Controversial issues regarding the legal regime of incompatibilities of the locally elected officials

The establishment of a legal regime of incompatibilities for persons appointed in public offices and dignities is necessary because it confers legitimacy and ensures an adequate protection of the public interest. The state of incompatibility assumes the simultaneous fulfilment of certain functions, activities or qualities in relation to which the law expressly prohibits the accumulation. It shall be established by an evaluation report drawn up by an administrative authority or by a court decision. For the rigorous observance of the regime of incompatibilities, a sanctioning regime has been established, which implies, in addition to the legal termination of the incompatible function, a series of prohibitions or revocations. In the case of locally elected officials (local councillors, mayor, county councillors, county council president) the finding of the state of incompatibility is a case of termination of office as of right and results in the ban on holding the same eligible position for a period of 3 years from termination of office. The succession of legal instruments and the imperfections of the regulatory text have generated a nonunitary case law regarding the interpretation of the legal nature of the applicable sanction, of the term during which the limitation of liability can be claimed, as well as of the moment from which the interdiction period operates. The article analyses the doctrinal and jurisprudential controversies regarding the legal regime of incompatibilities of the locally elected officials in the light of the recent interpretations of the High Court of Cassation and Justice.