In the judicial doctrine and practice, the differences of opinion and the plurality of the proposed solutions are not only an inherent effect of a current, complex and moldable legal reality, but also a desideratum of identifying the correct way of interpreting the legal norms in force and of resolving the legal disputes brought to justice. One of the legal institutions specific to administrative law among the most disputed over the last three decades is the one aimed at legally empowering the courts of law to verify the way in which the public administration authorities exercise their discretionary power to assess the opportunity to issue/adopt administrative documents, as well as the identification of the
limits and, possibly, of the exceptions that can be retained from the rule of judicial control over the activity of the public institutions.
The analysis of the legal topic in question will consider the approach of some didactic, linguistic, grammatical and of legal analysis methods, integrated and synergistic, having as sole
finality the clarification of the meaning and of the limits, objective and subjective, of the right of appreciation and of the discretionary power which the public institutions benefit from. Therefore, it is required, in the beginning, to reveal the polyvalent meaning, attributed in the ordinary language to the notion „opportunity”, semantics that will be the basis for identifying the legal guarantees inherent to the process of exercising by the public administration authorities of the right to assess the time and appropriate means of issuance/adoption of the administrative acts.
In the present study, without pretending to exhaust the issues presented above and to put an end to the long differences of opinion that it has caused, we intend to identify the various opinions expressed in the specialized literature, to provide a systematic interpretation of the various solutions adopted by the courts of law and, finally, to propose a viable and pertinent solution to the legal issue under discussion, offering logical-legal arguments and of teleological interpretation of the various competing legal norms, incidental in this legal matter. We intend to offer, through the conclusions of this study, a valuable and applied tool to practitioners in the field of administrative law, in identifying possible answers to complex and elaborate questions, involved by the activity of resolving the legal disputes brought to court with such an object.
In the judicial doctrine and practice, the differences of opinion and the plurality of the proposed solutions are not only an inherent effect of a current, complex and moldable legal reality, but also a desideratum of identifying the correct way of interpreting the legal norms in force and of resolving the legal disputes brought to justice. One of the legal institutions specific to administrative law among the most disputed over the last three decades is the one aimed at legally empowering the courts of law to verify the way in which the public administration authorities exercise their discretionary power to assess the opportunity to issue/adopt administrative documents, as well as the identification of the limits and, possibly, of the exceptions that can be retained from the rule of judicial control over the activity of the public institutions. The analysis of the legal topic in question will consider the approach of some didactic, linguistic, grammatical and of legal analysis methods, integrated and synergistic, having as sole finality the clarification of the meaning and of the limits, objective and subjective, of the right of appreciation and of the discretionary power which the public institutions benefit from. Therefore, it is required, in the beginning, to reveal the polyvalent meaning, attributed in the ordinary language to the notion „opportunity”, semantics that will be the basis for identifying the legal guarantees inherent to the process of exercising by the public administration authorities of the right to assess the time and appropriate means of issuance/adoption of the administrative acts. In the present study, without pretending to exhaust the issues presented above and to put an end to the long differences of opinion that it has caused, we intend to identify the various opinions expressed in the specialized literature, to provide a systematic interpretation of the various solutions adopted by the courts of law and, finally, to propose a viable and pertinent solution to the legal issue under discussion, offering logical-legal arguments and of teleological interpretation of the various competing legal norms, incidental in this legal matter. We intend to offer, through the conclusions of this study, a valuable and applied tool to practitioners in the field of administrative law, in identifying possible answers to complex and elaborate questions, involved by the activity of resolving the legal disputes brought to court with such an object.
In this study, by an inductive method, we will try to address the problem, the solution and the arguments that could be found in certain situations where there is a disagreement between the category of use of a land classified as forest and its actual legal situation, disagreement which unreasonably generates limitations of the right to build on the land in question. In case a land has mentioned in the title of property the category of use „Forest” (Pd), but this land does not actually meet the legal conditions provided by Articles 1, 2, 19 (1) and Article 20 (2) of the Law No 46/2008 on the Forest Code in order to be considered forest, in order to be part of the national forest fund and in order to be mandatorily subject to the regime of a forest arrangement, then this land must be considered only a land with forest vegetation outside the national forest fund or a simple land not subject in any way to the provisions of the Law No 46/2008 on the Forest Code, for which it is possible to request the change of the category of use according to Article 24 (1) and (2) of the Law No 46/2008 on the Forest Code.
This study examines the problem of running of the period of extinctive prescription of the right to claim damages before the civil court, subsequently to the situation in which the prosecutor has issued an ordinance to dismiss, under the Criminal Procedure Code.