Previous 11 / 12 Next

ș respingerii candidaturii. (3) Contestațiile trebuie să cuprindă numele și prenumele, adresa și calitatea contestatarului, numele și prenumele persoanei a cărei candidatură a fost admisă sau respinsă, prezentarea temeiurilor contestației, data și semnătura contestatarului și indicarea, dacă este cazul, a persoanei desemnate să îl reprezinte. (4) Contestația și, dacă este cazul, cererea de apel, se depun la instanța competentă să le soluționeze, sub sancțiunea nulității. (5) Contestațiile privind admiterea sau respingerea candidaturilor se soluționează în termen de 48 de ore de la înregistrare, de către judecătoria, respectiv tribunalul în a cărui rază teritorială se află circumscripția e_________. Hotărârea nu se comunică. (6) Împotriva hotărârii date în contestație se poate face apel în termen de 24 de ore de la pronunțare, la instanța ierarhic superioară. Apelul se soluționează în termen de 24 de ore de la înregistrare. (7) Hotărârea pronunțată în apel este definitivă. Calitatea procesuală reprezintă identitatea care trebuie să existe între părți și subiectele raportului juridic litigios, astfel cum acesta este dedus judecății. Această identitate trebuie să se materializeze prin echivalența dintre persoana reclamantului și titularul dreptului , respectiv pârâtul și cel obligat la respectarea dreptului și, pe cale de consecință, se întrunește condiția calității procesuale. Art. 32 C__ statornicește patru condiții de exercitare a acțiunii civile, respectiv, capacitatea procesuală, calitatea procesuală , interesul de a acționa și formularea unei pretenții . Aceste condiții stabilite prin art. 32 alin. (1) trebuie îndeplinite nu numai la formularea cererii și învestirea instanței ci și ulterior pentru punerea în mișcare a tuturor formelor procesuale care alcătuiesc noțiunea de acțiune civilă „ansamblu de mijloace procesuale”. Reținând prin urmare , că legitimarea sau calitatea procesuală activă corespunde calității de titular al dreptului dedus judecății, raportat la toate aspectele teoretice expuse mai sus și la textele legale enunțate, tribunalul constată lipsa calității procesuale active a apelantului Biroul Electoral al Circumscripției Orășenești nr.6 Broșteni, de a formula apel împotriva hotărârii primei instanțe . Așa fiind, în baza art.480 C__, va respinge apelul ca fiind formulat de o persoană lipsită de calitate procesuală activă. PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE, ÎN NUMELE LEGII, D E C I D E: Admite excepția lipsei calității procesual active. Respinge apelul formulat de apelantul Biroul Electoral al Circumscripției Orășenești Broșteni, cu sediul în ______________________, județul Suceava împotriva sentinței civile nr. 563 din data de 15.08.2020 pronunțată de Judecătoria Vatra Dornei în dosarul nr.

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