{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014462809917355372, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.835341365461847, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The place and role of the President of the Republic of Moldova and the President of Romania in the system of public authorities. Comparative study

The institution of the Head of State is a research object both for the science of constitutional law and for the science of administrative law. The Article is dedicated to the comparative examination of the role and place of the Head of State in the system of public authorities of the Republic of Moldova and Romania. The constitutional provisions determining the functions and duties of the President of the Republic of Moldova and the President of Romania, the views expressed in the doctrine, as well as the constitutional case-law in this area are analyzed. The comparative analysis allows us to highlight the common features, but also the differences in the legal status of the President in these States. In the opinion of the author, at the level of the Head of State or the Government, any political task leads to an administrative subsidiary and any administrative task has a political sublayer, that a distinction between "political" and "administrative" appears to be risky and uncommanding. In conclusion, the author argues the idea of the need to redefine the role and place of the President of the Republic of Moldova in the system of public authorities, by rethinking the constitutional framework with a view to establishing a semi-presidential regime along the lines of Romania or France.