Contenciosul reorganizării autorităților și instituțiilor publice
Administrative litigation on the reorganisation of public authorities and public institutions

Summary/Abstract: This study aims to analyze the legal regime of the reorganization of public authorities and institutions, from the perspective, on the one hand, of the provisions of Article 518 of the Administrative Code, and on the other hand, of the administrative and jurisdictional practice.The legal provisions enshrined in this institution, regulated by both the old law and the current regulation, aimed to establish a procedure that, on the one hand, would ensure the proper functioning of the public administration body concerned by the reorganization, and on the other hand, prevent abuses that public authorities may be tempted to commit in the course of administrative operations and protect the career of civil servants.The practice has moved away from these demands and has turned reorganization into a procedure that is used to remove officials considered undesirable, to bring others supported by leadership, especially on the occasion of its periodic change, a solution that the doctrine has criticized over time, without much efficiency.To the distortion of the legal regime of reorganization, successive legislative changes have contributed, through which were promoted, imperative, staff cuts, abolition and merging of institutions, establishing mathematical percentages, ignoring the fact that the percentage is the last to be reached, after the reorganization procedure is carried out, according to the criteria and conditions provided by law.The irregularities registered over time have generated numerous litigations, which were settled by the courts, without creating a unitary vision of this institution. Including the Constitutional Court was involved in the resolution of cases that also concerned the legal regime of the reorganization. There were also situations where, starting from the same case, the solutions were different, diametrically opposed even, which, with all the independence of the judge, is difficult to accept.

• Details
• Contents