Partially Critical Observations Regarding Some Norms Of The National Education Law No.1/2011

Abstract

National Education Law no. 1/2011 has undergone more than one hundred (100) amendments and/or additions since its adoption. However, the norms contained in it still allow for numerous discussions, including criticism. The legal provisions regarding the status of academic and research staff do not make a special note either. In this regard, we relied on the provisions of art. 289 of the National Education Law which establish, in addition to the retirement age of teaching and research staff, the ways in which they can carry out specific activities within higher education institutions after retirement, an opportunity that allowed us to reach the conclusion that they may give rise to different interpretations or, moreover, that they do not fall within the requirements of ‘precision, predictability and foreseeability’ of the legislative activity. Thus, we tried to answer some questions related to the exceptions to the rule according to which academic and research staff retire at the age of 65, with the necessary legal regime differentiations, depending on the applicable norm, respectively para. (3), (6) or (7) of art. 289 of the National Education Law. We also ruled on the limits established by a lower-level normative act regarding the possibility of cumulating up to three didactic norms, for the ‘retirees’ who ‘continue’ teaching, who are ‘maintaining’ their status as holders or are ‘re-employed’ by the higher education institutions.