REFLECŢII ASUPRA NATURII JURIDICE A TERMENULUI DE 30 DE ZILE PREVĂZUT DE LEGE, TERMEN ÎN CARE SE POATE ANGAJA RĂSPUNDEREA CIVILĂ A FUNCŢIONARILOR PUBLICI PRIN EMITEREA UNUI ACT ADMINISTRATIV DE IMPUTARE DE CĂTRE CONDUCĂTORUL AUTORITĂŢII
REFLECTIONS UPON THE LEGAL NATURE OF THE 30-DAY LIMITATION PERIOD AS STIPULATE BY THE LAW IN WHICH THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF CIVIL SERVANTS CAN BE ENGAGED BY ISSUING AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACT OF IMPUTATION BY THE HEAD OF THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY

Summary/Abstract: The legal liability is one of the main issue regarding the responsability in administrative law. Therefore, the legal liability is able to exercise influence upon our society to some extent only by identifying the person responsible for ignoring the social values protected by law, in order to establish his/ her liability. Let us stress upon the fact that the effectiveness of legal liability may determine, more or less, the establishment, re-establishment and even the continued existence of the rule of law. The society is more likely to take into consideration the legal liability, reffering to the social and political background of these days, as well, if the liability is being applied to the civil servant or to an agent of public power, meaning a person who exercises a public function. Therefore, the art. 499 of the Administrative Code, stipulates that the civil liability of the civil servants is engaged in three situations: a) in case of material damages brought by the civil servant to the patrimony which belongs to the public authority where he/ she exercises his work; b) in case of non-repudiation within the legal term, of the amounts that were unduly granted; c) in case of damages paid by the public authority or institution as a principal to a third party under a final court judgment. The art. 500 of the above-mentioned Law stipulates some procedural issues and principles on civil and moral liability for civil servants, moreover a „a specific mode, greatly simplified, of recovering a patrimonial damage, due to the service report between the head of the institution or public authority and the social servant subjected to the rigors of a special, legal status which differentiate him by the contract staff in the local public administration”. The procedure consists in the legal right owned by the head of public authority or institution to issue the imputation order for patrimonial damages produced by the public servant to the patrimony of the public authority with which he/ she is in the service report or in the case of non-repudiation of the amounts that were unduly granted within 30 days on which the injury is ascertained. Taking into consideration that in the actual opinion of doctrine and jurisprudence, issuing the imputation order represents the only method that can engage the civil liability regulated by the art. 499 of the Administrative Code regarding the status of the civil servants, with the subsequent modifications and completions, establishing the correct legal nature of this term is by far the most important procedure in order to know, unquestionably, the legal regime which governs it. Is it so that within thirty-day period such as that laid down in the art. 500, paragraph 1 of the Administrative Code, regarding the status of civil servants, is a limitation period or prescriptive periods? Is it liable to suspension and interruption? Starting from these questions, taking advantage of the legislator s incoherence and bearing in mind that the explanations held by the legal doctrine regarding the framing of the above-mentioned term, in one of the two categories, are missing completely, we undertake, with no easy task, to try on bringing solid arguments in order to establish the legal nature of the thirty- day limitation period as stipulated by the art. 500 paragraph 1, of the Administrative Code, with subsequent modifications and completions, concerning the status of the civil servants.

• Details
• Contents