The High Court finds that in this case, the arguments of the court are devoid of legal basis, in terms of its statement that no justification of the ministry was brought, regarding that the order setting the election date was not issued, as long as throughout the trial were brought evidence regarding the fact that the order may be issued only upon request and proposal of the CNI and, moreover, the deadline in which it could be issued had not expired. No one may be obliged twice, given that the court ordered the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development exactly the application of art. II par. (1) of Law no. 122/2010; The unjustified refusal by non-issuance of the order could be invoked only after the expiry of the term provided by law and only if the applicant CNI would have not met the minimum obligations and had submitted the necessary diligence.
According to art. 2 paragraph (1) i) of Law no. 554/2004, unjustified refusal to process an application is “explicit expression with excess of power, of the will to not solve the request of an applicant” excess of power being defined in art. 2 paragraph (1) n) “exercise of discretion in violation of public authorities competence limits provided by law or by violating the rights and freedoms of citizens”.
The provisions of art. 2 letter a) of the abovementioned Act defined as injured right “any right provided by the Constitution, law or other regulations, which is undermined by an administrative act.”.