9 Manta Pantelimon

8/10/2019 9 Manta Pantelimon

1/16


2/16

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2009

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2009

102

mai mult de a ntuneca chestiunea dect almuri". Este adevrat ca autorul apreciazcacest contract (de mandat) exist doar n ce

privete raportul dintre stat i funcionarii de

autoritate public, n timp ce n cazulcelorlalte funcii (denumite obinuite") statulare rolul unui patron din dreptul civil faa delucrtorii si, contractul ntre ei fiind unul denchiriere de servicii. Chiar Curtea de Casaiea mbuntit o anumitperioadun astfel de

punct de vedere motivnd: Funcionarii, nexerciiul atribuiilor ce le conferfunciunealor sunt considerai ca nite mandatari airegelui i prin urmare li se aplicprincipiilegenerale ale mandatului2. Pe bundreptate la

o astfel de teorie s-a renunat de mult,majoritatea autorilor apreciind c raportuldintre stat i funcionarul public este unul deStatut legal, decurgnd din dreptul autoritiide a-i numi funcionarii, iar competena nu

poate fi rezultatul unui acord de voine, cieste prestabilitde lege.

Potrivit art.37 din legea din 1923nimeni nu poate fi numit ntr-o funciune

public dect n baza unui examen decapacitate", examen ce se organiza dup ce

posturile erau aduse la cunotina celorinteresai.

Oferta privind posturile vacantescoase la concurs nu mai putea fi retrasdect pn la inerea examenelor, n bazacrora candidatul admis cpta drepturileacordate de legislaie. Aa, de exemplu,

potrivii acestui principiu reglementat prinStatutul din 1923, funcionarii nu puteau fisuspendai, pui n disponibilitate i nici chiarmutai prin naintare dect prin acordul lorsau n baza unei hotrri judectoreti.

De-a lungul timpului o problemspinoas a dreptului public, care suscitnumeroase discuii i n zilele noastre,

privete cumulul de funcii publice.nc din 1866, actul normativ

fundamental prevedea c se vor face n celmai scurt timp legi speciale asupra msurilorcelor mai nimerite pentru a stvili abuzulcumulului".

Dup dou decenii i jumtate, prin

the matter than of ascertain it ". It is true thatthe author appreciates that this contract (ofmandate) exists only regarding the rapport

between the state and public authority

servants, meanwhile regarding the otherfunctions (named common") the state has therole of a patron from civil law, in front of hisworkers, the contract between them being oneof services rental. Even the High Court ofCassation improved a certain period such a

point of view, motivating Servants, in theexercise of the responsibilities that are offered

by their function are considered as being someprocurators of the king, and as such, thegeneral rules of the mandate are applied to

them10. Trustfully, they renounced a long timeago at such theory, the majority of the authorsstating that the rapport between the state and

public servant is one of legal State, appearingfrom the right of the authority to appoint theservants, and the competence cannot be theresult of a volition will, but is pre-established

by the law.According to art.37 from law since

1923 nobody can be named in a publicfunction but on the basis of an ability exam",

exam that will be organised after jobs whereannounced to the ones interested.

The offer regarding free jobs, put incompetition could not be withdrawn but untilthe exams where held, based on which, theadmitted candidate obtained the rights granted

by the administration. So, for example,according to this principle settled through theStatute since 1923, servants could not besuspended, laid off and not even moved byreference to but through their agreement or

based on a judicial decision.Along time, a spiny problem of the

public law, which gave birth to numerousdiscussions nowadays, regards the pluralismof public functions.

Since 1866, the main normativedocument mentioned that in the shortest

period of time will be realized special lawsregarding the measures that are most adequateto stop the abuse of pluralism".

After two decades and a half, by the


3/16



103

legea asupra cumulului n funciuni publicedin 1 iulie 1890 (modificat n 4 iulie 1891)s-a dat viat principiului constituionalstatundu-se c "nimeni nu poate fi investit

dect cu o singura funciune retribuitde stat,jude, comun, sau stabilimente publice i decredit de sub controlul statului". Cum era ifiresc problema cumulului a fost analizat ireglementat n legtura direct cu cea aincompatibilitilor. Scopul acestor instituiieste acela de a nu se produce o imixtiune,intercondiionare, interdependen ntre

puterile statului, de a menine prestigiulfuncionarilor publici (care nu vor putea saib i calitatea de deintor al serviciului

public dar i de cea de comerciant) i nsfrit de a-l determina pe funcionarul publics nu i neglijeze funcia, atribuiile, etc. ndauna altor preocupri care l-ar pune i nconflict de interese, afectndu-i imaginea

publicatt lui ct i organului din care faceparte.

n schimb, funcionarul public sebucur de stabilitate n funcie, statutul din1923 reglementnd dreptul acestuia de a i se

pstra locul de munc. Statuarea acestui

principiu a fost de naturscreeze n timp uncorp de funcionari bine pregtii profesional,cu experien n exercitarea atribuiilor,

puterilor i competenelor ce le revin nfuncia pe care o dein.

Stabilitatea prezint interes i pentrubuna funcionare a serviciului public dar ipentru salariat care este aprat n acest modde eventualele abuzuri ale conduceriiorganului din care face parte i care nu-l va

putea sanciona, transfera, nlocui din funciedect n condiiile strict i limitativreglementate de lege.

n acest sens, profesorul PaulNegulescu i A.Teodorescu, apreciau cstabilitatea presupune c funcionarul publicnu va putea li mutat, pedepsit, nlocuit saudestituit din funcie dect n cazurile i curespectarea formelor stabilite de legi3. Maimult, juristul francez Vermeuleu arta cafuncionarul public nu va putea fi transferat,

oricndi oricum, frun minim de garanie,

law on the cumulus of public functions since1st July 1890 (modified at 4th July 1891)appeared the constitutional principle statingthat nobody can be appointed but with one

job paid by the state, district, commune, orpublic establishments and of credit, under thecontrol of the state. As it was normal, the

problem of the pluralism was analysed andsettled in direct connection with the one ofincompatibility. The purpose of theseinstitutions it that of not producinginterference, inter-conditioning,interdependence between the powers of thestate, to maintain the prestige of publicservants (that will not be able to have the

quality of possessor of public service and alsothe one of merchant)

In exchange, public servant enjoys jobstability, the statute since 1923 establishing itsright to be maintained the working place.Establishing this principle was capable ofcreating in time o body of servants, well-

prepared from professorial point of view, withexperience regarding the exercitation ofattributions, powers and competences that aredue to him in the function they posses.

