Jurisprudence Aspects about Representation in Public Utility Contracts for Territorial Administrative Units
Jurisprudence Aspects about Representation in Public Utility Contracts for Territorial Administrative Units

Author(s): Sandra Grădinaru
Subject(s): Public Administration, Administrative Law
Published by: Societatea de Stiinte Juridice si Administrative
Keywords: power of representation; public service provision contract; debts; foreclosure;
Summary/Abstract: The issue analyzed in this paper refers to the mandate given by the territorial administrative unit of Iași to a company with state capital. This mandated company has as object of activity the administration of condominiums. The mandate was conferred by a Local Council Decision by which the administrator (agent) could sign contracts with public service providers on behalf of the administrative-territorial unit. Beyond the fact that the limits of the mandate were expressed by Local Council Decision, and the specialized literature and judicial practice is majority in appreciating that this Local Council Decision can be equivalent to a mandate given by the territorial administrative unit for the condominium administrator to conclude contracts with suppliers, we aim to analyze a distinct judicial practice. By Sentence no. 6882/17.08.2020, the Iași District Court decided that the mandate given to the condominium administrator is not an express one, and in the Local Council Decision it is mentioned that the administrator will conclude the contracts with the suppliers in his own name. For this reason, the court considered the mandate given to the administrator to be ineffective. During the paper, we will demonstrate the judicial error of the court because the phrase "in its own name" found in the Local Council Decision can only be assessed in the sense that the administrator will represent the territorial administrative unit when concluding contracts for public utilities. The court's interpretation is incorrect, as it claims that the territorial administrative unit mandated a company with state capital to conclude contracts with suppliers in its own name. Clearly, the mandate was given to the administrator to conclude public utility contracts on behalf of the territorial administrative unit.

• Details
• Contents