-
In the above study, the author, carrying out a critical analysis of articles 1216–1218 of the new Romanian Civil Code (Law no. 287/2009, which became effective on the 1st of October 2011), namely, regarding the contents regulating the violence (as a vice of consent) in this Code, considers that their wording is not adequate and that is why finally, the study, de lege ferenda proposes a new wording of the contents, such as formulated by the author. -
The letter of guarantee is regulated by the new Civil Code within the autonomous guarantees, together with the letter of comfort. It is an autonomous, unconditional and irrevocable legal deed. In the letter of guarantee, the issuer assumes its own obligation which in its relationship with the beneficiary at least, shall be main and autonomous – the payment of an amount of money upon the first simple request of the beneficiary, for the situation in which the result taken into account upon its assumption is not carried out. The execution of the letter of guarantee depends only on its own requirements and this is the criterion according to which it distinguishes basically from the deed of trust.
-
In this study the author carries out an analysis of the provisions mentioned in art. 898-902 of the new Civil Procedure Code (Law no. 134/2010, not yet in force) on the enforcement of court orders regarding the minor children, these regulations being derogatory from the common law of the enforcement, established for the first time in the Romanian laws, and consequently, without any correspondence in the Romanian civil procedure laws, still in force.
-
Although it maintains the legal fusion system for sanctioning multiple offences, the new Criminal Code sets forth the obligation to apply a fixed increase to the hardest punishment, representing the third part of the total punishments inflicted for simultaneous offences. The author states that the provision of the amount of the increase of punishment in the content of the law does not allow the court to judge, as the case may be, depending on the number and on the grossness of the simultaneous offences and on the particulars of the defendant, the need and especially, the amount of the punishment increase. In order to avoid certain legal exaggerations which could result from the establishment and the application of the punishment increase, according to the new regulations for the observance of the principle of lawfulness of criminal sanctions and in order not to give the court the opportunity to apply the sentence of life imprisonment when it is not set forth for any simultaneous offence, the legal amendment of the provisions of art. 39 of the new Criminal Code, is required.
-
According to the Labor Code (Law no. 53/2003, republished on the 18 of May 2011), the employer, under the pain of absolute nullity, cannot inflict any disciplinary sanction (except the written warning), without beforehand and compulsorily, performing a disciplinary investigation as well, by an individual authorized by the employer to this end. The minimum rules regarding the disciplinary procedure (namely, also those regarding the prior disciplinary investigation) are set forth in the Labor Code and are developed by the Internal Regulations of the unit. Such being the case, this kind of rules cannot be legally established in the collective employment agreement, no matter its level of negotiation (at the level of the unit, of the group of units or of the fields of activity), even if during the period 2007–2010 the national unique Collective Employment Agreement (terminated at present) regulated, against the law, a procedure regarding the (prior and compulsory) disciplinary investigation which included also provisions obviously contrary to the Labor Code.
-
Law no. 221/2009 regarding political convictions and their related administrative measures issued during the period 6 March 1945 – 22 December 1989 in art. 5 paragraph (1) letter a) sets forth the payment of non pecuniary damages for the above mentioned persons, damages which are owed by the State. Subsequently, according to the Government Emergency Ordinance no.62/2010, the content of art.5 paragraph (1) letter a) of Law no. 221/2009, was amended so that the above mentioned non pecuniary damages were limited to the maximum amount of Euro 10,000 for the convicted person, respectively Euro 5,000 or 2,000 for the spouse or for the Ist or IInd degree descendants. Pursuant to two decisions issued by the Constitutional Court in the year 2010, the content of art. 5 paragraph (1) letter a) of Law no. 221/2009 was declared to be unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court (both the original content, and the amended content, pursuant to 2 decisions of the Constitutional Court). Such being the case, the author considers that following the submission of these two decisions of the Constitutional Court, the entitled persons cannot be granted non pecuniary damages any more, this being also valid for the litigations pending (not being settled finally until the publication of those two above mentioned decisions.
-
Given the ambiguity of the legal texts in the Law concerning the public-private partnership addressing the financing of public-private partnership projects, this study endeavors to identify the various ways of using public funds in such projects. It forwards arguments for a restrictive interpretation of the concept of „financing” as used by such texts, proposed to be limited to the construction phase of the project, and also analyses the main legal structures having an impact on public funds, usually guarantees, by which the public partner may provide support to a public-private partnership project. Whilst pleading for the use of such direct of indirect public guarantees, the study emphasizes the need for their accurate identification, including their potential consequences on the public debt and deficit statistic treatment as well as on state aid.
-
The study analyses the legal provisions regarding the capital market in terms of the relationship which has to exist between the relevant laws of the European Union, the Romanian law and the normative acts of the National Securities Commission, as an autonomous administrative authority. Certain legislative issues which occurred in the transposition of certain provisions of the European Directives into Romanian laws are identified. These issues generate effects breaching the constitutional principles and, consequently, affect the integrity of the Romanian law system regarding the capital market. The necessary solutions are proposed as well, in order to reestablish the balance between the above mentioned normative acts, as compared to their legal force.
-
The rule included in art. 41 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code adopted in 1968 defines the concept of complex offence in a way which does not exclude any critique. Among the numerous critiques submitted for this definition, the legislator of the new Criminal Code adopted by Law no. 286/2009 assumed a single critique regarding the inaccuracy of using the phrase „aggravating circumstance” that it replaced by the phrase „aggravating incidental element”. However, in the author’s opinion, the most important critique of the definition consists in the fact that concepts such as “action or inaction” are used in order to describe the absorbed offence, referring only to the objective side.
-
Reality proved that the persons who commit manslaughters, usually are not deprived of their freedom, this hindering the post-delictum general prevention as regards the other car drivers who breach the traffic rules, and this situation requires a legal involvement to limit to courts the possibilities of legal individualization in ways of letting out the persons who, being culpable and disregarding the compulsory traffic rules on public roads, provoke the death of their fellows.
-
In this study, the author analyses the offence of disturbance of possession both from the diachronic perspective and in the light of the applicable, but also future criminal laws. From the historical perspective, the author states that the amendments that the new Criminal Code brings in relation to the abovementioned offence cause the regulation to be similar to the provisions of art. 556558 of the Criminal Code „Carol II who punished the committed offence by moving the boundary limits, by threat and violence and of art.220 of the Criminal Code of 1968, in its original version, for the simple occupation without being entitled, the owner having the use of possession actions at his disposal.
-
In this study, the author carries out a detailed analysis of the content of the offence regulated by art. 2803 of Law no. 31/1990 on companies, as republished, subsequently amended and supplemented, criticizing a series of opinions expressed in the specialty literature regarding the constituent elements of this offence. In the last part of the publication, the author raises the question of autonomy of the examined offence as compared to the offence regulated under art. 291 of the Criminal Code (art. 323 of the new Criminal Code), proposing certain criteria for the classification of these two offences.
