-
Din conținutul art. 64 din Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 109/2005 și art. V din Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 34/2010 rezultă că actul prin care s-a dispus măsura administrativă de suspendare a dreptului de utilizare a unui vehicul, prin reținerea certificatului de înmatriculare și a plăcuțelor cu numărul de înmatriculare, are caracterul unui act administrativ autonom, conținând o sancțiune de sine stătătoare, care poate fi contestat la instanța de contencios administrativ, în condițiile Legii nr. 554/2004. -
Prin Constituția din 1991 s-a înființat în România, pentru prima dată în istoria sa, Curtea Constituțională, rolul său fiind de garant al supremației Constituției. Ulterior, a fost adoptată Legea nr. 47/1992 privind organizarea și funcționarea Curții Constituționale1. Constituția revizuită în 2003 (titlul V intitulat „Curtea Constituțională”), Legea nr. 47/1992 privind organizarea și funcționarea Curții Constituționale și Regulamentul de organizare și funcționare a Curții Constituționale, aprobat prin Hotărârea nr. 6/2012 a Plenului Curții Constituționale2, alcătuiesc cadrul legal de manifestare a competenței Curții Constituționale.
-
Within this paper it is examined the institution of recognition and enforcement of pecuniary sanctions by a competent authority of another Member State of the European Union, regarded as a form of judicial assistance in criminal matters at the level of the Member States. The study is a continuation of the research on the institution of judicial assistance, materialized in the author’s publication of other materials in the specialized reviews and in the volumes of some international conferences. The study can be useful both to practitioners in this field and to the students of faculties of law. The element of novelty is the examination of the institution in the light of the new amendments brought to the Romanian and European legislation, as well as by critical remarks expressed, remarks meant to help improve the phrasing of incidental legal rules.
-
The new Criminal Code brings changes with regard to the offences against property, contained in Title II of the special part, including with regard to the incidence of reconciliation. The mixed nature of this institution of criminal material law and of criminal procedural law has generated difficulties in the judicial practice, particularly in relation to Article 159 (2) of the Criminal Code, which states that it must occur before reading the referral act and it raises for discussion a constitutionality examination in relation to the Constitutional Court case-law.
-
The principle of opportunity is applied in all criminal legislations, although some leave it unmentioned and others expressly establish it. The author analyses the evolution of this principle, starting from the former criminal legislation to the criminal legislation in force, pointing out the advantages of the new regulation.
-
The safety measure of extended confiscation was introduced by the Law No 63/2012 and is a transposition into the national legislation of the provisions of Article 3 of the Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property. The study below has as purpose to analyse the provisions of this measure, provided in Article 1121 within the general part of the Criminal Code.
-
The article examines from a theoretical point of view and from a practical perspective the rules regulating the ancillary punishment and the complementary punishments, presenting the aspects of continuity and the novelties brought by the criminal provisions in the field.
-
Following the systematic examination of some normative acts in the field of administrative law, the National Integrity Agency has expressed its opinion in the sense that the exercise of the position of secretary of the administrative-territorial units (Bucharest Municipality, county and local councils), simultaneously with the position of chairman or deputy at the electoral bureau of the polling station generates a situation of incompatibility with the provisions of the Law No 161/2003 and Law No 35/2008. The author of this study combats this opinion of the National Integrity Agency (submitted for compliance to the county and local councils by administrative means), reaching a symmetrically opposite conclusion (there is no incompatibility in the given situation).
-
The authors make an analysis of the Romanian legislation in the matter of forensic reports – and, particularly, in the field of medical malpractice – and they establish that, in these areas, there is a plurality of normative acts of different levels (laws, Government ordinances, Government decisions, orders of ministers), regulations which, quite often, are confused, contradict each other, are incomplete, sometimes they are not correlated with the rules of principle in the matter of evidence included in the current Civil Procedure Code, respectively the Criminal Procedure Code etc. At the end of the analysis, the authors propose the repeal of this entire scattered legislation and the elaboration of a single normative act on the matter (at level of law or of Government ordinance) that, having regard to the current legislative experience, would completely and unitarily bring a modern, unique and unitary regulation with regard to the forensic reports (including those concerning the medical malpractice).
-
In this study, the author, after presenting some brief considerations on proportionality as a principle of law, presents the theoretical foundations of proportionality, as they are reflected in the Romanian legal doctrine. Finally, the author proposes that, in prospect of future revision of the Constitution of Romania, it must be established, in its very first article, that „the exercise of the state power must be proportionate and non-discriminatory”.
-
As it can be inferred from the title, in this study the author intends to make an analysis of the institution of „exclusion of evidence”, which exists in the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code of 1968, which is maintained and further detailed in the new Criminal Procedure Code, differently interpreted in the doctrine and less present in the case-law from Romania. The study begins with a general and comparative presentation of the „sanction” in question in the former and in the present regulation, also being analysed the modification brought by the Law implementing the new Criminal Procedure Code. Within this study there are presented and analyzed the conditions in which the sanction of exclusion of evidence operates, as regulated by the present Criminal Procedure Code. However, the analysis focuses on the doctrinal interpretation of these conditions, by emphasizing the existence of a trend to relate the sanction of exclusion of evidence to the conditions of the sanction of nullity. As far as the author is concerned, she pleads for the interpretation and practical application of the sanction of exclusion of evidence separately from the conditions of nullity, subject only to the breach of the principle of legality and loyalty in providing evidence. For this purpose, the author also makes some interesting de lege ferenda proposals.
-
In the ambience of the legislative framework instituted by the new Civil Procedure Code, this study intends to make an analysis of several aspects referring to the determination of the jurisdiction of law courts which settle disputes in matters of administrative disputes, regulated by the Law on administrative disputes No 554/2004, in comparison with the procedural provisions instituted by the new Civil Procedure Code. In order to achieve the proposed approach, the study analyses the compatibility of the procedural rules of common law included in the new Civil Procedure Code referring to the determination of the jurisdiction of the law courts in relation to the provisions of the Law No 554/2004 regulating the jurisdiction of the law courts in matters of administrative disputes.
