The inobservance of the special conditions affined to the ballot box in the new penal code

Pages:36-46
SUMMARY

The infraction of inobservance of the special conditions affined to the ballot box is staturory in the effective electoral laws as well as in the New Penal Code. Next to vote malversation, electronic vote malversation, the invasion of voting secrecy, document forgery and electoral inventory forgery, it is part of the issues meant to protect the voting process. Proper regulation is needed, especially considering that quite frequently election outcomes are close, while there is also to be considered the tremendous pressure from both political forces and public sphere alike. The trust as regards to the content of the ballot box must not be questionable. The proper regulation of this infraction can serve as a buffer against the perpetration of linked infractions of a penal nature. After a comparative analysis of the actual regulation and the future one, we believe that the adjusted and regular text of the New Penal Code is welcomed and it should be assumed by the legislator also in its present legal norms, in the context in which the 286/2009 law is deferred. Keywords: electoral law, inobservance of the special conditions affined to the ballot box,electoral infraction, the New Penal Code

 
CONTENT
36 TEODOR MANEA
THE INOBSERVANCE OF THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS
AFFINED TO THE BALLOT BOX IN THE NEW PENAL CODE1
Prosecutor PhDc. Teodor MANEA2
Abstract
The infraction of inobservance of the special conditions affined to the ballot box is staturory in
the effective electoral laws as well as in the New Penal Code.
Next to vote malversation, electronic vote malversation, the invasion of voting secrecy,
document forgery and electoral inventory forgery, it is part of the issues meant to protect the voting
process.
Proper regulation is needed, especially considering that quite frequently election outcomes are
close, while there is also to be considered the tremendous pressure from both political forces and
public sphere alike. The trust as regards to the content of the ballot box must not be questionable.
The proper regulation of this infraction can serve as a buffer against the perpetration of linked
infractions of a penal nature.
After a comparative analysis of the actual regulation and the future one, we believe that the
adjusted and regular text of the New Penal Code is welcomed and it should be assumed by the
legislator also in its present legal norms, in the context in which the 286/2009 law is deferred.
Keywords: electoral law, inobservance of the special conditions affined to the ballot box,
electoral infraction, the New Penal Code.
Constructing a functional democratic system implies serious legislative and
institutional endeavours. Towards achieving this goal, it is necessary but not
sufficient to guarantee in the constitution3 the right to vote and to be elected, but
1 Translated by assistant professor dr. Lucian Dragoş Ivan. University of The National School of
Political Studies and Public Administration Bucharest, Department of Sociology and Professional
Communication, Romania, i_dragos_lucian@yahoo.com.
2 University of Bucharest, Faculty of Law, Romania, teo.manea@gmail.com. This work was
supported by the strategic grant POSDRU/159/1.5/S/133255, Project ID 133255 (2014), co-financed
by the European Social Fund within the Sectorial Operational Program Human Resources
Development 2007 – 2013
3 Consecutive, in art. 36, 37 and 38 of the fundamental law the right to vote, the right to be
elected, and the right to be elected in the European Parliament are present.
According to art. 36 „(1) Romanian citizens have the right to vote once they came of age 18, not
excluding the day of the vote.
(2) The feeble, the disordered, those that are under interdiction, those that are condemned with
their right to vote suppressed through final court decision do not have the right to vote.
Law Review vol. IV, issue 2, July-December 2014, p. 36-46
The inobservance of the special conditions … 37
also actuating an electoral process that can guarantee on one hand that every
citizen has the practical ability to exercise this right, but as well the equity of the
suffrage in its entirety because the result of the ballot has to reverberate the
self-will of the electorate.
On these grounds the legislator of the New Penal Code4 inherently provided a
chapter on electoral infractions.
Therein, through articles 385 to 391 it can be found: the infraction of arresting
from exercising one’s electoral rights (art. 385), the perversion of the constituents
(art. 386), ballot fraud (art. 387), frauding the electronic ballot (art. 388),
encroaching on the privacy of the suffrage (art. 389), disregarding the statute of the
ballot box (art. 390), the forgery of electoral documents or electoral inventory
(art. 391).
At a closer look it can be observed that the legal texts are intended to protect
both aspects that have been mentioned before, the factual exercise of the electoral
rights, in consideration of which the infraction stipulated by the 385 article exists,
as well as the social relations that are central to the electoral process.