Stability presents an interest for thegood functioning of the public service but alsofor the employee that is defended this way byeventual abuses of the management of theorgan that is a part of and that will not be ableto sanction, transfer him, replace from thefunction but in the functions that are strictlyand limitative settled by law.

In this sense, Professor Paul Negulescuand A.Teodorescu, stated that stabilitysupposes that public servant will not bemoved, punished, replaced or removed fromhis function but respecting forms that areestablished by laws11. More, the French

journalist Vermeuleu showed that publicservant will not be transferred, anytime andanyhow, without a minimum warranty, thatwill be respected the legally achievedsituation, namely the function, salary, prestigeof the function, etc12.

As today, the Statute since 1923 made

the distinction between public servants that are


4/16



104

c i se va respecta situaia legaldobndit,respectiv gradul, salariul, prestigiul funciei,etc4.

Ca i astzi, Statutul din 1923 fcea

distincia ntre funcionarii publici debutanii definitivi, dar i ntre stabilitate iinamovibilitate521.Astfel, art.1 din statut prevedea cfuncionarii publici definitivi, de oricecategorie, afar de cei care prin Constituiesau prin legi speciale sunt declaraiinamovibili, se vor bucura de stabilitate, ceeace nseamn c nu vor putea fi transferai,

pedepsii i nlocuii dect n anumite condiiiprevzute n legile de organizare a corpurilor

din care fac parte.Dar, potrivit art.150 transferul de la

un jude la altul n serviciile exterioare sautransferul de la un serviciu la altul n cadrulaceluiai organ de administraie esteobligatoriu dac este fcut n interesulserviciului, n funcii echivalente i cu avizulconform al comisiei pentru propuneri denumiri i naintri.

Din cele artate rezult cainamovibilitatea era treapta superioar a

stabilitii pentru cn timp ce un funcionarstabil are garantat postul, unul inamovibil, aregarantate toate celelalte drepturi n legturcu locul pe care funcionarul l ocupa ncadrul administraiei. Aa de exemplu,

potrivit acestui principiu reglementat nStatutul din 1923, funcionarii nu puteau fisuspendai, pui n disponibilitate nici chiarmutai prin naintare dect prin acordul lorsau n baza unei hotrri judectoreti.Raiunea acestei stri de lucruri are n vedereeliminarea abuzurilor autoritiloradministrative, pe care interese de moment,subiective, prtinitoare le-ar determina sschimbe locurile de munc,la voia lor, alefuncionarilor publici.

La nceput, inamovibilitatea a fostreglementat pentru magistrai. Astfel,art.215 din Regulamentul organic alMunteniei i 285 din Regulamentul organic alMoldovei face vorbire de "neschimbarea

judectorilor". Reglementare asemntoare

beginners and the ones that are definitive, butalso between stability and immovability1321.

So, art. 1 from the statute showed thatdefinitive public servants, of any category,

besides the ones that through Constitution orspecial laws are declared as being immovable,will also enjoy stability, which means that theycannot be transferred, punished and replacedin certain conditions established in the laws oforganization of the bodies that they belong to.

But, according to art.150 the transferfrom one district to another in externalservices or the transfer from one service toanother as part of the same organ ofadministration is compulsory if it is realised in

the interest of the job, in equivalents functions,and with the pro rata approval of thecommission for proposals of naming and

progression.From what was shown, results that the

immovability is the superior stage of stabilityas meanwhile a stabile servant has a warranted

job, a immovable one, has warranted all theother rights in connection with the place thatthe servant has as part of the administration.As for example, according to this principle

settled by the Statute from 1923, servantscould not be suspended, put in lay off, noteven moved by advancement but with theiragreement or based on a judicial decision. Theargument of this state of things takes intoaccount the elimination of the abuses of theadministrative authority, that present,subjective, partial interests might determinethem to change their working places, at theirwill, of the public servants.

At the beginning, immovability wassettled for magistrates. So, the art.215 from theOrganic Regulation of Walachia and 285 ofthe Organic Regulation of Moldavia makereference to unchanging judges. A similarregulation we find in the law since 24.01.1861regarding the establishment of the Court ofCassation and Justice for its members, in thelaw for judicial organization since 1stSeptember 1890 (that names as immovable the

personal of the Appeal Court and the

counsellors as well as the presidents of the


5/16



105

ntlnim n legea din 24.01.1861 privindnfiinarea Curii de Casaie i Justiie pentrumembrii acesteia, n legea pentru organizarea

judectoreascdin 1 septembrie 1890 (care-i

declara inamovibili pe membrii Curilor deApel i consilieri precum i preediniitribunalelor) iar mai apoi prin Legea din 1909au fost declarai inamovibili toi judectoriidefinitivi.

Ulterior, prin legea de organizarejudectoreasc din 25 iunie 1924 s-areglementat i mai amnunit inamovibilitateamagistrailor n afara membrilor MinisteruluiPublic care se bucurau doar de stabilitate.Potrivit art.139 din lege, magistraii

inamovibili i pot pierde funciile numaiprin:

- demisie;- mplinirea vrstei de 68 ani (pentru cei

de la Curtea de Casaie)i 65 de ani (cei de la Curtea de Apel) i 60ani (cei de la tribunale i judectorii);

- punerea n retragere pentru infirmitate(care s-l pun pe judector s nu-i poatndeplini n mod normal sarcinile deserviciu);

- sanciunea disciplinar din parteacomisiei de disciplincompetent6.

Ulterior, prin legi speciale i prinLegea pentru statutul funcionarilor publiciacest principiu a fost extins i pentru celelaltecategorii de salariai ai statului.

O prevedere asemntoare gsim i nCodul funcionarilor publici din 1940 care nart.17 alin.4, statua c funcionarulinamovibil poate fi naintat, transferat,

pedepsit sau nlocuit numai cu respectareastrict a condiiilor prevzute n legilespeciale de organizare.

Textele de lege care statuauinamovibilitatea funcionarilor publici, la caream fcut deja referire, au fost adesea criticatedat fiind faptul c funcionarii publici ca imagistraii, odatdeclarai inamovibili puteauabuza de acest fapt sau manifestau dezinteresn activitate, datorit garaniei stabilitii nfuncia pe care o oferea inamovibilitatea.

Tocmai de aceea legiuitorul a

Law Courts) and then through Law since1909, have been declared immovable alldefinitive judges.

Ulterior, through the law of judicial

organization since 25th

June 1924, it wasestablished in a more specific manner theimmovability of the magistrates besides themembers of the Public Department that onlyenjoyed stability. According to art. 139 fromthe law, the immovable magistrates can losetheir functions only by:

- resignation;- fulfilling the age of 68 years (for the ones

at the Cassation Court)and 65 years (the ones at the Court of Appeal)

and 60 years (the ones of the Tribunals andLaw Courts);

- the retirement for invalidity (that mightmake the judge not fulfilling in a normalmanner the jobs duties);

- disciplinary sanction from the competentcommission of discipline14.

