-
The manner of regulating the contestation of the claim in the payment order procedure, generates a few controversies, indicated by the doctrine related to this procedure. Thus, the first of these concerns the contestation of the claim after the deadline for the submission of the claim is exhausted, in case the debtor does not meet or does not respect the related time limit, namely the admissibility in principle of such a contestation. The answer is affirmative, but with nuances; the claim can also be contested in such a situation, but only by way of pleas of public order, of the plea of inadmissibility due to the necessity to administer some evidence incompatible with the payment order procedure or through defences on the merits, which will be justified only by the evidence administered until the moment when the claim is contested. Operating an analogy of study with the contestation to enforcement, considered as a contestation to title, it is necessary to specify whether the legislator’s generic references to the contestation of the claim concerns the situation of a contestation to the title related to the claim inclusively. The conclusion is that the legislator has used the term „contestation” in its meaning lato sensu, consequently the answer is affirmative. Another controversy concerns the situations when the debtor does not specify his procedural position throughout the procedure, that is, if the judge of the case is authorized to question ex officio the possible reasons that would constitute such contestation to the claim. The conclusion of the study, derived also from the European legislation and judicial practice, is that the answer is still affirmative, but only provided that there is an express regulation imposing such an obligation for the judge of the case, such as in the situation of abusive contractual clauses. In the absence of any reference of the legislator within the regulation of the payment order procedure to the counterclaim, it is necessary to answer whether the institution of the counterclaim, regulated under the common law procedure, is compatible with this special procedure. -
The hierarchy of legal values and fundamental rights can be achieved with the help of applicable law, interpretation of principles of law and using relevant case law at national level (especially in this case, from Romania), as well as at European level, through the judgments given by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) respects all fundamental rights and freedoms and principles recognized in the Charter as enshrined in the Treaties, in particular respect for private and family life, residence and communications, protection of personal data, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and information, freedom to conduct business, the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial, as well as cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. A long list of rights appreciated even by the European legislator in the preamble to the Regulation that could interfere with the right to data protection. The critical analysis is based on the recent jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as of the Romanian courts, each of them being involved in the decision-making process regarding the prevalence of fundamental values regarding freedom of expression and protection of data.
-
Prin instituirea Uniunii Europene, statele au limitat drepturile lor suverane în anumite domenii și au acceptat competența acesteia (exclusivă, partajată sau de a întreprinde acțiuni de sprijinire, coordonare sau completare a acțiunii membrilor). Față de reglementările europene specifice executării silite1, Directiva 93/13/CEE a Consiliului din 5 aprilie 1993 privind clauzele abuzive în contractele încheiate cu consumatorii2 nu prevede expres aplicabilitatea în cursul acestei etape a procesului civil. Cu toate acestea, Curtea de Justiție a Uniunii Europene a stabilit în jurisprudența sa3 că Directiva trebuie avută în vedere de instanțele naționale și în anumite litigii vizând executarea silită, pentru a fi verificat caracterul potențial abuziv al unor clauze în sensul acestui act normativ.
-
The study intends to present the doctrinal opinions regarding the definition of the prejudice, which represents a condition and measure of the civil liability, the tripartite classification of the prejudices into patrimonial, extra-patrimonial and bodily harm and the indissoluble connection with the concepts of reparation, compensation and indemnification, the own identity of the bodily harm and the ambivalent character of the reparation, either patrimonial and non-patrimonial. It aims to analyze the particularities of the three categories of prejudices, the personal and rebound character of the bodily harm, the conditions for the reparation of the patrimonial prejudices, the certain character of the prejudice and the mitigation of this requirement in the case of the prejudices caused by the loss of a chance, the direct character of the prejudice in correlation with the direct and indirect causal link, the personal and reasonably predictable character of the prejudice, the principle of full reparation of the prejudice and mora creditoris, as a cause of limitation of the debtor’s liability, the guilt, condition of the liability for the reparation of the prejudice. The author also analyzes the presumption of guilt in the contracts generating the obligations of result and the proof of guilt in the contracts generating the obligations of means, as well as the causes exonerating the liability, the classification of damages into compensatory and moratorium damages, the problem of cumulating the damages with the contractual remedies, the cumulation of the damages with the execution of the contractual obligations, of the cumulation of the damages between them and the foundation of their non-cumulation, the judicial evaluation of the damages and their updating, the sanctioning character of the penalizing interest related to the cash claims.
-
By the Decision on 29th January 2019, in Case No 6080/06 Ahunbay & others v. Turkey (6080/2006), the ECHR has made a great leap forward, by means of the subsequent considerations, in recognizing the general principle of the right of access to common cultural inheritance. The Court has rejected the principal claim as inadmissible (ratione materiae); even though, by finding that the object is related to an evolving field and by considering that given the international instruments and the common ground regarding international legal standards, compulsory or not, it cannot be a priori excluded the existence of a common European and International approach regarding the need to protect the access to cultural inheritance, it has opened significant perspectives for the process of giving this principle a legal shape. Thus, there have been created the premises so that, in the near future, by means of case law, several significant progresses can be made in this field.
