News
photo source:
Posted by: Daniela Socolovschi
News / Social
26 Jan. 2022 / 10:28
Public debate on the project regarding the domicile declared in the Romanian bulletin. MAI renounces the annulment of the identity document
The Romanian Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) organised a public debate on Tuesday on the draft law which provides, among other things, that the personnel of the community public services for the registration of persons to verify if the person requesting the issuance of an identity document lives permanently in the building where he requests the establishment of the domicile, writes AGERPRES.
The director of the Directorate for the Registration of Persons and Database Administration (DEPABD), Cătălin Giulescu, specified that an article from the project will be revised, which provided for the possibility of cancelling the identity document in certain situations, after several representatives of civil society participated during the debate they reported irregularities in connection with this text.
"It is necessary to return to a mention in the project, regarding the cancellation of the identity document, this was not the intention - we are talking about the cancellation of the domicile mention. This domicile entry is to be entered only in the national register of persons. In any case, this mention of the annulment of the domicile will not be taken only on the basis of a finding of a policeman," declared Cătălin Giulescu.
The participants in the debate complained that the explanations of the DEPABD director are in contradiction even with the proposals from the draft normative act, respectively with art. 35.1 of the project.
It stipulates that “in the event that the statement on the establishment of the domicile ceases to be valid, the workers of the community public services for the registration of persons cancel the identity document and make the corresponding entry in the RNEP regarding the expiry of the validity of the identity document that the statement of residence ceases to be valid, only the corresponding statement in the RNEP shall be made".
According to the presentation made by Cătălin Giulescu, the draft ordinance proposes two major elements of intervention - on the one hand the elimination of regulatory differences between domestic law and the provisions of European Union Regulation 1157/2019, especially in terms of validity of identity documents Romanian citizens and, secondly, a series of simplifications of the existing procedures, in particular as regards the documents that the citizen has to present in the situation when a large part of the documents provided by law are to be taken from computer systems.
He noted that these simplifications were aimed at putting the electronic identity card into circulation in the second half of this year.
"Nobody proposes an evaluation of all the mentions in Romania. However, in Romania, there are about 100 addresses nationwide with more than 1,000 citizens. At those addresses, where there are some buildings at 50-70 square metres, there are more than 1,000 people listed as having their domicile," Giulescu also declared.
He specified that it will be about the deregistration regarding the mention of the domicile, not the annulment of the identity card, which is another procedure against which only the court is empowered. Giulescu added that the mention of domicile is a more complex notion, which, among other things, presupposes a certain level of contact between the public authority and the citizen.
"Legislative intervention aims to correct certain situations, nothing more, there will be no assessment of how people live or do not live at the address, because the home is not the only element analyzed in terms of establishing the correctness of the home. That is, the domicile does not necessarily have to represent the place where a person lives," concluded Cătălin Giulescu.
"It is necessary to return to a mention in the project, regarding the cancellation of the identity document, this was not the intention - we are talking about the cancellation of the domicile mention. This domicile entry is to be entered only in the national register of persons. In any case, this mention of the annulment of the domicile will not be taken only on the basis of a finding of a policeman," declared Cătălin Giulescu.
The participants in the debate complained that the explanations of the DEPABD director are in contradiction even with the proposals from the draft normative act, respectively with art. 35.1 of the project.
It stipulates that “in the event that the statement on the establishment of the domicile ceases to be valid, the workers of the community public services for the registration of persons cancel the identity document and make the corresponding entry in the RNEP regarding the expiry of the validity of the identity document that the statement of residence ceases to be valid, only the corresponding statement in the RNEP shall be made".
According to the presentation made by Cătălin Giulescu, the draft ordinance proposes two major elements of intervention - on the one hand the elimination of regulatory differences between domestic law and the provisions of European Union Regulation 1157/2019, especially in terms of validity of identity documents Romanian citizens and, secondly, a series of simplifications of the existing procedures, in particular as regards the documents that the citizen has to present in the situation when a large part of the documents provided by law are to be taken from computer systems.
He noted that these simplifications were aimed at putting the electronic identity card into circulation in the second half of this year.
"Nobody proposes an evaluation of all the mentions in Romania. However, in Romania, there are about 100 addresses nationwide with more than 1,000 citizens. At those addresses, where there are some buildings at 50-70 square metres, there are more than 1,000 people listed as having their domicile," Giulescu also declared.
He specified that it will be about the deregistration regarding the mention of the domicile, not the annulment of the identity card, which is another procedure against which only the court is empowered. Giulescu added that the mention of domicile is a more complex notion, which, among other things, presupposes a certain level of contact between the public authority and the citizen.
"Legislative intervention aims to correct certain situations, nothing more, there will be no assessment of how people live or do not live at the address, because the home is not the only element analyzed in terms of establishing the correctness of the home. That is, the domicile does not necessarily have to represent the place where a person lives," concluded Cătălin Giulescu.
Show Comments