Ulterior, by special laws and throughthe Law for the statute of the public servants,this principle was extended also for othercategories of employees of the state.

A similar provision we can find also inthe Code of public clerks since 1940, which inart. 17, alin. 4, stated that the immovableservant can be advanced, transferred, punishedor replaced only by strictly respectingconditions mentioned in special laws oforganization.

The law texts which stated theimmovability of public servants, to which wealready made a reference, have often beencriticised due to the fact that public servants aswell as magistrates, once declared immovablewhere able to abuse of this thing or manifestedlack of interest in the activity, due to thewarranty of the stability in the function thatimmovability offered.

This is the reason why; the legislatorsettled the modalities of sanctioning the onesthat were guilty of irregularities in theiractivity, but also the possibility of losing theright on the function by suspending, making

available or dismissal.


6/16



106

reglementat modalitile de sancionare acelor ce se fac vinovai de nereguli nactivitatea lor, dar i posibilitatea de pierderea dreptului asupra funciunii prin

suspendarea, punerea n disponibilitate idestituire.Astfel de sanciuni puteau fi dispuse atuncicnd funcionarul svrea abateridisciplinare n legtur cu serviciul, nndeplinirea condiiei promovrii examenuluide capacitate sau chiar cnd acesta se facevinovat de fapte de naturpenal.

Suspendarea nseamnexcluderea dinserviciu pe o perioaddeterminatde 6 luni ireinerea n mod corespunztor a salariului.

Suspendarea poate fi determinat deaspectul preventiv cnd funcionarul publicera nvinuit de svrirea unei infraciuni,fiind indicii clare de vinovie (astfel c pe

perioada cercetrilor se dispuneasuspendarea), din cauze disciplinare, nsituaia n care a nceput deja urmrirea

judectoreasc emindu-se n acest sensordonana judectorului de instrucie.Suspendarea se pronun numai de efulsuperior al autoritii, n cazul funcionarilor

definitivi fiind obligatoriu i avizul motivat alComisiei de disciplin. Dac la finalizareacercetrilor se constata cfuncionarul publicnu a fost vinovat, consecina era repunerea ntoate drepturile sale.

Punerea n disponibilitate nseamnndeprtarea din serviciu pe duratnedeterminat, cu posibilitatea reintegrriiulterioare, dac se renfiinau posturi deaceeai naturcu cel desfiinat.n general msura era determinat de cauzeobiective (desfiinarea unor posturi) i nudisciplinare pentru care se putea dispunemsura suspendrii sau destituirii.

Destituirea era o msura disciplinarfoarte severputnd fi pronunatnumai dupobinerea avizului Comisiei de Disciplina i acercetrii prealabile a tuturor mprejurrilor i

probatoriilor legate de svrirea abaterii.n legturcu dreptul funcionarului public dea-i pstra locul n serviciul public pe care l-a

dobndit, aa cum am artat, att legiuitorul

Such sanctions could be disposed when thepublic servant realised disciplinary deviationsin connection with the job, to fulfil thecondition of advancement of the capacity

exam or even when he was guilty of actionswith penal character.The adjournment means the exclusion

from the job, for an undetermined period of 6months and retaining salary in a correspondentmanner.

The adjournment can be determined bythe preventive aspect when the public servantis accused of committing an offence, existingspecific indications of guilt (so that, during theexamination period, the adjournment was

disposed), from disciplinary causes, in casethat judicial prosecution already started,issuing this way the ordinance of theinstruction judge. The adjournment will be

pronounces only by the superior chief of theauthority, in the case of definitive servants

being compulsory and the motivated notice ofthe Discipline commission. If, at the ending ofthe researches, it can be observed that publicservant was not guilty, the consequence wasreturning him to his rights.

Lay offemans allienation from the jobfor an undetermined period, with the posibilityof ulterior reintegration, if there where jobs ofteh same nature as the dissolved ones.

Generally, the measure wasdetermined by objective causes (annulment ofsome jobs) and not disciplinary for whichcould be disposed the measure of suspensionor dismissal.

The dismissal was a very severedisciplinary measure being able to be

pronounced after obtaining the notice of theDiscipline Commission and of previousresearch of all surroundings and evidenceconnected to formulating the deviation.

Regarding the right of the publicservant to maintain his place in the publicservice that he obtained, as we have shown,the legislator as well as the specialty literature,as well as the judicial practice statedconstantly that this is a stability element and

that this right cannot be transgressed by the


7/16



107

ct i literatura de specialitate precum ipractica judectoreasc au apreciat constantcacesta este un element de stabilitate i cacest drept nu poate fi nclcat de ctre stat

dect n situaii excepionale (i care saiboreglementare expres i limitativ), cnd evorba de interese ale statului . Principiilefundamentale ale libertii umane recunoscun drept natural al persoanei nu numai peacela de a-i alege liber profesia ci i de a

putea desface legtura de drepturi i obligaiincheiate, prsind funcia public atuncicnd exist o manifestare de voin n acestsens.

Cea mai uzitat formde manifestare

a dreptului de a rezilia contractul ncheiat custatul (patron) este demisia care este omanifestare unilateralde voinjuridicprincare funcionarul nelege s prseascfunciunea pe care i-a ales-o, angajatorulneavnd posibilitatea scenzureze n nici unmod aceasta manifestare subiectiva asalariatului.

n acest sens Regulamentul deaplicare a Legii privind Statutulfuncionarilor din 1923 prevedea clar i fr

echivoc: funcionarii publici au dreptul sdemisioneze". El va trebui s anune iorganul superior i s atepte rspunsul intr-un anumit termen. Rspunsul nefavorabil nunseamn respingerea deciziei, ci doarndemnarea funcionarului smediteze asupraconsecinelor actului, astfel ca, struina sa ndemisie va trebui finalmente acceptat.

Atta timp ct autoritatea creia i s-aadresat nu a aprobat-o, funcionarul public va

putea s revin asupra demisiei. Deasemenea,ea nu va avea consecinenefavorabile asupra statutului funcionarului

public, n sensul cacesta va putea oricnd srevin pe acelai post sau pe altul cundeplinirea condiiilor legale de numire.

