Despre prescripţie şi pseudo-prescripţie în contenciosul administrativ
About pseudo-prescription and prescription in administrative court

Summary/Abstract: Some provisions of the Contentious Administrative Law no. 554/2004 (art. 1 par. 6, art. 7, art. 9, art. 11, art. 19) set up certain terms (30 days, 6 months, one year) in which the person considering itself injured by a certain conduct of the Administration can act or, on the contrary, have to remain passive. Some of these were qualified through legal provisions: prescription terms or decadence terms. From the moment they were set up by the law (2004) until now, a new Civil Code (2011) and a new Civil Procedure Code (2013) have come into force. The first contains not only a new regulation regarding the limitation, but also a first regulation for a substantial decadence; the latter, on the other hand, has provisions regarding a procedural decadence. Therefore, in our study we would like to establish: whether the legislator has accurately qualified the terms in discussion, which is their real judicial nature and, ultimately, which legal regime is applicable, having in mind both the real judicial nature (which, as we shall see, can not be ignored) and the declared will of the legislator (which can not be ignored either). And, more than once, our conclusions will be surprising not only because our legislator was uninspired when “decreeing” the judicial nature of some of these terms, but also because the enforcement of the new codes raises the question: are these qualifications… turned obsolete?

• Details
• Contents