-
The article is based on a constant case law of the Constitutional Court of Romania where the expression of “interstitial rule” appears as a leitmotif. Under this rule, any rule of law of the European Union whose content is sufficiently clear, precise and unambiguous, and at the same time proves a certain level of constitutional relevance, will be applied within a compliance control operated by the constitutional court. Therefore, these conditions are examined in detail and also some legal proposition is designed to facilitate the situation of the direct “beneficiary” of such an enforcement – the European litigant. -
This study aims to develop concepts already outlined in the doctrine, but in the light of the modern law on self-defence and exceeding its limits, containing transitional issues in relation to the new Criminal Code, accompanied by the case law up to date and reasonable own notes, while emphasizing the theoretical and practical controversies encountered. The article is prepared in an analytical style, the author reveals the key aspects regarding certain particularities and difficulties arising from the combination of the letter of the law with its enforcement. In addition to the aforementioned aspects, certain elements related to the comparative law are present, and the provisions of the (European) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning self-defence, as well as de lege ferenda proposals.
-
The article analyzes the specific references that an offence notice has to contain compulsorily, stating an offence of the regime of driving on public roads. Although the elements of the road traffic report shall be determined by the framework law in the contravention matter, respectively the Government Ordinance no. 2/2001, the specificity of the road traffic offenses require certain specific features of these notices, especially about the description way of the act recorded as an offence, about the legal classification of the offense and the application of additional sanctions.
-
Potrivit art. 2781 alin. (8) lit. c) C.pr.pen., judecãtorul pronunțã soluția: „admite plângerea, prin încheiere, desființeazã rezoluția sau ordonanța atacatã și, când probele existente la dosar sunt suficiente, reține cauza spre judecare, în complet legal constituit, dispozițiile privind judecata în primã instanțã și cãile de atac aplicându-se în mod corespunzãtor”(cu notã criticã).
-
ACȚIUNE CIVILÃ. ASIGURÃTOR DE RÃSPUNDERE CIVILÃ În conformitate cu dispozițiile Legii nr. 136/1995, instanța dispune obligarea asigurãtorului de rãspundere civilã, în mod direct, în limita obligației sale contractuale, la plata despãgubirilor cãtre partea civilã (Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, Secția penalã, decizia nr. 3405 din 23 octombrie 2012).
