Previous 7 / 12 Next

In raport de toate aceste aspecte, solicită admiterea apelului, desființarea Hotărârii nr.563/15.08.2020 a Judecătoriei Vatra Dornei, și menținerea ca temeinice și legale a Hotărârilor nr. 6/13.07.2020 și nr.7/13.08.2020 a B__ nr.6 Broșteni. In drept, a invocat prevederile art.54 alin.6 din Legea nr.115/2015. În dovedire a depus la dosar înscrisuri. Petentul intimat A_________ M_____, a depus întâmpinare la dosar solicitând respingerea apelului ca nefondat și menținerea ca legală și temeinică a Hotărârii pronunțată de prima instanță, cu obligarea apelantei la plata cheltuielilor de judecată ocazionate de proces. În motivare, intimatul a arătat următoarele: Cu titlu prealabil a invocat excepția inadmisibilității apelului, a lipsei calității procesuale active a reclamantului, precum și excepția lipsei de interes a acestuia. Consideră că toate cele trei excepții sunt întemeiate, raportat la prevederile art. 54 alin. 2 și 4 din Legea nr. 115/2015 care au următorul conținut: "(2) Respingerea de către biroul electoral de circumscripție a unei candidaturi poate fi contestată de către candidat, partidele politice, alianțele politice sau alianțele electorale care au propus candidatura respectivă, în termen de cel mult 48 de ore de la data afișării candidaturii." Notă: Termenul a fost redus la 24 de ore conform art. 2 alin. 3 din Legea nr. 84/2020. "(4) Contestația și, dacă este cazul, cererea de apel, se depun la instanța competentă să le soluționeze, sub sancțiunea nulității." Din textele legale mai sus citate rezultă faptul că numai candidatul, partidul sau alianța care l-a propus pot avea calitate procesuală. Biroul Electoral de Circumscripție este obligat să se supună hotărârii instanței, neavând interesul cerut de legea civilă în promovarea unui apel. Sintagma "dacă este cazul" din aliniatul 4 conduce la faptul că numai în cazul respingerii contestației, numai cel care a avut dreptul să formuleze contestație are calitatea și interesul de a formula apel. Dacă contestația a fost admisă, hotărârea primei instanțe este de facto definitivă. Apreciază intimatul că soluția pronunțată de instanța de fond este una legală și temeinică, fiind în concordanță cu înscrisurile existente în cauză și cu legislația e_________ specifică. Ca urmare, se impune respingerea contestației din simplul considerent că art. 25 din Legea nr. 176/2010 nu prevede sancțiunea interdicției de "a candida" ci pe aceea interdicției de "a exercita". În drept, condițiile legale pentru ca o persoană să poată candida (art. 52 alin. 1 din Legea nr. 115/2015) sunt definite de art. 4-6 din lege. Astfel, potrivit art. 4, au dreptul de a fi aleși, consilieri, primari sau președinți ai consiliilor județene cetățenii cu drept de vot care au împlinit, până în ziua alegerilor inclusiv, vârsta de cel puțin 23 de ani, dacă nu le este interzisă asocierea în partide politice, potrivit art. 40 alin. (3) din Constituția României, republicată; pot candida numai persoanele care au domiciliul pe teritoriul unității administrativ teritoriale în care urmează să fie alese

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Decision 701/2020

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the Brosteni Constituency Electoral Bureau’s (BEC) decision to reject a former vice mayor seeking to run for the mayor and local councilor elections, based on a report by the National Integrity Agency alleging that he had conflicts of interest, was improper.

Alleged Acts: The respondent alleges that the BEC’s decision to reject his candidacies for mayor and local councilor exceeded the BEC’s responsibilities, as it is bound by law only to verify that a candidate’s nomination fulfills certain formal and substantive requirements and to consider whether an appeal against his candidacy was filed before the prescribed 48-hour deadline.

Procedural history: The BEC issued two majority decisions rejecting the respondent’s candidacy applications for mayor and local councilor. The respondent appealed the decisions to the relevant court in the constituency of Vatra Dornei on 15.08.2020, which overturned the decision of the BEC and ordered the admission of the candidate’s applications. The BEC appealed the Court’s decision to the Suceava Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed for lack of legal standing.

Summary: The respondent is a former vicemayor of Brosteni who was nominated by the People’s Movement Party (PMP in Suceava) to run for mayor of Brosteni as well as a local councilor in Brosteni. On August 8, 2020, the BEC issued decisions 6 and 7 rejecting the respondent’s candidacy because the BEC learned, via a complaint from another political party, that the respondent had a conflict of interest and should not be eligible to run. Article 125 of Law 176/2010 prohibits candidates from holding certain elected positions for a period of three years in cases of conflicts of interest. The respondent argued that, in accordance with Law No. 115/2015, the BEC cannot contest his candidacy while also being a party in the process as one member of the BEC is also the party who filed the complaint.1 Furthermore, the respondent argued that in accordance with Law No. 176/2010, the respondent still has the right to run and be elected as this prohibition applies to elected office, not to candidates. In the first appeal instance, the Vatra Dornei Court annulled the decision of the BEC and admitted the candidacy for mayor and local council. The Court acknowledged that there is no legal precedent that prohibits the respondent from running and that the respondent’s candidacy did not violate any of the legal conditions imposed by Law No. 115/2015, Law No. 393/2004 or Article 40, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution of Romania. Under these laws, the following people cannot participate in political parties: Constitutional Court judges, people’s advocates, magistrates, active soldiers, police officers, and “other categories of civil servants established by an organic law.” The respondent did not fall into any of those categories. The Court also stated that there are no reasons related to morality or opportunity outlined in the laws or Constitution that prohibit the respondent’s candidacy. Where there is a decision confirming a conflict of interest, Law No. 176/2010 imposes a three-year ban on officials from holding the same government position, as well as restrictions on occupying certain public positions or titles. However, the respondent is not set to occupy the same position, as he was the vice mayor not the mayor; furthermore, the law does not restrict a candidate from running for office, as he or she must still receive the necessary votes to be elected. The prohibition applies to elected officials. The BEC appealed the decision of the first instance court. The respondent, in his response to the appeal, argued that the BEC does not have standing to appeal, but rather is mandated to follow the court’s decision. Furthermore, the respondent argued that he followed proper procedure relating to conflicts of interest, as the relevant laws were amended in 2019 to allow for a maximum six months’ period where you cannot hold the same position to avoid a conflict of interest. The Tribunal found in favor of the respondent, holding that the BEC did not have standing. Therefore, because the Tribunal dismissed the case for lack of standing, it did not examine the merits of the BEC’s claim.

Conclusion: The Tribunal rejected the appeal based on the BEC’s lack of standing.

Legal Issue(s)

Candidate Registration
Civil Procedure

Applicable Law(s): Article 4 of Law No. 115/2015; Law No. 215/2001; Law No. 393/2004; Article 40, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution of Romania; Article 25 of Law No. 176/2010

Region: Europe and Eurasia

Country: Romania

Language of Decision

Romanian

Court: Trial Court

Election Type: Local

Date of decision: Aug 17, 2020

Geolocation

Latitude: 44.46645746080224

Longitude: 26.087383835873926

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

701_2020 contestatie la legea electorala.pdf
Romanian/Moldavian
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Decision 701/2020

Primary Documents

Notifications