Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Alternative Dispute Resolution in European Administrative Law pp 421–459Cite as

The Dynamic of Administrative Appeals and Other ADR Tools in Romania

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1295 Accesses

Abstract

The importance of alternative means of solving administrative disputes has been stressed repeatedly due to their role in reducing the caseload of the courts while still securing a fair access to justice. While the importance of administrative appeals is widely stressed in theoretical studies, there are very few studies that try to discuss this issue based on empirical evidence. The chapter strived to offer both a comprehensive theoretical perspective on the issue of administrative appeals in Romania, as well as to empirically investigate if they are effective—effectiveness was defined rather simply, referring to the percentage of cases that do not get in court due to the existence of the administrative appeal. The conclusion is that effectiveness is relevant and should not be ignored. In cases when public bodies with control duties exercise the appeal, the rate of success is very good. Other ADR tools have also been investigated, including mediation, but in this case the authors have some doubts regarding how and whether it will be effectively implemented (not a lot of empirical evidence available to draw conclusions from).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See generally Iorgovan (2002), Vedinaş (1999), Drăganu (1992), Petrescu (2001), Iovănaş (1997), and in a nutshell, Dragoş et al. (2011a), pp. 189–236.

  2. 2.

    The first law on the review of administrative acts was adopted before the Constitution and had been seen at that time as a priority.

  3. 3.

    Dragoş et al. (2011a), pp. 189–236.

  4. 4.

    Rarincescu (1936), p. 36; Petrescu (2001), p. 331; Prisăcaru (1998); Laferriere (1887–1888); Debbasch and Ricci (1999), p. 428; Peiser (2000), p. 238; Chapus (2008), p. 329; and Auby and Auby (1996), p. 314.

  5. 5.

    Dragoş (2001).

  6. 6.

    Iorgovan (2002), p. 505.

  7. 7.

    Dragoş (2005), p. 95.

  8. 8.

    Art. 7 of Law no. 554/2004 on judicial review published in the Official Monitor of Romania no. 1154 from 07/12/2004.

  9. 9.

    Law no. 554/2004 (footnote 8).

  10. 10.

    Law no. 188/1999 on civil service republished in the Official Monitor of Romania no. 365 from 29.05.2007.

  11. 11.

    Law no. 35/1997 on the functioning of the Ombudsman institution republished in the Official Monitor of Romania no. 844 from 15.09.2004.

  12. 12.

    Iorgovan (2002), p. 314.

  13. 13.

    Dragoş (2005), p. 90.

  14. 14.

    Art. 103 of the Code for Civil Procedure.

  15. 15.

    Supreme Court of Justice, Administrative Law Section, Decision no. 3441/2002.

  16. 16.

    Supreme Court of Justice, Administrative Law Section, Decision no. 2689/2002.

  17. 17.

    Bucharest Appellate Court, Commercial, Administrative and Fiscal Law Section, Decision no. 1401/2006.

  18. 18.

    Supreme Court of Justice, Administrative Law Section, Decision no. 1434/2000.

  19. 19.

    Art. 2 of the Governmental Ordinance no. 27/2003 on the procedure for solving petitions; Bucharest Appellate Court, Commercial, Administrative and Fiscal Law Section, Decision no. 307/2006.

  20. 20.

    Art. 7 of the Law no. 554/2004.

  21. 21.

    Interpreted in view of articles 8–9 of the Governmental Ordinance no. 27/2002 on the procedure for answering to petitions.

  22. 22.

    High Court of Cassation and Justice, Administrative and Fiscal Law Section, Decision no. 146/2007.

  23. 23.

    Bucharest Appellate Court, Decision no. 1445/2006.

  24. 24.

    Constitutional Court, Decision no. 797/2007.

  25. 25.

    Costin et al. (1980), p. 86; Pasăre (2006), p. 29; and Popescu (2005), pp. 130.

  26. 26.

    Dragoş (2009), p. 42.

  27. 27.

    Highest Court of Cassation and Justice, Administrative Law Section, Decision no. 3070/2006; Rîciu (2008), p. 127.

  28. 28.