Limita de vrsta era o alt cauz arezilierii raportului juridic de munc alfuncionarului public. Este o soluie fireasc

pentru cel care atinge o anumit vrstnaintat deoarece activitatea sa scade n

intensitate, iar pe de alt parte este i n

state but in exceptional situations (which willhave a special and limitative settlement) whenwe speak about the interests of the state. Themain principles of the human freedom

recognise a natural right of the person not onlythe one of electing in a free manner theirprofession but also to unbind the connection ofconcluded rights and liabilities, quitting the

public function when there is a manifestationof will in this sense.

The most used form of manifestationof the rights to cancel the contract realisedwith the state (patron) is the dismissal which isa unilateral manifestation of judicial volitionthrough which the servant agrees to abandon

the elected function, the employer not havingthe opportunity to censor in any manner thissubjective behaviour of the employee.

To this regard, the Regulation ofapplication of the law regarding the Statute of

public servants since 1923 mentioned in aclear and without ambiguousness: publicservants have the right to resign. He will haveto announce the superior body and to expectthe answer in a certain term. The unfavourableresponse does not mean the rejection of the

decision, but only the pledge for the servant tomeditate upon the consequences of the action,so that, his insistence in resignation will haveto be finally accepted.

As long as the authority to which headdressed did not approve it, the publicservant will be able to return upon resignation.Also, it will not have unfavourableconsequences regarding the statute of the

public servant, in the sense that his will beable, an any time, to return on the same

position or on another, fulfilling legalconditions of appointment.

The age limit is another cause ofcancellation of the juridical work rapport ofthe public servant. It is a normal solution forthe one reaching a certain advanced age, as hisactivity decreases in intensity, and on the otherside it is also his interest that after a longactivity in the service of public activity, tohave the opportunity to retire for rest. In the

Statute of public servants since 1923, the age


8/16



108

interesul su ca dup o lung activitate nslujba serviciului public s aibposibilitateade a se retrage la odihn. n Statutulfuncionarilor publici din 1923 vrsta ia care

funcionarii vor fi pui "de drept iobligatoriu n retragere din oficiu" erastabilitla 60 de ani,

n ce privete dreptul la reparareaprejudiciului , de principiu, orice pagubsuferit de o persoan din greeala altcuivatrebuie reparat, fie c ea se datoreaznerespectrii conveniilor dintre pri, fie care la baz alt fapt cauzatoare de

prejudiciu.Cnd astfel de litigii se ivesc ntre

persoanele fizice, ntre persoanele fizice ijuridice sau ntre persoanele juridice, caleaaciunii n justiie pentru repararea

prejudiciului este de necontestat; n schimbcnd conflictul se ivete ntre persoana fizica(funcionarul public) i stat (n cea mai largaccepiune a cuvntului) chestiunea acomportat mai multe discuii n doctrina despecialitate. Aadar, dac n ce priveterspunderea persoanelor juridice sau fizice,fie cea derivdintr-un raport contractual, fie

c decurge dinr-un raport bazat pe ideea deculp a fost acceptat constant fr preamulte controverse, n ce privete statul,

problema obligrii la reparaia prejudiciului aevoluat sinuos.

Aparent, ideea de responsabilitate astatului ar veni n contradicie cu ideea desuveranitate, pentru c se exclud.Suveranitatea poate fi limitat n concepiadreptului public tradiional prin dreptulindividului, dupcum i reciproca e valabila,dreptul individului putnd fi limitat. Acestelimitri reciproce trebuie reglementate prinlege, ca expresie a voinei generale, asuveranitii nsi, formnd dreptul unei ri.Dar, cum creaia dreptului este emanaiastatului suveran, nu se poate admite cacestaar fi responsabil pentru faptele sale. Aadar,n concepia tradiional, responsabilitateaimplic o violare a dreptului i cine creeazdreptul printr-un act al voinei sale suverane

nu-l poate viola.

at which public servants will be submittedrightfully and compulsory in retiracy isestablished at 60 years.

Regarding the right to repair the

prejudice, as a principle, any damage sufferedby a person from the mistake of anotherperson must be repaired, either it is due to notrespecting the convention between the parts,or it has as basis another fact causing a

prejudice.When these litigations appear between

physical person, between physical andjuridical persons or between juridical persons,the way of calling into justice to repair the

prejudice is undisputable; in exchange, when

the conflict appears between the physicalperson (public servant) and the state (to thelargest sense of the word) the matter lead toseveral discussions in the specialty doctrine.So, if regarding the responsibility of juridicalor physical persons, either it comes from acontractual rapport, or it comes from a rapport

based upon the idea of guilt, the problem ofobliging to the reparation of the prejudice,

progressed sinuously.Apparently, the idea of responsibility

of the state might come in contradiction to theidea of sovereignty, as are excluded. Thesovereignty can be limited in the outlook ofthe traditional public law through theindividual law, as the reciprocal is valid, theright of the individual being able to be limited.These reciprocal limitations must be settled bylaw, as expression of general volition, of selfsovereignty, forming the law of a country. .But, as creating law is the emanation of asovereign state, it cannot be admitted that thismight be responsible for its actions. So, intraditional thinking, responsibility involves atransgression of the law and who creates thelaw by an act of his sovereign law cannot

breach it.But ulterior, the idea of responsibility

of the state was admitted, as a warranty of theprotection of the individual against arbitrary ofthe administration. Based on the idea of socialsolidarity, the theory of objective

responsibility is at the basis of public law


9/16



109

Ulterior ns, ideea de responsabilitatea statuiui a fost admis, ca o garanie a

proteciei individului mpotriva arbitrariuluiadministra-iei. ntemeindu-se pe ideea de

solidaritate social, teoria respon-sabilitiiobiective st la baza dreptului public dintrecele dou rzboaie mondiale. Potrivit acesteiconcepii, statutul trebuie s rs-pund

bnete fa de particulari (i fa defuncionarii publici) ori de cte ori prin actelei faptele administraiei sale aduce un

prejudiciu acestora.La nceput, n lipsa unor texte legale,

responsabilitatea statului s-a bazat pe art.998i urmtoarele Cod civil, n baza cruia

oricine cauzeazdin vina lui pe nedrept altuiaun prejudiciu, este obligat a-l repara. Ca i nFrana, aciunile n despgubiri intentatecontra statului erau de competenatribunalelor ordinare, optica aceasta bazndu-se pe teza civilist n rezolvarea problemeiresponsabilitii patrimoniale a statului.

Aceast tez a fost admisnumai cttimp judecarea acestor litigii a fost decompetena tribunalelor ordinare, fiindabandonatodatce judecarea lor a trecut n

competena Consiliului de stat.n mod asemntor, aa cum am

artat, i la noi a fost admis tezaresponsabilitii statului pe ideea desolidaritate social. Dar, pentru c problemareparrii prejudiciului suferit de funcionarul

public este numai un aspect al problematiciicomplexe a rspunderii autoritilor ifuncionarului public, vom face n continuarecteva referiri generale cu privire la aceastrspundere.