To achieve this last mentioned desideratum the Penal Code protects the
privacy of the vote, the electoral documents and inventory, which should mirror
reality, as well as the equity of the turn out of the ballot which can be subjected to
alteration through the perversion of the constituents or frauding the electronic
ballot.
Within this ensemble the agency of the ballot box is essential.
The votes are collected in the ballot box through the conveyance of the polling
station and these, and only these votes are subsequently counted after the poll is
closed and the result of the count is registered in the recording of proceedings
compiled by the members of the polling station and further processed so as to
obtain the result for the ballot.
Art. 390 paragraph 1, from the New Penal Code, provides that opening the
ballot box before the determined time for closing the poll is punishable with a term
of between 1 to 3 years of incarceration and a ban on certain rights. Paragraph 2
provides that entrusting the special ballot box to any individual outside the
members of the polling station, its transferring by any other individual outside the
authorized team or in other conditions than those provided by the law it is
Art. 37 asserts that „(1) The romanian citizens that fulfill the conditions provided by art. 16
paragraph. (3) benefit from the right of being elected, in case they are not banned from being
members of a political party, under art. 40 paragraph. (3).
(2) The candidates must be of at least 23 years of age till election day, in order to be able to run in
the elections for the Chamber of Deputies or for occuping public functions in the local public
administration system; must be of at least 33 years of age in order to run in the elections for t he Senate
and at least of 35 years of age to be elected as President of Romania.
And art. 38 asserts that „With Romania being a member of the European Union, Romanian
citizens have the right to elect and be elected in the European Parliament.
4 Law nr. 286/2009, The Official Gazette of Romania. nr. 510/24.07.2009.
38 TEODOR MANEA
punishable with a term of 3 months to 2 years of incarceration or with a fine and
the ban on certain rights.
The infraction is known in its standard variety, as it is described in the first
paragraph of the law, as well as in its assimilated variety, regularized in the second
paragraph; and we choose to first analyze the standard variety, leaving for later the
analysis of the assimilated variety and only there where it is necessary.
The juridic subject matter of this infraction is made out of the social relations
pertaining to the scrupulous carrying out of the voting process. As we have
mentioned before, this is essential for the manifestation of the democratic system
as a working ensemble. The regulation of these issues is very important, especially
taking into consideration that the result of the poll is more often than not very close
and there is tremendous public pressure from from both the political interests and
the electorate. Public trust in the content of the ballot box must be intact5.
The employment of the ballot bax is a complex one. For example, under law
35/2008, each polling station is obliged to have in its administration sufficient
ballot boxes adequately marked for each voting category, as well as a special ballot
box (art. 41). 35/20086.
The ballot boxes, which are provided by the mayor of the township, town,
municipality and subdivisions of the municipality and the (prefect) chief
commissioner, must be placed in the same room with the office of the president of
the elective office of the polling station (art. 41 paragraph 2). The ballot boxes are
handed together with the materials needed for the voting process by the mayor to
the president of the elective office of the polling station on the strength of a
recording of proceedings, and from that moment on are kept under guard and key
under the authority of the president of the elective office (art. 41 paragraph 7). For
technical reasons the voting process can be suspended. During this period the
ballot boxes will be constantly guarded (art. 42 paragraph 18). The president of the
elective office can approve, upon written request received from untransportable
constituents due to illness or disability with medical or official documents proving
this state attached to the request, that a team made out of at least two members of
the elective office to travel with a special ballot box and the necessary documents
the seal with the „VOTED” stamp and the ballot papers – to where the constituent
so as the process of voting be possible. Within the authority of a polling station
there is only one special ballot box. The special ballot box can be transported solely
5 A. Gorghiu, Infrac̲iuni contra drepturilor electorale, Ed. Universul Juridic, Bucureşti, 2012, p. 169.
6 Law nr. 35/2008 for the elections of the members of the Chamber of Deputies and The Senate and
for the modification and addition of Law nr. 67/2004 for the election of local public administration
authorities, of the Local Public Administration Law nr. 215/2001 and Law nr. 393/2004 regarding the
legal statute of local elected authorities, The Official Gazette of Romania nr. 196/13.03.2008, with
subsequent modifications and additions. We chose this text because out of all the text in exercise at this
point it is the most complete and clear. The procedure is provided for in a similar way in the rest of the
special laws, the differences are minor and do not chance in any way our present analysis. For example,
one difference is in the hours between which the electoral process takes place.
