Search

Local elected officials are essential actors in public administration, but the office of public dignity comes with several duties and responsibilities that must be placed at the top of the decision-makers agenda in order to provide the community with good administration. Knowing them requires understanding the entire public administration system at the local level, the principles that govern it, the relations with other public authorities and citizens, as well as the powers exercised. The legal norms provide that mayors and local councilors function as authorities of the local public administration and resolve public affairs in communes, cities, and municipalities, while the County Council is constituted at the county level, having the role of coordinating the activity of the administrative-territorial unit within the county area. The legislation in the field provides unsatisfactory requirements for a candidate to obtain the status of local elected official and general regulations regarding the conditions for exercising the acquired mandates. The local elected official must be aware of the importance of the position held, and the following must emerge from the mandate: responsibility, efficient and effective representation, forward-looking social vision, and prioritization of the common good. Any elective community wants representatives at the level of public authority, connoisseurs and activists of collective needs, who faithfully serve the public interest at the expense of their own interest. However, it is well known that in exercising their powers, public authorities usually have a certain freedom of decision, a possibility of appreciation or, in other words, what is called discretionary power. Precisely for this reason, the numerical limitation of the mandates of local elected officials can lead to a strengthening of local administrative institutions, increasing their credibility and, above all, their efficiency. By limiting mandates, the aim is also to depoliticize the institutions subordinated to town halls and county councils. But as every cause has a resulting effect, and the effect in turn becomes the cause of another effect, so there is an essential relation between responsibility and liability. Thus, depending on the committed deed, the local elected officials are liable, as the case may be, administratively, civilly, or criminally, according to the law. These actors who hold key positions in local public administration and provide public services at the level of administrative-territorial units must know very well the commitment taken when taking the oath that gives legitimacy to the mandate and not be blinded by the prerogatives of public power. related to the function of public dignity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to clarify the relations between Tudor Vladimirescu and the Assembly of the People on the one hand and Alexander Ypsilantis and Philiki Etaireia on the other hand. Analysing the majority of the edited documents and the discussion between Vladimirescu and Ypsilantis, we conclude that the first did not pledge oath of allegiance to Philiki Etaireia. He did not correspond with Ypsilantis and did not subordinate to the Greek leader. From this analysis it can be concluded that the objectives and the actions of the two commanders were different. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Romanian Case Law Review / Revista Română de Jurisprudenţă is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The present article aims to disseminate the written texts of the first oaths taken in Romanian in the Transylvania. The sworn declarations required by officials over the Middle Ages and the pre-modern period are analysed from a historical perspective. Emphasis is placed on oaths taken by interviewed persons and witnesses. Also, starting from the idea that the oaths were sworn into the spoken language and with similar contents in the three languages of the province, two cases of oaths taken in German, Hungarian and Romanian are now presented to the wider public, all preserved in Sibiu’s town archives. The texts differ according to the religion of the witness. Other written oaths form the Chioar area and from the Transylvanian plain are published now, concluding that a standard form was used stereotypically for the spoken languages. The Romanian language, in which these oaths were written, has been strongly influenced by Hungarian and German, with archaisms and regionalisms. These particularities suggest a certain inhomogeneity and difficulty in putting the spoken words in writing by the scribe. An attempt was also made to establish the name of the author(s) of these documents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From the study of the national legislation, a possible theoretical but also practical situation of legislative gap was identified, regarding the head of state. The current Constitution does not detail what happens or how to proceed in case of non-taking the oath by the newly elected President, this being the factual situation found as a result of reading the Basic Law. The question that serves as a pretext in the documentation and analysis of the present study is: "What happens if, at the final moment of the procedure by which a person reaches the position of President of the country, that of the investiture, according to Article 82 of the revised Constitution, the official moment no longer takes place, for any reason, objective or subjective?" Going through and interpreting the constitutional provisions as well as other normative acts may provide a possible theoretical answer, but the jurisprudence is non-existent at this moment. The conclusions we reached after the documentation are found at the end of the study, on which occasion the lines of future research on the subject of the oath will be drawn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The oath, as the last solemn formality in order to exercise a public office or dignity, is always taken by the person who, previously, went through a certain specific procedure, in order to fulfil that position. Therefore, the oath shall be taken in person, in an official setting, in public and only by a natural person, before the exercise of the function or mandate begins. The present study proposes a comparative legal analysis of this subject in order to capture the way in which the oath is reflected in the Constitutions of several states within the executive power, regardless of the form of government. Thus, regardless of the title under which the head of state, President or Monarch is mentioned in the Constitution, the analysis will capture the perspective of the legislator from different geographical areas, with different values and traditions, on the oath of the person holding the most important public dignity in the state. The conclusions we reached as a result of studying the proposed bibliography are at the end of the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reopens the discussion on Andrei Popovici, the village priest in Udesti, who was the focus of one of our previous studies on Bukovina, published in Meridian Critic (Diaconu 2018). This rereading is based on the discovery of a text written by V. Simiganovschi, himself a priest in Udesti between 1908-1936, in which he wanted to reveal what he called "the mythology" created around this emblematic figure. However, a close analysis of the facts and contexts calls into question V. Simiganovschi's hypothesis and allows for new interpretations of priest Andrei Popovici s decision to not make a formal oath of allegiance to the Austrians in 1777. Moreover, the whole anecdotal evidence also highlights certain particularities of the Bukovinian spirit, which no longer fits common stereotypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The evdence of witnesses in commercial arbitration procedure is not accompanied by Romanian swearing-in. The reasons that could have determined such a regulation may be different: from the absence of formalism to the character of confessing a solemn oath that occurs only in front of the public authorities. However, in practice the use of oath could be allowed giving parties at least the possibility to establish rules of arbitration to be settled after the potential dispute. Regarding the problem of administering oath before an authority, we should remember that the decision of the arbitrator shall have the full effects of a court decision even if it is not pronounced by a court. Therefore, mutatis mutandis, the administration of the oath of witnesses in the arbitration procedure is possible. Furthermore, the American experience, as well as the Romanian courts after entering the religious oath may constitute a mark through the gauntlet that oath makes to each individual's consciousness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]