Objective contentious matters in Romania and their unexplainable vulnerabilities
The objective contentious matters should be a lethal weapon for the administrative acts challenged at the court specialised in this kind of issues, because, unlike the subjective contentious matters, they do not depend – or at least they should not depend – on the plaintiff’s (which is, by definiti...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Bucharest University of Economic Studies
2018-06-01
|
| Series: | Juridical Tribune |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.tribunajuridica.eu/arhiva/An8v2/3.%20Ovidiu%20Podaru%20Lucrarea%201%20EN.pdf |
| _version_ | 1797219118665957376 |
|---|---|
| author | Ovidiu Podaru |
| author_facet | Ovidiu Podaru |
| author_sort | Ovidiu Podaru |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The objective contentious matters should be a lethal weapon for the administrative acts challenged at the court specialised in this kind of issues, because, unlike the subjective contentious matters, they do not depend – or at least they should not depend – on the
plaintiff’s (which is, by definition, a public authority) proving a subjective right or a personal legitimate interest injured by the administrative act. Relieved from this burden, the plaintiff’s task within an objective contentious matter should be easy: to come up with the proof that the case object contravenes a rightful rule with a superior legal force. In this case, the challenged act is annulled by the decision of the administrative contentious court and, as an expression of the public interest prioritising principle, it derives from the other one, which is more general, namely the principle of lawfulness. Nonetheless, at least three legal provisions of the Act no. 554/2004 – section 1, par. (3), section 3, par. (1) and section
28, par. (3) – highlight a few weaknesses of this type of contentious matters, either by conditioning them upon the fate of certain subjective contentious matters – which by definition are more fragile – or by placing the plaintiff, by virtue of the law, in a legal status inferior to the one that the plaintiff within a subjective contentious matter enjoys. And these weaknesses are surely worth being analysed, because so far neither the doctrine nor the case law seems to have at least noticed them. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T12:28:34Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-66e1ad86448e4b55ae953cb64e576012 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2247-7195 2248-0382 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T12:28:34Z |
| publishDate | 2018-06-01 |
| publisher | Bucharest University of Economic Studies |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Juridical Tribune |
| spelling | doaj.art-66e1ad86448e4b55ae953cb64e5760122024-04-08T07:42:57ZengBucharest University of Economic StudiesJuridical Tribune2247-71952248-03822018-06-0182370381Objective contentious matters in Romania and their unexplainable vulnerabilitiesOvidiu Podaru0– Faculty of Law, Babeş-Bolyai University, Romania. The author is the incumbent of the Administrative Law (I and II), Contravention Law and Urban Planning Law courses, at the Public Law Department,The objective contentious matters should be a lethal weapon for the administrative acts challenged at the court specialised in this kind of issues, because, unlike the subjective contentious matters, they do not depend – or at least they should not depend – on the plaintiff’s (which is, by definition, a public authority) proving a subjective right or a personal legitimate interest injured by the administrative act. Relieved from this burden, the plaintiff’s task within an objective contentious matter should be easy: to come up with the proof that the case object contravenes a rightful rule with a superior legal force. In this case, the challenged act is annulled by the decision of the administrative contentious court and, as an expression of the public interest prioritising principle, it derives from the other one, which is more general, namely the principle of lawfulness. Nonetheless, at least three legal provisions of the Act no. 554/2004 – section 1, par. (3), section 3, par. (1) and section 28, par. (3) – highlight a few weaknesses of this type of contentious matters, either by conditioning them upon the fate of certain subjective contentious matters – which by definition are more fragile – or by placing the plaintiff, by virtue of the law, in a legal status inferior to the one that the plaintiff within a subjective contentious matter enjoys. And these weaknesses are surely worth being analysed, because so far neither the doctrine nor the case law seems to have at least noticed them.http://www.tribunajuridica.eu/arhiva/An8v2/3.%20Ovidiu%20Podaru%20Lucrarea%201%20EN.pdfobjective contentious matterthe Ombudsmanthe Prefectwithdrawal of the case |
| spellingShingle | Ovidiu Podaru Objective contentious matters in Romania and their unexplainable vulnerabilities Juridical Tribune objective contentious matter the Ombudsman the Prefect withdrawal of the case |
| title | Objective contentious matters in Romania and their unexplainable vulnerabilities |
| title_full | Objective contentious matters in Romania and their unexplainable vulnerabilities |
| title_fullStr | Objective contentious matters in Romania and their unexplainable vulnerabilities |
| title_full_unstemmed | Objective contentious matters in Romania and their unexplainable vulnerabilities |
| title_short | Objective contentious matters in Romania and their unexplainable vulnerabilities |
| title_sort | objective contentious matters in romania and their unexplainable vulnerabilities |
| topic | objective contentious matter the Ombudsman the Prefect withdrawal of the case |
| url | http://www.tribunajuridica.eu/arhiva/An8v2/3.%20Ovidiu%20Podaru%20Lucrarea%201%20EN.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ovidiupodaru objectivecontentiousmattersinromaniaandtheirunexplainablevulnerabilities |