Astfel, n conformitate cu art.99 dinConstituia anului 1923 "orice parte vtmatde un decret sau o dispoziiune semnat saucontrasemnat de un ministru care violeazun text expres al Constituiei sau al unei legi

poate cere statului, n conformitate cu dreptulcomun, despgubiri bneti pentru prejudiciulcauzat".

De menionat c potrivit legiifundamentale, actul ilegal al ministrului nu

descarc de rspundere solidar pe

between the two world wars. According to thisconception, the state must respond pecuniaryin front of the particulars (and also in front of

public servants) any time that though their

actions and the ones of their administrationbring a prejudice to them.At the beginning, in the absence of

some legal texts, the responsibility of the statewas based on the art. 998 and the following ofthe Civil Code, based on which anyone thatcauses, from his fault, in an unfair manner, a

prejudice to the other, is obliged to repair it.As in France, actions in indemnificationinstituted against the state are theresponsibility of the common law courts, their

opinion being based on the civil law thesis, insolving the problem of patrimonyresponsibility of the state.

This thesis was admitted only as longjudging these litigations was the responsibilityof the common law courts, being abandonedonce their judgement become theresponsibility of the state Council.

In a similar manner, as we haveshown, also at us was admitted the thesis ofthe responsibility of the state on the idea of

social solidarity. But, as the problem ofsolving the prejudice suffered by publicservants is only an aspect of the complex

problem of responsibility of the authority andpublic servant, as follows we will realise somegeneral references regarding thisresponsibility.

So, according to art.99 from theConstitution of the year 1923 "any part thatwas damaged by a decree or a disposition thatwas signed or countersigned by a minister who

breaches an express text of the Constitution orof a law can require to the state, according tothe common law, pecuniary indemnificationsfor the prejudice that was caused".

It must be mentioned that according tothe main law, the illegal act of the ministrydoes not relieve him of responsibility,sympathetic with the servant thatcountersigned it, but in case this attired theattention of the minister, in a written form.

It is observed that is mentioned a


10/16



110

funcionarul care l-a contrasemnat dect ncazul cnd acesta a atras atenia ministrului nscris.

Se observ c se statueaz o

rspundere solidara funcionarului public cucea a ministrului. De asemenea, art.107 dinConstituie dispune c cel vtmat ndrepturile sale printr-un act administrativ deautoritate, fie printr-un act de gestiune fcutcu clcarea legilor i regulamentelor, fie prinreaua voina autoritilor administrative de arezolva cererea privitoare la un drept poateface cereri la instanele judectoreti pentrurecunoaterea dreptului pretins". Instaneleerau ndrituite scenzureze, aadar, i actele

ilegale ale administraiei dar i s judececererea de despgubiri ndreptat fiempotriva autoriti publice, fie mpotrivafuncionarului vinovat (cu deosebirea c ntimp ce funcionarul rspunde numai cndeste vinovat, autoritatea rspunde n lipsaculpei).

Sub imperiul prevederilor Statutuluidin 1923 responsabilitatea statului, judeuluisau comunei, era, aa cum am artat, denaturi obiectiv (bazat pe ideea de

solidaritate social), dar i bazat pe culpafuncionarului care i-a nclcat mandatul,atribuiile de servicii sau a abuzat de putereaconferit. n acest sens art.13 prevedea: cndfuncionarul svrete un fapt prin depirealimitelor mandatului su, a sferei atribuiilorsale legale, ori prin abuz de putere i acestfapt lezeaz pe particulari atunci statul,

judeul sau comuna, legal rspunztoare, vorputea chema n garanie pe funcionarul,autorul faptului pentru a fi fcut, bneterspunztor".

Ulterior, responsabilitateaadministrativ a fost reglementatprin legeacontenciosului administrativ din 1925, legea

privind unificarea administrativ din 1929,Constituia din 1938, Codul funcionarilor

publici din 8 iunie 1940 care a suferitnumeroase modificri nc din primul an deaplicare.

Ca i actele legislative anterioare,

Constituia din 1938 recunoate posibilitatea

sympathetic responsibility of the publicservant with the one of the minister. Also, art.107 from the Constitution specifies that thedamaged part in his rights by an administrative

document of authority, either by an action ofadministration with breaching the laws andregulation, or by the bad will of theadministrative authorities to solve the requestregarding a right, can realise petitions at thetrial instances to recognize that right The trialinstances have the right to censor, so, also theillegal actions of the administration but also to

judge the request of indemnifications eitheragainst public administration, or against theguilty servant (with the specification that

meanwhile the servant was responsible onlywhen guilty, the authority is also responsiblein the absence of the guilt).

Under the empire of the provisions ofthe Statute since 1923 the responsibility of thestate, district or commune, was, as we haveshown, of objective nature (based on the ideaof social solidarity) but also based on the guiltof the servant that transgressed the mandate,the service responsibilities or abused of the

power that was granted to him. In this sense,

the art. 13 mentioned: when the servantmakes something by exceeding the limits ofhis mandate, the area of his legal attributions,or by power abuse and this thing injures the

particulars, then the state, district or communethat is legally responsible, will be able to callinto warranty the servant, the author of theaction to be made, pecuniary responsible.

Ulterior, the administrativeresponsibility was settled by the law of theadministrative contentious since 1925, the lawregarding the administrative unification since1929, the Constitution since 1938, the Code of

public servant since 8 June 1940 whichsuffered numerous modifications since thefirst year of application.

As the previous legislative documents,the Constitution since 1938 recognises the

possibility of the particulars to intent a civilaction against the state, mentioning that anydamaged part in its rights through a decree or

a disposition that was signed by a minister by


11/16



111

particularilor de a intenta aciune civilmpotriva statului, stipulnd c "orice partevtmat n drepturile sale printr-un decretsau dispoziie semnat de un ministru cu

violarea unui text expres al Constituiei,.orilegilor n vigoare poate cere statuluidespgubiri bneti pentru paguba suferit,conform dreptului comun".Aceeai optic privind responsabilitateaadministrativ este meninut i n legiuirileulterioare cu inciden n aceasta materie:Legea administrativ din 14 august 1938 iCodul funcionarilor publici din 8 iulie 1940.