The inobservance of the special conditions … 39
by the members of that specific polling station. The special ballot bax can be
transported and used only within the authority of the polling station to which it
was assigned (art. 42 paragraph 22). (art. 42 paragraph 222). The regulation is
meticulous and ranges across all the instant of the electoral process till the moment
in which the voting is stopped and the ballot boxes are opened. Taking this aspect
into account we can realize the importance of this infraction because its prevention is
a real obstacle for a whole set of other acts of a penal nature. For example, opening
the ballot box before the legally established hour could facilitated the insertion.
The same situation applies to the assimilated variety regulated in paragraph 2,
where it is established that entrusting the ballot box to any other person besides
the members of the elective office of that particular polling station or its
transportation by unauthorized persons could result into illegal or misuse of the
ballot box.
For example, it could be used by persons other than those with the right to
vote, the veracity control addressed to the elective office of the polling station
could be performed in inadequate conditions, and, it could also result in a larger
number of ballot papers than the expected number.
The material object of the crime lies in the ballot box in which the ballot papers
are placed. Actually, we are talking about a box out of cardboard or from another
material.
Normal ballot boxes are placed within the polling station as it is mentioned
above and are customized for each type of ellection. There is only one special ballot
box for the territory assigned to a polling station. It is prohibited for more than just
one special ballot box to be used within one’s polling station territory.
Taking into consideration the social norms that are hence protected it can be
argumented that this infraction has no material object and the existence of the
ballot box represents only a premise type situation for committing the infraction.
Because this is purely a theoretical aspect we shall not debate upon it any further.
The active subject of the infraction is not named. The ballot box can be opened
by voters, observers that are within the polling station or even by candidates.
Likewise, the infraction can be committed by any of the members of the elective
office of the polling station, by the personnel assigned with the security of the
polling station or by individuals, who, although do not have the right to vote, enter
the premises of the polling station or come into contact with the special ballot box.
The passive subject of this infraction is represented by the state, represented by
the institutions that handle the organization the electoral process and in its
capacity of guarantor for the validity of the electoral process. Secondly, it can be
said that the candidate running for election has also its interest of being elected put
into jeopardy, as long as the infraction consists also in the defrauding of the
electoral process and as a result the turn out of the electoral process is influenced.
Anyway, the candidate shall be considered a passive subject of the infraction of
defrauding the electoral process and not of the infraction of infringing upon the
statute of the ballot box.
40 TEODOR MANEA
As far as the constituent content of the infraction, the material element of the
act in its standard type is materialized into an action, the action of opening the
ballot box.
The time span in which the infraction can be committed starts just before the
electoral process (for example, in accordance with Law number 35/2008, between
06:00 o’clock and 07:00 o’clock in the day established for the vote) with the moment
in which the ballot boxes are sealed, in the day of the vote, by the president of the
electoral office of the voting station, together with its members, till the moment in
which the electoral process is stopped and the ballot boxes are opened. This last
moment can be represented by the time appointed by Law (Law Number 35/2008
established 21:00 o’clock as the designated time), or at a later time in cases in which
the electoral process has been extended.
As a result, any act upon the ballot box before the moment in which it is sealed
can be constitute an infraction because the ballot box is checked and any problem
detected by the electoral office can be fixed. The author shall be accountable for the
infraction of property damage if in the act of tempering with the ballot box it is
damaged.
Subsequent to the moment in which the seal is broken and the ballot papers
are extracted it can not be said that another infraction consisting in ballot box
opening can not occur.
Taking into consideration the type of the action needed for this infraction
according to the law, this infraction does not have a continuous aspect. The
infraction takes place the moment the ballot box is opened. In case the ballot box is
reopened after being resealed, another infraction takes place.
Nevertheless, in our opinion, this infraction can be committed in a continuous
aspect as long as the author opens the ballot box repeatedly and having in mind
the same infractional drive.
Law number 390 from the New Penal Code contends on the opening of the
ballot box before the appointed time. If a person, taking advantage of the same
opportunity, opens more than just one ballot box, be it normal or special, this
person shall commit only one infraction and this person shall not be within a
concurrence of criminal offences. This type of situation can occur for example
during the electoral process for the Parliament because each polling station is
equipped with a ballot box for the Senate and another ballot box for the Chamber
of Deputies.
However, in the situation in which the author of the infraction enter within a
polling station and opens ballot boxes, only to continue by entering another polling
station where he commits the same act, we consider it to be a concurrence of
criminal offences, not a simple infraction.