-
In the present study, the authors analyze extensively the situations of non-unitary practice that appeared both at the level of the Bureau of the judge of surveillance of deprivation of liberty and at the level of the courts, due to the different ways in which the magistrates understood to deal with the problem of the transfers of the persons deprived of liberty and the legal nature of the transfer decisions issued by the National Administration of Penitentiaries. The purpose of the present analysis is to clarify the regime applicable to requests made by the persons deprived of liberty to cancel the transfer decisions, because the lack of regulation in the Law No 254/2013 regarding the possibility of appeal, as well as of the competent court to resolve the appeals, led to the outline of divergent currents of opinion reflected in the non-unitary solutions given in complaints or appeals.
-
The elaboration of the notarial acts takes place in compliance with some requirements strictly provided in the normative acts. These requirements for the preparation of notarial acts are called rules for drawing up and affect to all notarial acts and actions. The topic covered in this paper is of interest to theorists and law practitioners from the Republic of Moldova and from Romania. In the Republic of Moldova there is a long process of formation and consolidation of notarial legislation. In the absence of a well-elaborated normative framework, the notaries public from the Republic of Moldova apply, here and there, the rules for drawing up the notarial acts inherited ever since the period of the Soviet Union. Another situation exists in Romania, whereas the legislator, by the Law No 36/1995, has established a stable normative framework for regulating notarial law relations. The main objective pursued by the author in the elaboration of the paper consists in the comparative analysis of the common rules for the drawing up the notarial acts through the Romanian and Moldavian legislation. The results of the research are manifested by formulating some conclusions and recommendations for amending the legislation. The theoretical implications of the study are relevant due to the diversity of the doctrinal sources used by the author. An increased attention was paid to Moldavian and Romanian researchers. In addition, the doctrine of the notarial law in the Russian Federation has been considered, which, over many decades, has become traditional in the Republic of Moldova.
-
Potrivit art. 10 C.pr.pen. alin. (1), părțile și subiecții procesuali principali au dreptul de a se apăra ei înșiși sau de a fi asistați de avocat; în alin. (2) al aceluiași articol se prevede că părțile, subiecții procesuali principali și avocatul au dreptul să beneficieze de timpul și înlesnirile necesare pregătirii apărării; apoi, în alin. (3) se arată că suspectul are dreptul de a fi informat de îndată și înainte de a fi ascultat despre fapta pentru care se efectuează urmărirea penală și încadrarea juridică a acesteia. Inculpatul are dreptul de a fi informat de îndată despre fapta pentru care s-a pus în mișcare acțiunea penală împotriva lui și încadrarea juridică a acesteia, [...]; în sfârșit, în alin. (5) se prevede că organele judiciare au obligația de a asigura exercitarea deplină și efectivă a dreptului la apărare de către părți și subiecții procesuali principali în tot cursul procesului penal.
-
Democrația ca formă de organizare și de conducere a societății trebuie să se adapteze la noile realități impuse de tehnologia digitală, mai ales printr-un anumit tip de revoluție educativă și culturală în serviciul utilizatorilor. Așadar, democrația în epoca digitală presupune, în primul rând, recunoașterea unui drept fundamental de acces la spațiul digital pentru a se evita în acest mod riscurile unei rupturi digitale, în sensul utilizării acestuia de un număr restrâns de oameni – o elită cibernetică –, implicând toate avantajele ce ar rezulta pentru aceasta din folosirea rețelelor de informare și de comunicare, cum ar fi, de pildă, internetul. Prin urmare, beneficiile unei societăți cibernetice nu sunt reale decât dacă instrumentele informatice sunt pe larg difuzate și puse la dispoziția unui număr cât mai mare de indivizi umani. Într-adevăr, o e-democrație sau o e-administrație nu vor fi inovații relevante decât dacă un număr foarte mare de cetățeni va avea acces facil la acestea.
-
The purpose of this study is to present the Case Loomis v. State of Michigan, settled by the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin in the United States of America, on how the right to a fair trial may be affected assuming that the solution is pronounced by the judge, having at his disposal, among the usual elements of fact and of law in a classic trial also a report provided by an artificial intelligence system. The study contextualizes the time and the place in which the case appeared, realizing in its beginning a brief parallel between the characteristics of the American justice system and the European one in the field of fundamental rights, with a marginal incursion in the scope of the principle of proportionality. In this framework, the respective case is presented with emphasis on the arguments used by the judges of the Court, in order to reach the conclusion that the right to a fair trial is not violated insofar as the conclusions produced by the algorithm are used by observing some guiding principles, drawn on this occasion. The conclusion of the study shows that the arguments presented in the North American system can remain valid and can be transposed into the European system, when it will face such a problem. Finally, the final part is intended to be a plea for awareness of the immediate reality of artificial intelligence, which will penetrate more and more in the legal field, including in the judge’s office, as well as for a mental openness towards these new concepts.