Concluzionnd cu privire la coninutulreglementrilor legale din perioada 1923-

1946 referitor la problema responsabilitiimateriale a administraiei ,se poate spune caceasta poate fi cauzatde:

- prejudiciul cauzat frculpa statului sau afuncionarului public;

- prejudiciul cauzat din culpa statului, darfrvinovia funcionarului public;

- prejudiciul cauzat fr culpa statului, darcu culpa funcionarului public;

- prejudiciul cauzat din culpa statului iculpa funcionarului public.

n ce privete primele dousituaii, le-am analizat deja sub aspectul fundamentriirspunderii.

Referitor la ultimele dou situaii (nmod relativ asemntor ca i n primele) seaplic teoria fundamentului legal alresponsabilitii generale a statului, judeului,comunei, minitrilor i altor funcionari

publici n baza textelor incidente n materia lacare am fcut referire.

Pe bundreptate, n doctrina vremii s-a artat ciresponsabilitatea funcionarului arcrea o situaie care ar fi nedreapt i

periculoas n sensul c, dac e nedrept caparticularul afectat s nu fie despgubit dincauza defectoasei funcionri a administraiei,este tot la fel de nedrept ca statul sdespgubeasc (deci pn la urm ceteniiobinuii) din cauza comportamentului(vinoviei) abuziv al unor funcionari

publici care ar fi, n acest fel, la adpost

de orice responsabilitate pecuniartiindu-se

transgression of a specific text of theConstitution, or the laws in force, can requestto the state pecuniary indemnifications for thesuffered damage, according to the common

law.The same opinion regarding the administrativeresponsibility is maintained also in the

previous legislations with incidence in thisaspect: the administrative Law since 14 august1938 and the Code of public servants since 8July 1940.

As a conclusion regarding the contentof legal regulation since the period 1923-1946,regarding the problem of materialresponsibility of the administration, it can be

said that this can be caused by:- prejudice caused without guilt to the state

or to the public servant;- prejudice caused from the guilt of the state,

but without the guilt of the public servant;- prejudice caused without the guilt of the

state, but with the guilt of the public servant;- prejudice caused from the guilt of the state

and the guilt of the public servant.Regarding the first two cases, we have

already analysed under the aspect of the main

responsibility.Regarding the last two situations (in a

relative similar manner as in the first ones) itwill be applied the theory of the main basis ofgeneral responsibility of the state, district,commune, ministers and other public servants

based on the incident texts regarding thematter to which we referred.

Really, in the doctrine of that tomes itwas shown that the irresponsibility of theservant might create a situation that would beunfair and dangerous in the sense that, if it isunfair that the particular affected shouldnt beindemnified because the defective functioningof the administration, it is also unfair that thestate indemnifies (in fact the common citizens)

because the abusive behaviour (guilt) of somepublic servants that might be, this way,protected of any pecuniary responsibility,being known the fact that anyhow, the statewill repair all prejudices. That is why, the

doctrine admitted that public servants where


12/16



112

c oricum statul va repara toate prejudiciile.Tocmai de aceea, doctrina a admis cafuncionarii publici puteau rspunde"civilmente de greelile de serviciu" sau

"greelile personale" de serviciu7

.

Stabilitatea i rspundereafuncionarilor publici prin prisma evoluieifunciei publice n perioada 1946 1990

Schimbrile profunde care au avut locn viata economic, social, politic, etc. audeterminat inerent modificri majore nlegislaie i cu att mai mult n materia carene preocup, cea a funciei publice.

Treptat, propaganda comunist a

indus n contiina public ideea c nperioada anterioar, funcionarii publicifusesero castprivilegiat, un instrument alclasei burghezo-moiereti pentru exploatareamuncitorilor i ranilor. De aceea, treptat, iface loc n legislaie o altopticn care n-arece cuta dreptul la carier al funcionarului

public, numirea dup criterii de competenprofesional, stabilitate n funcie, etc. n noulcontext politic, social, economic, ntregulaparat funcionresc al statului, de la

administraia centralpnla ultima comun,a fost politizat.

Aadar, n aceasta perioad, nu avemun regim special (nici ca reglementare nici catratament) al funciei publice, funcionariloraplicndu-li-se regimul general al raporturilor

juridice de muncreglementate pentru oricaredin categoriile de oameni ai muncii. Chiardac pentru unii funcionari (judectori,

procurori, cadre militare, profesori, etc) s-auadoptat reglementri speciale, acestea nuaveau prevederi care s se abat substanialde la regimul general al contractului demuncreglementat de Codul Muncii826

Stabilitatea funcionarilor publici potrivitlegislaiei actuale i rspunderea acestora

naltul spirit de responsabilitate caretrebuie s caracterizeze activitateafuncionarului public presupune i asumareasentimentului de vinovie cnd treaba nu

merge bine, cnd regulile impuse i ordinea

able to respond in a civil manner for theservice mistakes or service personalmistakes15.

The stability and responsibility of

public servants regarding the evolution ofpublic function in the period 1946-1990.Profound changes that took place in

the economic, social, political life, etcdetermined inherent, major modifications inlegislation and more in the aspect that

preoccupies us, the one of public function.Gradually, the communist propaganda

induced in the public conscience the idea thatin the previous period, public servants have

been a privileged class, an instrument of the

bourgeois landlord class to exploit workersand peasants. That is why, gradually, appearsin legislation another optics where should not

be the right to career of the public servant,naming according to criteria of professionalcompetence, the entire functional apparatus ofthe state, from the central administration up tothe last commune, was politicised.

So, during this period, we do not havea special regime (neither as a settlement nor asa treatment) of the public function, to servants

being applied the general regime of workjuridical rapports settled for any of thecategories of working persons. Even if someservants (judges, prosecutors, military teams,teachers, etc) have been adopted specialsettlements, these not having provisions todeviate in a substantial manner from thegeneral regime of the work contract settled byWork Code1626