    Governmental Ordinance no. 92/2003.

  29. 29.

    Dragoş (2005) and Dragos and Neamtu (2013).

  30. 30.

    Dragoș et al. (2012), pp. 134–157.

  31. 31.

    Lens (2007), pp. 382–408.

  32. 32.

    Tudorel et al. (2006), pp. 58–59; Ioniţă (2007), pp. 164–168; Dragoș and Neamțu (2007), pp. 632–636; and Trauner (2009), p. 6.

  33. 33.

    Piotrowski and Van Ryzin (2007), pp. 309–310.

  34. 34.

    Iorgovan (2002), p. 256.

  35. 35.

    Cobârzan et al. (2008), p. 61.

  36. 36.

    Vedinaş (1999), p. 124; Popescu (2005), p. 70.

  37. 37.

    Supreme Court of Justice, Administrative and Fiscal Law Section, Decision no. 3094/2000.

  38. 38.

    Cluj Appellate Court, Commercial, Administrative and Fiscal Law Section, Decision no. 3012/2008.

  39. 39.

    Dragoş (2005), p. 38.

  40. 40.

    Supreme Court of Justice, Administrative and Fiscal Law Section, Decision no. 416/1995; Supreme Court of Justice, Administrative and Fiscal Law Section, Decision no. 134/1991; Piteşti Appellate Court, Administrative and Fiscal Law Section, Decision no.79/1998.

  41. 41.

    Bucharest Appellate Court, Decision no. 1445/2006.

  42. 42.

    Supreme Court of Justice, Administrative and Fiscal Law Section, Decision no. 1934/1999.

  43. 43.

    Dragoş (2005), p. 95.

  44. 44.

    Autexier (1997), p. 303; Auby and Fromont (1971), p. 44.

  45. 45.

    Decision Le Compte and others v. Belgium (1) from June 23, 1981, par. 51; Decision Ötzurk v. Germany from February 21, 1984, par. 58; Decision Lutz v. Germany from June 25, 1987, par. 57.

  46. 46.

    Deleanu (2003), p. 15; Chiriță (2007), p. 312.

  47. 47.

    Chiriță (2007), p. 312.

  48. 48.

    Decision no. 441/2005.

  49. 49.

    Decision in plenary session no. 1/1994.

  50. 50.

    Cane (2009), p. 5.

  51. 51.

    Şerban (2008).

  52. 52.

    Serban (2012), p. 309.

  53. 53.

    Clipa (2012), p. 186.

  54. 54.

    Law no. 192/2006.

  55. 55.

    Păncescu (2010).

  56. 56.

    Ignat et al. (2009), p. 25.

  57. 57.

    Costin and Costin (2006), p. 110.

  58. 58.

    www.meedierea.ro; www.cmediere.ro.

  59. 59.

    Deleanu (2006), p. 276.

  60. 60.

    Piteşti Appellate Court, Decision no. 528/R /16.05.2008.

  61. 61.

    Governmental Ordinance no. 137/2000.

  62. 62.

    Balica (2011), pp. 334–358.

  63. 63.

    See Kucsko-Stadlmayer (2008) and Reif (2004).

  64. 64.

    Rădulescu (2009).

  65. 65.

    Drăganu (1998), Muraru (2004), and Vlad (1998).

  66. 66.

    Brânzan and Oosting (1997), p. 5.

  67. 67.

    Săbăreanu (2001), p. 20.

  68. 68.

    Brânzan and Oosting (1997), p. 5.

  69. 69.

    Vlad (1998), p. 164.

  70. 70.

    Nodia (1996), p. 26.

  71. 71.

    Balcerowicz (1994), pp. 75–89.

  72. 72.

    Deleanu (2006), p. 276.

  73. 73.

    Hossu and Carp (2011), p. 96.

  74. 74.

    Hossu and Carp (2011), p. 96.

  75. 75.

    Deleanu (2006), p. 547.

  76. 76.

    Dragoş et al. (2011b), pp. 384–399.

  77. 77.

    Gregory and Giddings (2000), p. 406.