Firstly, the law can not hold into account all the ballot boxes from all the
polling stations, and secondly, the lack of a time and space term can not delineate a
criminal determination which could be specific to just only one infraction, not even
one specific to a recurrent offence.
The inobservance of the special conditions … 41
The moment a criminal activity leads to damaging the ballot box which can
not be expected merely as a result of opening it, the infraction shall concur with
property damage in its standard type.
Perpetrating an action upon the establishment of the polling station can result
or not, depending on the situation, in committing an act provided for by article 390
from the New Penal Code. Hence, if by perpetrating an action upon the
establishment of the polling station, the individual does not intend to open the
ballot boxes, and this happens accidentally, the author shall not be accountable for
this action.
In the foreseeable situation in which the author commits the crime so as to
open the ballot boxes, the acts shall be in an etiological relationship concurrence,
while if the author acknowledges that through his actions the ballot boxes will be
opened, we shall consider that we analyze a concurrence of criminal offences.
The immediate result of the act is translated in the sense of danger created by
the author related to the over-all trust of the persons involved in the correctness in
the electoral process and the results of the suffrage.
As a danger related crime, the causal link is a result of the materiality of the
act.
As the subjective side is concerned, the condition of the guilt lies in the
intention.
Most of the time the intention is a direct one, the author of the act proceeding
to open the ballot box to influence the results of the electoral process in one way or
another. Just as well, the act can be committed without an indirect intention.
A person that unwillingly opens a ballot box shall not be accountable for this
infraction. For example, consider the situation in which a voter, once he has
stamped his ballot paper, while trying to insert it in the ballot box, pushes it on the
floor by mistake and the seal is broken.
In this case the ballot box shall be resealed and the electoral process can
continue.
The ballot box can not be opened under any circumstance. As we mentioned
before in the article, taking this into account, in the situation in which a person has
made an error on the ballot paper, the person can received another ballot paper
only if the ballot paper with the error has not been already inserted in the ballot
box.
Likewise, the law indicates that if a valid ballot paper comes to be placed in
another ballot box, it will be taken into consideration, but that ballot box could not
be opened in order to retrieve it.
In practice we noticed the wide range of events that can take place during the
electoral process. It has been recorded situations in which voters have dropped
different objects into the ballot box, such as keys, personal documents and so on.
Furthermore, it has been recorded the situation in which with the ballot paper, the
voter also introduced the voting seal leading to a disturbance in the electoral
process.
42 TEODOR MANEA
We believe that in this case a rigid interpretation of the law would not be in
accordance with the volition of the legislator. As we have discussed, the condition
of the guilt behind the act lies in the intention. Without intention the infraction
does not exist. This is especially true in the case in which the electoral process is
adjourned, the ballot box is opened by the president of the electoral office of the
polling station in the presence of its members and once the objects are extracted the
ballot box is resealed.
The motive and the aim do not influence the act. Nevertheless, most of the
times these elements can be found in practice and can constitute a way of
singularizing the given punishment.
According to article 392 of the New Penal Code the infraction of disregarding
the statute of the ballot is also punishable during a referendum.
Likewise, according to article 393 from the New Penal Code the attempt of
committing this infraction is punishable.
Concerning the punishment, the infraction in its standard type is punishable
with an imprisonment term of 1 to 3 years or a fine or restricting access to certain
rights.
In the judicial system implemented through The New Penal Code the
problems associated with enforcing complementary punishments is no longer an
issue. We would like to underline that taking into account the nature of the
infraction, the court should take into consideration the possibility of restricting the
access to the electoral process, besides restricting access to the possibility of being
elected or exercising a position that infers the use of the state authority.
In its assimilated type the punishment is less restrictive, consisting in a term of
incarceration of 3 months to 2 years, or a fine.
The text from the second in-line of article 390 from the New Penal Code asserts
that entrusting the special ballot box to any other person beside the members of the
electoral office of the polling station or even its transportation by any other person
or in any other conditions that those asserted by the law is punishable by law.
A first observation would be in connection with the active subject, in case of
entrusting the special ballot box, where, although the text makes no reference, the
subject is in actual fact detailed. Taking into consideration that only the president
of the electoral office of the polling station and the members of the electoral office
have authority upon the special ballot box, only they can entrust the special ballot
box to another person.
Next, discussing the way in which the transport takes place, we mention that
the special laws assert this procedure. Consequently, any person that transports
the special ballot box, outside the persons entrusted by the electoral office of the
polling station would commit this infraction.