The stability of public servants according toactual legislation

and their responsibility

The high spirit of responsibility thatmust characterize the activity of public servantsupposes the assumption of the guilt feelingwhen things go wrong, when rules areimposed and the pre- established order have

been breached. This is because the activity ofthe one realising a public activity is realised as

part of some juridical norms, which supposes


13/16



113

prestabilitau fost nfrnte. Aceasta pentru cactivitatea celui ce exercito funcie publicse desfoar n cadrul unor norme juridice,care presupun un anumit comportament, o

ordine obligatorie, o responsabilitate igaranii judicios i raional reglementate.De altfel, funcionarea ntregului

organism social i statal nu este de conceputfrrespectarea regulilor de conduitstabilite

prin lege sau prin alte acte normative. Dei nmod obinuit normele legale sunt respectatede cei crora li se adreseaz, totui n situaian care acetia le nesocotesc, organele statuluiadopt reglementri prin care statueazrspunderea acestora. Aadar, n esen,

rspunderea juridicnseamnmodalitatea derestabilire a legalitii i ordinii de dreptnclcate cu ajutorul forei de constrngerestatal. Rspunderea juridicse deosebete decelelalte genuri de rspundere social, cum arfi rspunderea civic, moral, care se bazeaz

pe reguli de conduit individual neimpuseprin normele juridice i pentru a crornerespectate nu se va recurge la fora deconstrngere statal nefiind de conceput naceste situaii edictarea unor reguli juridice

de ctre puterea statal.Instituie central a dreptului,

rspunderea juridic este alctuit dintr-unansamblu de norme juridice care asigur, prinmijloacele dreptului, aplicarea i respectareastrictde ctre subiectele de drept a regulilorde conduit social, n caz contrarintervenind, prin intermediul constrngerii destat, aplicarea sanciunilor juridice celor cencalc ordinea de drept, producndvtmarea unor drepturi i interese generaleori individuale. Rspunderea juridic are cafinalitate reglarea sistemului social prinformarea spiritului de responsabilitate social,ct i condamnarea, pedepsirea fapteiantisociale precum i asigurarea reparaieivtmrii suferite de victimca urmare a fapteiilicite. n funcie de natura normei nclcate iregimul ce-i este propriu, rspunderea juridicare o serie de forme distincte de manifestareconcret, reglementate de instituii juridice

diferite: rspunderea penal, civil,

certain behaviour, a compulsory order, aresponsibility and warranties that are judiciousand rational settled.

Also, the functioning of the entire

social and political organism cannot beconceived without respecting rules ofbehaviour that are established by law or byother normative documents. Even if in acommon manner, the legal norms arerespected by the ones to which are addresses,still, in case are not taken into account, theorgans of the state adopt settlements throughwhich is mentioned their responsibility. So, inessence, the juridical responsibility means themodality to re-establish the legality and law

order that is breached with the aid of thepolitical constraint force. The juridicalresponsibility is different from the othergenders of social responsibility like civil,moral responsibility, that are based on rules ofindividual civil behaviour, that are notimposed by juridical norms and to whichinobservance will not be resorted to the

political constraint force not being conceivedin these situation the proclamation of some

juridical rules by the political power.

The central institution of law, thejuridical responsibility is made up of anensemble of juridical norms that ensure,through means of the law, the application andstrict obedience by the law subjects of therules of social behaviour, on the contraryintervening, through the agency of stateconstraint, the application of juridicalsanctions to the ones breaching the law order,

producing the damage of some general orindividual rights and interest. The juridicalresponsibility has as finality the settlement ofthe social system by formulating the spirit ofsocial responsibility, as well as condemning,

punishment of the antisocial action as well asensuring the reparation of the damage suffered

by the victim as a result of the illicit action.Depending on the form of the breached normand the own regime, the juridicalresponsibility has a series of distinct forms ofconcrete manifestation, settled by different

juridical institution: penal, civil, disciplinary,


14/16



114

disciplinar, administrativ. Fiecare din ele aretrsturi specifice care le fac sse deosebeascntre ele, faptele ilicite diferite constituindtemeiul unui anumit fel de rspundere i

sanciune juridic. Dintre acestea, rspundereadisciplinar se constituie ntr-o cheie de boltpentru o bunfuncionare a serviciului public.

Dreptul la stabilitate al funcionarilorpublici presupune imposibilitatea cafuncionarul public s poat fi eliberat saususpendat din funcie, detaat sau transferat nafara situaiilor i a condiiilor strictreglementate de lege.

Stabilitatea funcionarilor publici esteo condiie esenialpentru buna funcionare a

serviciului public, existnd n acest modpremiza ca acesta s fie realizat de oamenicalificai, cu experien, cunosctori, avizaiai domeniului n care-i desfoaractivitatea.

Stabilitatea n funcie prezint interesi pentru funcionarul public care dorete saib garania c va fi aprat de eventualeleabuzuri ale conductorului serviciului public,c acesta nu-l va putea transfera, sancionasau nltura din funcie dupbunul su plac.

Aa cum am artat, majoritateaautorilor din doctrina de specialitateconsider c stabilitatea este o treaptinferioar a inamovibilitii. De aceasta dinurmbeneficiaznumai anumite categorii defuncionari cum sunt magistraii.

n strns legtur cu stabilitatea iinamovibilitatea funcionrilor publici, existi instituia imunitii de care se bucuranumii funcionari.

Astfel, Preedintele Romniei sebucur de imunitate el neputnd fi tras larspundere pentru alte fapte penale ce le-arsvri n timpul exercitrii mandatului su,n afara infraciunii de nalttrdare.

De asemenea senatorii i deputaii nupot fi trai la rspundere juridic pentruvoturile sau pentru opiniile politice exprimaten exercitarea mandatului.

Stabilitatea funcionarilor publici serealizeazi prin dreptul la protecia legii n

exercirtarea atribuiilor i dreptul despgubire

administrative responsibility. Each of them hasspecific characteristics that make themdifferentiate between each other, the illicitactions being the basis of a certain modality of

juridical responsibility and sanction. Betweenthese, the disciplinary responsibility is a keyfor the better functioning of the public service.

The right to stability of public servantssupposes the impossibility that the publicservant be released or suspended from thefunction, detached or transferred outsidesituations and conditions that are strictlysettled by the law.

The stability of public servants is anessential condition for the better functioning of

the public service, existing this way thepremise that this should be realised byqualified persons, with experience,connoisseurs, certified of the field in whichthey realise their activity.

The stability of the job presents interestalso for the public servant that desires to havethe warranty that will be defended of eventualabuses of the leader of the public service; thathe will not be able to transfer it, sanction oralienate from his job, at will.

As we have shown, the majority ofauthors from the specialty doctrine considerthat stability is an inferior stage ofimmovability. Of the latter takes advantagesonly certain categories of servants like themagistrates.

In tight connection with stability andimmovability of the public servants, there isalso the institution of immunity that certainservants enjoy.

So, teh President of Romania enjoysimmunity, he not being judged for other penalactions that he might realise during theexecution of his mandate, besides the offenceof high betrayal.

Also, the senators and deputies cannotbe judged, from juridical point of view for thepolitical votes or opinions expressed duringthe realization of the mandate.

