The Government and the Permanent Electoral Authority, prosecuted because they did not organize elections for the Capital City Hall
The government and permanent electoral authority were sued because they did not organize, within the legal term of 90 days, elections for the position of general mayor, remaining vacant after Nicuşor Dan was elected president.
According to News.ro, the plaintiffs are Alexandru Pânişoara, Florin Alexandru Dumitrescu, Dan Podaru and the Association of Urbanism Law. They ask the court, in the action filed at the Bucharest Court of Appeal, to oblige the Government to issue the decision regarding the organization of the elections for the position of general mayor of Bucharest.
Alexandru Pânişoara is the president of the Association Law of Urbanism, which initiated numerous actions in court against Nicuşor Dan and his administration during the period when he was a general mayor. In 2024, Pânişoara applied for the City Hall of the Ecological Party. Dan Podaru was a PNL member and local PNL counselor in Sector 1, but in January 2024 he also resigned from office and party, formulating accusations that censored and non-combined politically, meant to favor Clotilde Armand. Next to Pânişoara, he opened the list per parliamentary in the capital. Florin Alexandru Dumitrescu was a general counselor PNL in the period 2016-2020.
What do they ask the court
In the request for a trial, the applicants request that “the illegality of the Passivity of the Government of Romania and of the Permanent Electoral Authority regarding the obligation stipulated by the law of organizing the local elections in the election of the general mayor in the municipality of Bucharest”.
Also, I ask that the permanent electoral authority to initiate the corresponding procedures provided by law and to formulate to the Government the proposal on the date of elections for the City Hall.
At the same time, it requests that the court oblige the Romanian Government to issue the decision regarding the organization of elections for the position of general mayor of Bucharest.
“Apply the comminatory fine provided by Art. 24 paragraph (2) of Law no. 554/2004 for each day of delay in fulfilling the positive obligations of the defendant public authorities”, is another request of the applicants.
The AEP and the Government would also be obliged to pay the costs, “considering, the unjustified refusal to organize the elections for the position of general mayor of Bucharest, vacant following the resignation of Mr. Nicuşor Dan, starting with May 26, 2025”.
The applicants' arguments
The applicants state that, with the issuance of the Order of the Prefect of Bucharest Municipality, which found the termination of the mayor general, the position became vacant.
“From that moment, the Government of Romania had the express obligation, derived from art. 160 paragraph (11) of the Administrative Code, to establish the date of partial elections within 90 days. Although the term is imperative, the Government chose silence, and the permanent electoral authority did not formulate the legal proposal to trigger the elections. in fact without democratic legitimacy, a state of anomie ”.
In their opinion, this administrative passivity is not only a violation of the law, but also a denial of the political will of the citizens. “It is an administrative silence that abusively suspends the exercise of one of the most sacred rights: to choose and to be chosen. The lack of a reaction from the central public authorities is equivalent to a blocking of the democratic process, directly affecting the order of law and the principle of popular sovereignty,” they say.
The applicants believe that the imperative obligation to organize elections within 90 days from the holiday of the position of mayor “is not an optional or opportunity, but a norm of public order, whose non -compliance generates the illegality of continuing the interim and the administrative acts issued after the term”.
Ilie Bolojan announces the condition under which elections can be organized, in 2025, for the City Hall
“More than just an administrative obligation, this legal debt represents a positive obligation of the state, enshrined in Article 3 of Protocol no. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, as interpreted in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights – Matthews c. The United Kingdom, Podkolzina c. Latvia and Tanase C. Free is not reduced to a formal guarantee, but implies a positive action of the authorities to ensure its effectiveness.
They add that the principle of legality and the strict character of the norms of public law, enshrined in the legal doctrine and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court requires a restrictive interpretation of the competences of the public authorities.
“Where the law distinguishes, it cannot be interpreted by analogy; and where the law imposes a term, the executive power cannot claim the freedom to ignore it. In the same sense, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, by decision no. 1731/2016, has ruled that the passivity of the administrative authorities in issuing the legal compulsory acts is an unjustified refusal,”
In this context, they declare that the refusal of the Government and the AEP to exercise their duties is a tacit refusal to apply the law, contrary to the principles of the rule of law and constitutional democracy.
“This action is not a mere legal formality, but an approach meant to restore the democratic order and respect for the law. In the Government's silence, the call of citizens to legality, transparency and civic dignity is heard. The exercise of the right to vote is not a privilege, but the foundation of a free society, Democracy, ”concludes the applicants in the request for a trial submitted to the Bucharest Court of Appeal.