This infraction can be committed even by the persons that are legally entrusted
with this task if they do not respect the procedures asserted by the law. For
example, they can be held accountable for moving the special ballot box outside
the territory of the polling station to which it was assigned.
The inobservance of the special conditions … 43
The material object is represented by the special ballot box 7. As we have
asserted earlier in the article, a polling station can have only one special ballot box
and it can not be used in the territory of another polling station. We also mention
the fact that the special ballot box is carried by two members of the electoral office
to the persons that have requested it, under constant guard. Entrusting means
giving something or someone in the care and guard of a person that you trust8.
Taking this into account, we believe that this infraction does not take place in the
situation in which the members of the electoral office entrust the special ballot box
to a voter for a moment while they solve a series of administrative issues linked
with the electoral process.
The act of entrusting something to someone must be understood as the act of
keeping the special ballot box by a person for some time while also ensuring the
security of its content and its integrity. The act of entrusting the special ballot box
can be also of a continuous nature, the moment in which it is entrusted to several
persons by the same individual.
The act of transporting the ballot box is as a result of its nature a continuous act
which stops the moment in which the special ballot box is brought back to the
individuals which have the authority of transporting it or when the term offered
by the law is fulfilled. As a result the infraction of transporting the special ballot
box without respecting the conditions provided by the law can have a continuous
aspect. This can happen if once the transportation of the special ballot box is
restarted the provisions of the law are again ignored. As a result, the member of
the electoral office of a polling station that entrusts the special ballot box to
individuals that are not authorized, while also opening the special ballot box will
be held responsible for both infractions. The variant in question may be committed
in the state of aggravating circumstances of existing multiple offences with the
opening of the ballot boxes.
This is especially true taking into consideration that in practice the fact that the
special ballot box is entrusted or transported without observing the rule of the law
with the precise objective of opening it and changing the results of the vote.
Before the New Penal Code took effect the infraction was present in all the
laws that presently bring under regulation the electoral process.
Hence, article 59 Law no. 35/2008 asserts that the opening of the ballot boxes
before the established time for the closing of the voting process represents an
infraction. The attempt is also punishable. A similar view is presented by article 57
Law no. 3/20009. The only difference lies in the fact that on one hand the legislator
uses the singular, ballot box, and in the other case the legislator uses the plural,
7 The previous opinions regarding the lack of a material object are also valid in this case.
8 http://dexonline.ro/definitie/incredintare.
9 Law no. 3/2000 appertains to the organization and progress of the referendum, The Official
Gazette of Romania no. 84/24.02.2000, with subsequent modifications and additions.
44 TEODOR MANEA
ballot boxes. The legislator did not take into account that a referendum can be
organized in order to settle multiple problems.
The same praxis was present in article 62 from Law no. 33/200710.
The punishment present in the first regulation, as well as in Law 33/2007 was
of 6 months to 3 years, while in the judicial system of Law no. 3/2009 it was of 1
year to 5 years.
The 67/200411 Law asserts, at article 112, that opening the ballot boxes before
the established time as well as the employment of the special ballot box without
following the strict legal regulations represented an infraction and it is punishable
with a term of imprisonment of 6 months to 3 years.
Article 113, paragraph 1, asserts that entrusting the special ballot box to any
other individual besides the members of the electoral office of the polling station
constitutes an infraction that is punishable with a term of imprisonment of 1 year
to 5 years, while paragraph 2 asserts that the same punishment can be applied to
the person that transports the special ballot box without being a member of the
electoral office of that polling station.
In both situations, the attempt at the crime is punishable.
Finally, Law no. 370/200412, harboring the general capricious legislative
climate, asserted through article 61 paragraph 1 that the opening of the ballot boxes
before the established time for closing the voting process is punishable with a term
of imprisonment of 1 year to 3 years or a fine and or restricting access to certain
rights, while paragraph 2 asserts that entrusting the special ballot box to any other
individual besides the members of the electoral office of the polling station or even
its transportation by any other individuals or in any other conditions that those
provided by law is punishable with a term of imprisonment of 3 months to 2 years
or a fine and or restricting access to certain rights. The attempt is also punishable.
Our first observation is that the text of the standard type of the infraction
provided for by the New Penal Code was found in all the regulatory documents,
with only small differences in wording.
This is the starting point for a legislative chaos. The assimilated type was to be
found only in two out of the four laws, and in these two laws it was provided for
in a different way, in its form, but not in its merits.
