Action for incurring the employee’s patrimonial liability. The limitation period of the material right of action. Date of knowledge of the damage

DREPTUL MUNCII ŞI DREPTUL SECURITĂȚII SOCIALE

Abstract

There is no basis to place the start of the limitation period upon the issue of the inspection deed of the Court of Accounts, which was strictly worth finding on the part of the administrative body, of causing an injury, without representing neither the cause, nor its registration date in the creditor’s assets. The latter doesn’t need an external damage inspection report, it is not liable for waiting for the inspection of the Court of Accounts in order to act, and its own inspection was not interdicted to it (to which, in fact, it referred to, it is true, subsequently to the referral of the Court of Accounts), otherwise, it is allowed, accessible and even advisable for it, in order to verify the manner in which its financial resources are used, so that only by relying on its own passivity the alleged victim could claim that it was not able to know the damage earlier than the completion date of the inspection carried out by the specialized body. Therefore, the date on which the damage is pursued should be searched (as, with minimum diligence, it could) be known, in relation to the case relied on at the basis of its occurrence. However, starting from the alleged source of the damage, as a difference between the price of the “subscription” type of the contract and the actual price of the courier services, during the validity duration of the contract it could only be known upon termination of its effects, namely upon expiry of the deadline for which it was concluded. Reiterating, as compared to the source and method of calculation of the alleged damage, it could not have been certainly determined unless the total amount of the actually performed services had been known, in order to understand whether there was a difference as compared to the price of the “subscription” type and for which purpose.