References

  • Auby JM, Auby JB (1996) Institutions administratives, 7eth edn. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Auby JM, Fromont M (1971) Les recours contre les actes administratifs dans les pays de la Communauté Économique Européenne. Jurisprudence générale Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Autexier C (1997) Introduction au droit public allemand. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, p 303

    Google Scholar 

  • Balcerowicz L (1994) Understanding postcommunist transitions. J Democracy 5(4):75–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balica D (2011) The institution of the Romanian Ombudsman in a comparative perspective. In: Dragos D, Neamtu B, Hamlin R (eds) Law in action: case studies in good governance. Proaction Institute Inc, East Lansing, pp 334–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Brânzan C, Oosting M (1997) Rolul Ombudsmanului într-o societate democratică. Revista Dreptul 5:3–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Cane P (2009) Administrative tribunals and adjudication. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapus R (2008) Droit du contentieux administratif, 13e édn. Montchrestien, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiriță R (2007) Convetia Europeana a Drepturilor Omului comentata si adnotata. C.H. Beck, București

    Google Scholar 

  • Clipa C (2012) Organe si proceduri administrative jurisdictionale. Hamangiu, București

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobârzan B, Dragoş DC, Neamţu B (2008) Transparenţa administrativă în România. Accent, Cluj-Napoca

    Google Scholar 

  • Costin MN, Costin CM (2006) Compatibilitatea contractului de tranzacţie cu litigiile de contencios administrativ. Revista de drept comercial 12:110–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Costin M, Mureşan M, Ursa V (1980) Dicţionar de drept civil. Ed. Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, Bucureşti

    Google Scholar 

  • Debbasch C, Ricci JC (1999) Contentieux administratif, 7eth edn. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleanu I (2003) Revizuirea Constitutiei. Dreptul 10

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleanu I (2006) Instituţii şi proceduri constituţionale: în dreptul român şi în dreptul comparat. C.H. Beck, Bucureşti

    Google Scholar 

  • Drăganu T (1992) Introducere în teoria şi practica statului de drept. Dacia, Cluj-Napoca

    Google Scholar 

  • Drăganu T (1998) Drept constituţional şi instituţii politice, Tratat elementar. Lumina Lex, Bucureşti

    Google Scholar 

  • Dragoş DC (2001) Recursul administrativ şi contenciosul administrativ. All Beck, Bucureşti

    Google Scholar 

  • Dragoş DC (2005) Drept administrativ: actele şi contractele administrative, funcţia publică, contenciosul administrative, a 2- a edth edn. Accent, Cluj-Napoca

    Google Scholar 

  • Dragoş DC (2009) Legea contenciosului administrative, comentarii si explicatii, 2nd edn. C.H. Beck, Bucureşti

    Google Scholar 

  • Dragoș D, Neamțu B (2007) Reforming local public administration in Romania: trends and obstacles. Int Rev Adm Sci 73(74):629–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dragos DC, Neamtu B (2013) Effectiveness of administrative appeals – empirical evidence from Romanian local administration. Lex Localis J Local Self Gov 1/1

    Google Scholar 

  • Dragoș DC, Neamțu B, Velișcu R (2011a) Romanian administrative law between tradition and dialogue. In: Caranta R, Gerbrandy A (eds) Traditions and change in European administrative law. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 189–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Dragoș DC, Neamțu B, Balica D (2011b) Ombudsman and the courts: living in different worlds. In: Dragoș D, Neamțu B, Hamlin R (eds) Law in action: case studies in good governance, Institute for Public Policy and Social Research, East Lansing, pp 384–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Dragoș D, Neamțu B, Cobârzan B (2012) Procedural transparency in rural Romania: linking implementation with administrative capacity? Int Rev Adm Sci 78(1):134–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory R, Giddings PJ (2000) Righting wrongs: the Ombudsman in six continents. IOS Press, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Hossu L, Carp R (2011) Critical assessment of the role of the Romanian Ombudsman in promoting freedom of information. Transylvanian Rev Adm Sci 33/E:90–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Ignat C, Sustac Z, Danilet C (2009) Ghid de mediere. Editura Universitară, Bucuresti