Depending on the type of election that is taking place, a member of the elective
office of the polling station in question, that entrusts the ballot box to a person that
was not authorized for this task, can or can not be held accountable. Additional, in
Law Number 67/2004 we find the sanctioning of the usage of the ballot box in any
10 Law no. 33/2007 appertains to the organization and progress of the elections for the European
Parliament, republished, The Official Gazette of Romania nr. 627/31.08.2012.
11 Law no. 67/2004 appertains to the organization and progress of the local public administration
authorities, republished, The Official Gazette of Romania nr. 333/17.05.2007, with subsequent
modifications and additions.
12 Law nr. 370/2004 for the election of the President of Romania, republished, The Official
Gazette of Romania. no. 650/12.09/2011.
The inobservance of the special conditions … 45
other conditions besides those explicitly provided for by the law, unlike the other
judicial texts that mentioned only the transportation of the ballot box in any other
conditions besides those explicitly provided for by the law. Nevertheless, the
conditions are described in article 8713 and its content does not lead to the
conclusion that situations may arise in which its usage could mean anything else
than its transportation in other conditions14.
The most balanced regulation was found in Law number 370/2004, a
regulation that has been absorbed into the New Penal Code.
Inconsistency results also from the fact that the limits for the punishment were
different in an assorted number of laws. After analyzing this context we assert that
the Law number 370/2004 was the only one that enforced the execution of
complementary punishment. Consequently, the regulation brought about by the
New Penal Code, adjusted and coherent, is more than welcomed.
References
[1] Law no. 286/2009, The Official Gazette of Romania. no. 510/24.07.2009;
[2] A. Gorghiu, Infraciuni contra drepturilor electorale, Ed. Universul Juridic,
Bucureşti, 2012, p. 169;
13 Art. 87 - (1) For the voters that can not be transported as a result of illness or invalidity, the
president of the electoral office of the polling station can approve upon their written request that a
team of at least two members of the electoral office of that polling station to transport the special
ballot box together with the materials needs in order for one to exercise the right to vote – the seal
with the mark VOTED and the ballot papers – to where the voter has requested so as the voter can
exercise his right to vote. The special ballot box can be transported only by the members of the
electoral office of the polling station.
(2) In the cases provided for by paragraph (1) the vote can be cast only on the basis of an
abridgement personally set by the president of the electoral office of the polling station in accordance
with the copy of the permanent electoral list, the copy of the complementary electoral list or of the
supplementary list that is at that particular polling station. The list is signed and stamped by the
president, while the persons that are on this list must be erased from all other existing lists at that
polling station.
(3) In accordance with the provisions from paragraph (1) and (2) can vote only the persons that
reside within the territory assigned to that specific polling station and only if the secrecy of the vote is
guaranteed.
14 The only other discussion would be around the cases in which the vote is cast by a different
person than the person that should cast the vote in the special ballot box. In these cases, we see
happening either the alteration of the content of the extras of the electoral list used by the members o f
the electoral office of the polling station and in this case we note that the infraction of deliberately
enlisting on the electoral list a person without the right to vote using the special ballot box, an act
provided for by art. 106 paragraph. 2, or, in another case, the forgery of the documents from the
electoral office, act provided for by art. 110 paragraph, 1. There is also the possibility that a
supplementary number of ballot papers is introduced in the ballot box without changing the electoral
list. In this case we note that another specific infraction takes place, the infraction of inserting a
supplementary number of ballot papers, provided for by art. 110 paragraph. 1.
46 TEODOR MANEA
[3] Law no. 35/2008 for the elections of the members of the Chamber of Deputies and
The Senate;
[4] Law no. 67/2004 for the election of local public administration authorities;
[5] Law no. 215/2001;
[6] Law no. 393/2004 regarding the legal statute of local elected authorities, The
Official Gazette of Romania no. 196/13.03.2008, with subsequent modifications and
additions;
[7] Law no. 3/2000 appertains to the organization and progress of the referendum, The
Official Gazette of Romania no. 84/24.02.2000, with subsequent modifications and
additions;
[8] Law no. 33/2007 appertains to the organization and progress of the elections for
the European Parliament, republished, The Official Gazette of Romania no. 627/31.08.2012;
[9] Law no. 67/2004 appertains to the organization and progress of the local public
administration authorities, republished, The Official Gazette of Romania no. 333/17.05.2007,
with subsequent modifications and additions;
[10] Law no. 370/2004 for the election of the President of Romania, republished, The
Official Gazette of Romania. no. 650/12.09/2011.