The stability of public servants will bealso realised through the right to protection of

the law, in realising the attributions and the


15/16



115

pentru prejudiciile cauzate.Potrivit art.41 alin. 2 din Statut

autoritatea sau instituia public n carefuncionarul public i desfoar activitatea

este obligatsii asigure protecie mpotrivaevenimentelor, violenelor, faptelor de ultrajcrora le-ar putea fi victim n exercitareafunciei sau n legtur cu aceasta". Deasemenea art. 42 prevede cautoritatea sauinstituia public este obligat s ldespgubeasc pe funcionarul public nsituaia n care acesta a suferit din cauzaautoritilor sau instituiilor publice un

prejudiciu material n timpul ndepliniriiatribuiilor de serviciu.

nc n dreptul roman statul datorareparaie n cazul unei nclcri a dreptuluisubiectiv al funcionarului.

n ce privete dreptul la reparare aprejudiciilor aduse funcionarilor de ctreautoritile i instituiile statului acesta poatefi analizat sub douaspecte:

a) prejudicierea decurgnd din emitereaunor acte ca urmare a raportului de serviciudintre funcionarul public i autoritateainstituia publicn care acesta i desfoar

activitatea;b) prejudicierea funcionarului public ca

urmare a actelor legiuitoare ale statului (legi,ordonane ale Guvernului, regulamente, etc).

n primul caz, necesitatea reparriiprejudiciului poate decurge, de exemplu, dinnerespectarea conveniilor dintre pri pentrufapte acre vatm pe cineva sau din oricefapt cauzatoare de prejudiciu. Astfel,autoritatea poate svri diverse acte degestiune ( nchirierea concesionarea unor

bunuri, cheltuirea unor sume de bani pentruaciuni ordonate de conductorul autoritiie.t.c), sau poate svri anumite acteadministrative ( concedieri, refuzul de aelibera acte administrative legalmentedatorate e.t.c) prin care s lezeze drepturileori interesele subiective ale funcionarilor si.n toate aceste situaii funcionarii publicilezai n drepturile subiective aprate de lege

pot s cear i s obin repararea

prejudiciului suferit.

right to indemnification for caused prejudices.According to art.41 alin. 2 from the

Statute the authority or public institutionwhere public servants realises his activity is

obliged to ensure protection against events,assaults, outrage deeds to which he might be avictim in realising his job or in connection toit". Also, the art. 42 ,mentions that the publicauthority or institution is obliged to indemnifythe public servant in case he suffered becauseof the public authorities or institutions, amaterial prejudice during the fulfilment of jobresponsibilities

Since the Roman law, the state ownedreparation in case of a breach of the subjective

law of the servant.Regarding the right to repair prejudices

brought to servants by authorities andinstitutions of the state this can be analysedaccording to two aspects:

a) the impairment coming from issuingsome deeds as a result of the job rapport

between public servant and the authoritypublic institution where he realises hisactivity;

b) the impairment of the public servant as a

result of legislator actions of the state (laws,Government ordinances, regulations etc).

In the first case, the necessity to repairthe prejudice can appear, for example, fromnot respecting the conventions between partsfor actions that damage somebody or from anydeed that causes a prejudice. So, the authoritycan realise certain administrative actions(rental, leasing of some goods, spending someamounts of money for actions ordered by theleader of the authority, etc) or can realisecertain administrative actions (demission, therefuse to issue administrative documents thatare legally due) through which to injure therights or subjective interests of their servants.In all these cases, public servants injured insubjective rights defended by the law can askand obtain the repair of the suffered damage.

The second situation takes into accountthe injury of some previously earned rightsfrom the apparition of some acts of the

legislator bodies that diminish or restraint


16/16



116

A doua situaie are n vedere atingereaunor drepturi anterior ctigate prin apariiaunor acte ale corpurilor legiuitoare cediminueazsau restrng aceste drepturi. Dei

s-au purtat discuii contradictorii de-a lungultimpului n doctrina juridic intern dar icomparat cu privire la aceast problem,majoritatea teoreticienilor apreciaz c esteexclus ideea reparrii prejudiciului peaceastcale chiar dacrecomandarea tuturoreste ca n procesul de legiferare s se incont de drepturile anterior ctigate defuncionarii publici.

these rights. Even if there have beendiscussion in contradiction, in time, theinternal juridical doctrine but also comparedregarding this problem, the majority of

theoreticians state that is excluded the idea ofreparation of the prejudice this way, even ifrecommending all is that in the process ofenactment to take into account the previouslyearned rights by the public servants.

1

Perriquet J . L Etat des functionnaires , H.Berthlemy .Traite elementaire de droit administratif, Paris 1926, pag. 53-56, citat dincursul universitar al lui Valerica Dabu, Tratat de drept administrativ, Bucuresti 20052Valerica Dabu, op cit. pag. 1053 P.Negulescu, Tratat de drept administrativ, Bucuresti 1934, pag.595, i A. Teodorescu, Tratat de drept administrativ , vol.I,

pag.319,Bucuresti 19294J.Vermeleu, Curs de Teoria funciei publice, Facultatea de Drept din Bucureti, 1943, p1615A.Teodorescu n Tratatul de drept administrativ , Bucuresti 1929 , la pag.319 aprecia c: stabilitatea este o treapt, un gradinferior al inamovibilitii

6Pentru dezvoltare , a se vedea Valentin Priscaru , Tratat de drept administrativ roman, Editura All, 1996, pag.1827Pentru dezvoltare, a se vedea V. Dabu, op. cit. pag.220-2218Este vorba de Codul Muncii- adoptat prin Legea nr. 10/1972, publicatIn Monitorul Oficial din 1 decembrie 1972 i intrat nvigoare la 1 martie 1973

9Perriquet J . L ^Etat des functionnaires , H.Berthlemy .Traite elementaire de droit administratif, Paris 1926, pages 53-56,quotation from the university course of Valerica Dabu, Treaty of administrative law, Bucharest 200510Valerica Dabu, op cit. pag. 10511 P.Negulescu, Treaty of administrative law, Bucharest 1934, page 595, and A. Teodorescu, Tratat de drept administrativ ,vol.I, pag.319,Bucuresti 192912J.Vermeleu, Course of Theory of public function, Law Department of Bucharest, 1943, p16113A.Teodorescu in Treaty of administrative law, Bucharest 1929 , at page 319 stated that : stability is a stage, an inferior degreeof immovability

14For development, to be seen Valentin Priscaru, Treaty of Roman administrative law, All Publishing House, 1996, page 18215For development, to be seen V. Dabu, op. cit. pag.220-22116It is all about the Work Code adopted by Law no. 10/1972, published in Official Gazette since 1stDecember

1972 and entered in force at 1stMarch 1973

9 Manta Pantelimon

Documents

Transcript of 9 Manta Pantelimon