    Google Scholar 

  • Ioniţă S (2007) Unfinished modernization: public administration reform in post-communist Romania. In: Killian J, Eklund N (eds) Handbook of administrative reform: an international perspective. Taylor & Francis, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Iorgovan A (2002) Tratat de drept administrativ, vol II. All Beck, Bucureşti

    Google Scholar 

  • Iovănaş I (1997) Drept administrativ, vol II. Servo Sat, Arad

    Google Scholar 

  • Kucsko-Stadlmayer G (ed) (2008) European Ombudsman-Institutions. A comparative legal analysis regarding the multifaceted realization of an idea. Springer, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Laferriere E (1887–1888) Traite de la juridiction administrative et des recours contentieux, vol 1 & 2. Berger-Levrault et Cie, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Lens V (2007) Administrative justice in public welfare bureaucracies. When citizens (don’t) complain. Adm Soc 39(3):382–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muraru I (2004) Avocatul poporului – instituţie de tip Ombudsman. All Beck, Bucureşti

    Google Scholar 

  • NAFA activity reports. www.anaf.ro

  • National Council for Solving Legal Disputes, Statistics. http://www.cnsc.ro/index.php/en/reportsstatistics

  • Nodia G (1996) How different are postcommunist transitions? J Democracy 7(4):15–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Păncescu FG (2010) Legea medierii. Comentarii şi explicaţii, editţia a 2-a. C.H. Beck, Bucureşti

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasăre ID (2006) Executarea din oficiu a actelor administrative. Repere doctrinare şi jurisprudenţiale franceze şi comunitare în materie. Scurte consideraţii referitoare la sistemul juridic românesc. Revista de drept public 1:29–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Peiser G (2000) Droit administratif général, 20eth edn. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrescu RN (2001) Drept administrativ. Cordial Lex, Cluj-Napoca

    Google Scholar 

  • Piotrowski SJ, Van Ryzin GG (2007) Citizen attitudes toward transparency in local government. Am Rev Pub Adm 37(3):306–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popescu CL (2005) Nevaliditatea Decretului Preşedintelui României nr. 1164 din 15 decembrie 2004 privind acordarea unor graţieri individuale şi a Decretului Preşedintelui României nr. 1173 din 17 decembrie 2004 privind revocarea graţierii individuale a unor persoane. Curierul judiciar 1:130–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Prisăcaru VI (1998) Contenciosul administrativ Român. All Beck, Bucureşti

    Google Scholar 

  • Rădulescu G (2009) Ioan Muraru: Românii îi simt pe demagogi. Newspaper Adevărul. http://www.adevarul.ro/Romanii-Ioan-demagogi-simt-ii_0_55794421.html. Accessed 26 Mar 2013

  • Rarincescu CG (1936) Contenciosul administrativ Român. “Universala” Alcalay & Co., Bucureşti

    Google Scholar 

  • Reif L (2004) The Ombudsman, good governance, and the international human rights system. Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Rîciu I (2008) Examen teoretic al practicii judiciare cu privire la acţiunile introduse la instanţa de contencios administrativ de către autoritatea publică ce a emis actul administrativ nelegal. Revista de drept public 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Săbăreanu R (2001) Avocatul Poporului. Revista Romană de Drepturile Omului 19:20–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Şerban DD (2008) Calitatea procesuală a Consiliului Naţional de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor [The Standing in Court of the NCSLD]. Dreptul [Law Rev] 9

    Google Scholar 

  • Serban D-D (2012) Achizitii publice. Teoria și practica jurisdicției administrative. Hamangiu, București

    Google Scholar 

  • Trauner F (2009) Post-accession compliance with EU law in Bulgaria and Romania: a comparative perspective. In: Schimmelfennig F, Trauner F (eds) Post-accession compliance in the EU’s new member states. European integration online papers 13(2). http://www.eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2009-SpecIssue-2_Introduction.pdf

  • Tudorel A, Profiroiu M, Turturean M (2006) Local public administration reform. the Romanian case. Theor Appl Econ 2(2):55–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedinaş V (1999) Introducere în studiul dreptului administrativ, vol I. Era, Bucureşti

