IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dcu/journl/v9y2015i2p134-144.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Some Reflections On The Reason Of Judicial Review Stipulated Under Art.21 Para 2 In The Contentious Administrative Law No. 554/2004

Author

Listed:
  • Liviu Ungur

Abstract

After Romania’s accession to the European Union, the Romanian lawmaker attempted to implement efficient tools to concretly transpose the Priority Principle for the Application of European Law, for instance, into the national law. In this context, under Law nb. 262/2007 for amending the Contentious Administrative Law nb. 554/2004 a new review reason was introduced, a reason that is added to the review reasons provided by the Code of Civil Procedure. Because this legal text had sort of an unlucky drafting, being often criticized for being unconstitutional, it ended by being directly and totally abrogated, and, later on, on the same basis, be declared from the very beginning as partially unconstitutional, and then re-entered into force, the text still producing legal effects, through the first and third thesis in the initial drafting. The lawmaker was suggested that, while re-examining the text, to take into account the arguments provided by Decision nb.1.609 September 9 2010, regarding some shortcomings in drafting this legal norm.In the present paper, we intend to evaluate these legal provisions and review the main aspects which generated and still generate conflicts in enforcing and interpreting it, underlining, where necessary, our own approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Liviu Ungur, 2015. "Some Reflections On The Reason Of Judicial Review Stipulated Under Art.21 Para 2 In The Contentious Administrative Law No. 554/2004," FIAT IUSTITIA, Dimitrie Cantemir Faculty of Law Cluj Napoca, Romania, vol. 9(2), pages 134-144, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:dcu:journl:v:9:y:2015:i:2:p:134-144
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://fiatiustitia.ro/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/226-Article-Text-432-1-10-20160108.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dcu:journl:v:9:y:2015:i:2:p:134-144. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dimitrie Cantemir Faculty of Law Cluj Napoca, Romania (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://fiatiustitia.ro .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.