigated the Agency's activity and discovered some irregularities. As a result, on 21 July 2003 the Agency dismissed the applicant for alleged mismanagement. 7.  On 5 August 2003 the Ministry certified mismanagement on the applicant's part and on 12 August 2003 it lodged a criminal complaint against her. It appears from the file that the proceedings are still pending. 8.  On 26 November 2003 the Bucharest County Court set aside the decision of 21 July 2003 and ordered the applicant's reinstatement and payment of the salary due until her effective reinstatement. The court found that no preliminary investigations had been carried out prior to that decision.
That judgment was quashed on grounds of incompatibility ratione loci, but on 15 April 2005 the Iaşi County Court set aside that decision and ordered the applicant's reinstatement and payment of the difference between the salary earned before and after the decision, until the applicant's effective reinstatement. That ruling was upheld by a final decision of 4 October 2005 by the Iaşi Court of Appeal. 9.  On 12 January 2004 the agency reinstated the applicant in her previous position, but on 2 February 2004 it suspended her from office. That decision was based on the existence of a criminal complaint against the applicant, and stated that during the applicant's suspension, which would remain in place until the end of the criminal proceedings, she would be offered another post corresponding to her qualifications. On 3 February 2004 she was appointed as economic adviser in a local branch of the Agency. 10.  On 30 June 2004 the Iaşi County Court set aside the decision of 2 February 2004 and ordered the Agency to reinstate the applicant in her previous position as director of the Economics Department and to pay her the difference between the salary earned before and after that decision. The court considered that decision to be unlawful, inter alia, because the criminal complaint against the applicant had not been lodged by the Agency, which was the applicant's employer, but by the Ministry, which had no professional relationship with the applicant. 11.  On 27 July 2004 the Agency therefore declared void its decision of 2 February 2004, reinstated the applicant in her previous post and paid her the outstanding salary. 12.  However, on 2 December 2004 the Iaşi Court of Appeal, by a final decision, allowed an appeal on points of law by the Agency and dismissed the applicant's complaint against the decision of 2 February 2004. 13.  According to the Agency, on 6 August 2004 it lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant. 14.  On 16 August 2004 the Agency again suspended her from her post, on the basis of that criminal complaint. 15.  On 29 October 2004 the Iaşi County Court set aside that decision and ordered the Agency to reinstate the applicant in her previous post and to pay her, from 16 August 2004 until her effective reinstatement, compensation for pecuniary damage in the form of an increased and updated salary, together with all the other benefits to which she would have been entitled. The court held that the Agency had not proved that it had lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant. 16.  On 20 January 2005 the Iaşi Court of Appeal, by a final decision, dismissed an appeal on points of law by the Agency. However, in its reasoning the court found that the decision of 16 August 2004 had been unlawful because the courts had eventually confirmed the previous decision of 2 February 2004 suspending the applicant (see paragraph 12 above). 17.  On 31 January 2005 the applicant requested the Agency to enforce the judgment of 29 October 2004 (see paragraph 15 above). Following a refusal by the Agency, the applicant lodged a criminal complaint on 27 February 2005 against its Director-General. Eventually, on 5 February 2007, the Bucharest District Court acquitted the Director-General on the ground that his conduct had not amounted to a criminal offence, but ordered him to pay a criminal fine. The court also noted that the Agency's decision of 2 February 2004 had been declared void by its subsequent decision of 27 July 2004 reinstating the applicant (see paragraph 11 above). That judgment became final. 18.  On 2 February 2005 the applicant requested assistance from the re-named Ministry of the Environment and Water, under whose authority the Agency continued to function, with a view to her reinstatement. On 13 May 2005 the Ministry replied that the judgment of 29 October 2004 was enforceable. 19.  Between 8 February 2005 and 4 July 2007 the applicant made successive requests to a bailiff to attach the Agency's bank assets in order to recover the salary due to her, increased and updated in line with inflation. Several account statements issued between June 2005 and December 2007 certified payment by the Agency of the amounts claimed by the applicant.
In particular, on 31 March 2005 she requested the bailiff to oblige the Agency to reinstate her. In her request of 4 July 2007, the applicant acknowledged that she had recovered salary for the period between 16 August 2004 and 31 March 2007, but that the Agency had still not reinstated her. 20.  On 30 August 2006 the Ministry of the Environment and Water informed the applicant that it had requested the Agency to enforce the judgment in her favour. 21.  According to the Agency, the applicant had not asked to be reinstated, preferring to claim the corresponding salary. The applicant contested this assertion. 22.  On 1 October 2007 the applicant brought civil proceedings against the Agency seeking reassessment of her salary on the basis of increases and updates for the period 2003-2007, alleging that she was still receiving a salary at the 2003 level. She also claimed payment of social security contributions on her behalf. 23.  On 12 September 2008 the Iaşi County Court refused her request. Having regard to the date on which it was lodged, the court found that her claim relating to the period from 21 July 2003 to 1 October 2004 was time‑barred. As to the rest of the period, it considered that the decision of 2 February 2004 which had suspended her from office was still in effect and therefore the applicant was not entitled to a salary corresponding to the post of director. Since it had dismissed her main claim for payment of salary, the court also dismissed her secondary request for payment of social security contributions. 24.  On 20 January 2009 the Iaşi Court of Appeal, by a final decision, dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant and upheld the decision of the first-instance court, but varied its reasoning. Thus, it found that the decision of 2 February 2004 had been actually rendered void by the subsequent decision of 27 July 2004 to reinstate the applicant (see paragraph 11 above). The court further noted that the decision of 27 July 2004 had been issued in accordance with the judgment of 30 June 2004, but had not been annulled by the Agency following the final decision of 2 December 2004 (see paragraph 12 above). Therefore, the professional relationship between the applicant and the Agency had not been suspended.
The court further noted that, under the judgments of 15 April 2005 (see paragraph 8 above) and 29 October 2004 (see paragraph 15 above), the Agency had an obligation to reinstate the applicant in her previous post and to pay her, until her effective reinstatement, compensation for pecuniary damage in the form of an increased and updated salary. It also found that following the attachment of the Agency's accounts she had received the amounts due from the Agency.
While her claim for the period from 21 July 2003 to 1 October 2004 was time-barred, the applicant was not entitled to a salary after that date either, since she had not been reinstated, but only to damages corresponding to an increased and updated salary. The court held that the above-mentioned judgments had already been enforced by means of attachment of the Agency's accounts. However, the amount of damages paid could be challenged by an objection to execution under Article 399 of the Code of Civil Procedure, not by an action for reassessment of salary such as that brought by the applicant. Finally, since the Agency could not be ordered to pay a salary to the applicant, it could not be ordered to pay social security contributions on her behalf either.