Locus standi. Association. Action in defence of a general interest. Urban planning action vs. Environmental protection action
JURISPRUDENȚĂ COMENTATĂ ȘI ADNOTATĂ
Abstract
I. The very fact of acting in defence of the rights or legitimate interests of members does not confer on a collective entity the capacity to sue and be sued, in the absence of an express provision of the law, which is the meaning of the expression "[i]n the cases and conditions provided for exclusively by law" in Article 37 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Any provision of the statute provided for in Article 6 of GO No 26/2000 shall be interpreted in the light of the legal statute of the associations provided for by law. By incorporation, they become what the law defines as associations, their rights and obligations being circumscribed by their legal status. Therefore, the fact that the plaintiff association aims to protect and promote the legitimate rights and interests of its members and, in general, of the inhabitants of the municipality and county [...], including by bringing proceedings before the competent courts, does not mean that it is entitled to bring any legal action, but that it is entitled to bring only those actions for which the law confers standing.
However, the general statute of associations, provided for by GO No 26/2000, does not give them standing to bring proceedings to defend a general interest, such as ensuring compliance with the law in relation to the issue and execution of administrative acts in the field of town and country planning.
II. In order for a non-governmental organisation to have standing to sue under Article 20 (6) of GEO no. 195/2005, two conditions must be met cumulatively: (a) it promotes environmental protection; and (b) the action is carried out "in relation to environmental matters", in the sense of having "environmental protection as its object".
The tangential references made by the plaintiff in the application to pollution and green spaces are not sufficient to confer on the present action the status required by Article 20 (6) of GEO No 195/2005 to be concerned with environmental protection. What the plaintiff has described in the statement of claim is not environmental damage but merely a series of alleged planning irregularities
