-
Criminal Rule incriminates the refusal to collect “biological samples”, highlighting the driver’s bad faith. Law does not refer to the case where the driver has agreed to provide the first biological sample but refuses the collection of the second. Such situations hindering the criminal prosecution body were met in practice. After a thorough assessment of the incriminating wording in accordance with the criminal provision’s rules of interpretation, the author concludes that the refusal to provide the second biological sample is an offense. -
The article analyzes recent and older judgments of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and other courts on the regularity of the document instituting court proceedings, through the indictment prepared by the prosecutor. By highlighting the lack of uniform settlement of irregularities arising in the procedure laid down in Art. 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the authors try to find harmonious solutions for the procedural incidents arising in matters. Also, a significant part of the article is dedicated to the provisions of the new Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the analyzed matter, highlighting some deficiencies specific to the new rules.
-
Cererea formulatã de debitorul cedat privind restituirea unei sume de bani achitatã A.V.A.S. în baza unui contract de cesiune de creanţã, prin care Ministerul Finanţelor Publice a cesionat A.V.A.S. creanţa pe care o avea faţã de societatea debitoare, sumã de bani nedatoratã, se încadreazã în dispoziţiile art. 45 din O.U.G. nr. 51/1998 care se referã la „cereri de orice naturã” privind drepturi şi obligaţii în legãturã cu activele preluate de A.V.A.S., cereri supuse unui termen special de prescripţie reglementat de art. 49 alin. (1) de 6 luni de la data la care s-a cunoscut, sau trebuia sã se cunoascã faptul sau actul pe care se întemeiazã (Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie, Secţia a II-a civilã, decizia nr. 2928 din 4 octombrie 2011).
