LiderJust Cafe 3rd edition. How was it.

Jus et Urbe – About Law and City

12274710_1015082828555935_8293594046218373216_nMonday, November 23, 2015, was organized a new edition of informal contacts
within the program Liderjust Cafe, J us et Urbe – Law and the City, a program that
aims to bring together professionals in urban planning, on one hand, and the legal
environment, on other hand, discussions of interest to the target audience: interested
citizens, representatives of government and civil society, academia, master planners
and lawyers – to follow the connection between two areas which increasingly meet
more and more often in Romania.
To facilitate the approach of the considered topics, we had as guests, in order of their
presentations: Mr. Alexandru PÂNIŞOARĂ, urbanist and Vice President of the
Association “Salvati Bucurestiul” (e ng. “Save Bucharest” ), Mrs. Anca STROIU,
lawyer and PhD, Senior Lawyer Mcgregor and Partners and Ms. Simona
CALAPODESCU, Legal Adviser, a member of the Association “Salvati Bucurestiul”.

Introduction to debate

The meeting was opened by Bianca Constantin, with a brief presentation of the urban
reform and remembering the partners of the event, the Master program in Law of
Urbanism and Territorial Planning and the competition Urbaniada, a contest of
projects aimed at improving quality of urban life, organized by T he Institute, legally
represented by the “Civil Society Gala” for I NG Bank Romania
(http://urbaniada.net).

The panel and the topics raised

12294644_1015083041889247_6247630256880282179_nIn the first part of the discussion we had the pleasure to learn from the urbanist
Alexandru P ÂNIŞOARĂ what does imply and involve the concept of ” advocacy
planning” and what effects and repercussions have, in administrative
organizations, the misunderstanding and lack of sufficient application of this
concept. After an introduction to the world of urbanism, explaining the meaning and
inclusions of the term ” urban”, the non-exhaustive list of regulations in this area and
the coordinates of transparency in decision making (resistance to change,
effectiveness of the process, accessibility in terminology and consolidating the urban
democracy), we were taken to the less known world of participatory urbanism: we
were given relevant examples about how the a dvocacy planning works, by analyzing
case studies from ‘ Coin Street Action Group ” that happened in the 70’s to the
present urban / neighborhood contract – form often used in Belgium as an example
of participatory urbanism.
We reached later to an interesting discussion about how should look the
implementation of the p lanning a dvocacy concept in public institutions and what it
would mean: transparency in decision-making, accessibility in terminology, the
effectiveness of the process and beyond. Towards the end of the first presentation,
our guests, along with the urbanist Alexandru P ÂNIŞOARĂ, concluded that by
using a dvocacy planning, the authority transforms from the “p urpose ” of the urban
works into the “w ay ” by which they are made, with all consequences following such a
change.

12246733_1015083131889238_6294435564417914017_n
We continued discussions with Mrs Anca S TROIU, lawyer, who shared with us
some of the legal mysteries in the b uilding permit, focusing on its s uspension
procedure. After an interesting debate about the nature of the urbanism certificate
(to be or not to be an administrative act), full of good and absolutely revelatory
arguments, we had a brief overview of the differences in legal regime between the
suspension of the building permit and the cancellation thereof; Then it followed an
analysis of the succession in time of the two procedures, in terms of their usefulness
and procedural terms.
In the same part of the discussion, the guests learned from the lawyer which are
conditions of admissibility such procedure for suspension, respectively the existence
of a justifiable case represented by a serious doubt on the legality of the building
permit (condition is exemplified based on jurisprudential solutions) and preventing
an imminent danger (similar based solutions court).

12246697_1015082725222612_4352254397800968892_nThe last part of the meeting, our attention was caught up by Ms Simona
CALAPODESCU, legal adviser, who informed the guests about citizen’s right on
free access to public information, r egulated by Law No. 544/2001, sharing
from the experience that her colleagues from the “Salvati Bucurestiul” and her
personally had in dealing with public institutions.
In the same context, Simona told us about the obstacles they often met as a result of
petitions submitted to public institutions, among them being as well the blocked
access to public information pursuant to, in almost all cases, Article 12 o f Law 544 /
2001 o n free access to information of public interest, which is governing the
concept of ” Classified information”. After the discussion, it was concluded that ” any
information that is not classified pursuant to Article 12 of the Law (n.n. Law no.
544/2001) is public” , can be accessed and the citizen has the right to ask for.
Towards the end, we had a brief presentation of the results of these actions taken by
her and her colleagues from the association, concluding that any change comes
through perseverance and trust in the power of the citizen and society as a whole.
Conclusions and final intervention
Following the presentations of the three guests, there were discussions and
interventions from the public. The status of the big files on urbanism and demolition
permits, investor interest vs. public interest.
Since we were talking about transparency in the decision, an intervention by Mr
Marian Ivan, founding member of OPTAR (Organization for Promoting the
Alternative Transport in Romania) followed – an association that supports the
development of urban mobility by offering viable alternatives to travel for citizens.
The issue concerned was planning the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (PMUD)
and involving citizens in the process. As OPTAR representative said, at present,
although there are guidelines for developing these PMUD, a basic principle was not
respected, namely participatory planning.

12247069_1015083195222565_1199780823985805951_n
For more details about PMUD and current state of this problem, please
visit http://optar.ro/planificarea-participativa-o-conditie-in-realizarea-unui-pmud.html

We thank The Institute for location and supporters of this event:

Sustinatori

Feedback
● “Congratulations for the initiative and success in the future, these
conferences should be frequently organized because they have as result
the awakening of the consciousness, the responsibility and empowering
the interaction of between professionals and a good time to form a
cooperation between them on these topics, relevant projects “- Alexandra
Lupu, Lawyer, graduate Master Public Procurement Law School
● “The guests were very good, it looks like people are professional,
passionate and well-documented in their field and it was a pleasure to
listen. In particular lady who spoke last in program, enthused me
because she gave me the feeling that there are people who really
understand the scope of their employment, and fighting, learn and want
to make things better, even if they are very young and encounter many
obstacles. “- Roxana Vlad, Lawyer, graduate Master Public International
Law
● “I found it a very interesting discussion focused o n concrete issues, with
realistic and fully creative proposals” – Fabian Niculae, employee of the
Department of Constitutional Law and Political Institutions, Faculty of
Law, University of Bucharest
LiderJust team:
Ana-Maria Draganuta, lawyer
Bianca Constantin, jurist, law graduate Master of Urbanism and Spatial Planning
Andra Ciuraru, Legal Adviser & mediator, expert in Corporate Affairs and
Compliance Department – OMV Petrom
Aniela ARON, public Manager
Evelyn KLOSS, Project Coordinator / scientific referent of Konrad Adenauer
Stiftung Rule of Law Program South East Europe
Diana Ruxandra PÎRLAN, lawyer
Adrian Necula, Head Office Forensic 7 Police Department, Bucharest
Raul Zachia, lawyer