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlad M (1998) Ombudsman-ul în dreptul comparat. Servo Sat, Arad

    Google Scholar 

National Legislation

  • Law no. 29/1990 on the judicial review of administrative acts, published in the Official Monitor no. 122/8. 11. 1990

    Google Scholar 

  • Law no. 544/2004 on the judicial review of administrative acts (general law), published in the Official Monitor of Romania no. 1154 from 07/12/2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Law no. 192/2006 on mediation, published in the Official Monitor no. 441 from 22.05.2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Law no. 188/1999 on civil service republished in the Official Monitor of Romania no. 365 from 29.05.2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Law no. 35/1997 on the functioning of the Ombudsman institution republished in the Official Monitor of Romania no. 844 from 15.09.2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Governmental Ordinance no. 137/2000 on discrimination, republished in the Official Monitor no. 99 from 8.02.2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Governmental Ordinance no. 92/2003 on the Code of Fiscal Procedure, republished in the Official Monitor of Romania no. 513 from 31.07.2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Governmental Ordinance no. 27/2003 on the procedure for solving petitions

    Google Scholar 

  • Governmental Ordinance no. 92/2003 on the Code of Fiscal Procedure, published in the Official Monitor of Romania no. 24/12/2003

    Google Scholar 

International Case Law

  • ECHR (European Court of Human Rights), Decision Le Compte and others v. Belgium (1) from June 23, 1981, par. 51

    Google Scholar 

  • ECHR (European Court of Human Rights), Decision Ötzurk v. Germany from February 21, 1984, par. 58; ECHR (European Court of Human Rights), Decision Lutz v. Germany from June 25, 1987, par. 57

    Google Scholar 

National Case Law

  • Constitutional Court, Decision in plenary session no.1/1994

    Google Scholar 

  • Constitutional Court, Decision no. 441/2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Constitutional Court, Decision no. 797/2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Supreme Court of Justice, Administrative and Fiscal Law Section, Decision no. 134/1991

    Google Scholar 

  • Supreme Court of Justice, Administrative and Fiscal Law Section, Decision no. 416/1995

    Google Scholar 

  • Supreme Court of Justice, Administrative and Fiscal Law Section, Decision no. 1934/1999

    Google Scholar 

  • Supreme Court of Justice, Administrative Law Section, Decision no. 1434/2000

    Google Scholar 

  • Supreme Court of Justice, Administrative and Fiscal Law Section, Decision no. 3094/2000

    Google Scholar 

  • Supreme Court of Justice, Administrative Law Section, Decision no. 3441/2002

    Google Scholar 

  • Supreme Court of Justice, Administrative Law Section, Decision no. 2689/2002

    Google Scholar 

  • High Court of Cassation and Justice, Administrative and Fiscal Law Section, Decision no. 146/2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucharest Appellate Court, Commercial, Administrative and Fiscal Law Section, Decision no. 1401/2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucharest Appellate Court, Commercial, Administrative and Fiscal Law Section, Decision no. 1445/2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Cluj Appellate Court, Commercial, Administrative and Fiscal Law Section, Decision no. 3012/2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Piteşti Appellate Court, Administrative and Fiscal Law Section, Decision no.79/1998

    Google Scholar 

  • Piteşti Appellate Court, Decision no. 528/R/16.05.2008

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Public Administration Department, Center for Good Governance Studies, Babes Bolyai University, 71 T. Mosoiu str, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    Dacian C. Dragos, Bogdana Neamtu & Raluca Suciu

Authors
  1. Dacian C. Dragos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bogdana Neamtu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raluca Suciu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dacian C. Dragos .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Good Governance Studies, Babes Bolyai University, Cluj Napoca, Romania

    Dacian C. Dragos

  2. Center for Good Governance Studies, Babes Bolyai University, Cluj Napoca, Romania

    Bogdana Neamtu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dragos, D.C., Neamtu, B., Suciu, R. (2014). The Dynamic of Administrative Appeals and Other ADR Tools in Romania. In: Dragos, D., Neamtu, B. (eds) Alternative Dispute Resolution in European Administrative Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34946-1_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation