-
In the above study, the author makes an analysis of the majority shareholder’s right to exclude the other shareholders from the companies traded on a regulated capital market (a right that is generally known under the English name squeeze aut) both in the light of the European Union Directive 2009/25/EC of 21 April 2009, and according to the (Romanian) law no. 297/2009 on the capital market, reaching the conclusion that the exercise of this right serves the interests of minority shareholders as well. -
In the above study, the author often criticizes the constant case law of the Constitutional Court of Romania, namely the fact that, on the one hand, the resolution by this Court of an exception of non-constitutionality a posteriori (therefore, after the law or the Government ordinance was adopted and published) is no longer legally possible if, as at the date of the Constitutional Court decision, the law/Government ordinance is no longer in force, being expressly abrogated. Moreover, the Constitutional Court also stated that, in the given situation, the examination of the non-constitutionality of the law shall be made by the courts, no matter their type (therefore, not by the Constitutional Court as well). Proving with arguments that the solution passed by the Constitutional Court is legally wrong, the author also emphasizes the serious consequences of the Constitutional law case law (the perpetuation ad infinitum in the future of the effects of a law, Government ordinance, hypothetically unconstitutional).
-
In the above study, the author criticizes severely a judgment of the Romanian High Court of Cassation and Justice (the Administrative and Tax Litigations Section), passed on 26 October 2009, explicitly and unequivocally stating that the mentioned court was entitled not to enforce a provision contained in a law in force (namely, art. III of Law no. 262/2009), explaining that the given provision was unconstitutional since it “infringes the right to a fair trial”, although the Constitutional Court of Romania, quite the opposite, had stated the contrary, finding the constitutionality of that legal provision. The author’s criticism focuses on the idea that, according to the Constitution of Romania, only the Constitutional Court is legally competent to give a ruling on the constitutionality/non-constitutionality of a law or a Government ordinance in force (or of any provision included therein), and that the courts (including the High Court of Cassation and Justice) have no such legal jurisdiction in the matter.
-
According to the new criminal regulation, the offence of misleading the judicial bodies preserves some elements of the offence of false accusation, which is currently not provided anymore, but both the constitutive content and the sanctioning system show serious changes.
-
The article intends to examine the changes that the new Criminal Code brings to the matter of the enforcement of criminal law over time, mainly for the purpose of harmonizing the given provisions with the constitutional principles, as well as for facilitating their implementation. From this perspective, one can notice that the new Criminal Code has largely taken over the provisions currently in force, but has eliminated those contrary to the constitutional principles, such as, for instance, the provisions stipulating that the complementary punishments, the educational measures and the safety measures in the new criminal law are always retroactive for public interest reasons or the provisions regarding the facultative enforcement of the most favorable criminal law in the irrevocably judged cases. We also find the introduction among the provisions subject to the principle of the most favorable criminal law of the legislative instruments declared unconstitutional, as well as of the emergency ordinances approved by the Parliament with amendments, supplements or rejected, provided that they were in force during the period stipulated by the law text.
-
In the above study, the authors make a comparison between the provisions of the new Romanian Civil Code (published on 24 July 2009, but not yet in force) and the provisions of the current code (of 1865), regarding the rights of succession of the relatives of the deceased. After a thorough analysis, they reach the conclusion that the new Code provides a quasi-complete adequate regulation in this matter, taking over the judicious principles established by the current Civil Code, updating the specialized legal language, eliminating what is redundant, de lege lato, and bringing the necessary additions.
-
Esenţa principiului error communis facit ius, invocat de subdobânditorul cu titlu oneros pentru a obţine pãstrarea valabilitãţii titlului sãu, constã în faptul cã terţul dobânditor este învestit cu un drept de proprietate pe care însã nu-l primeşte nici de la adevãratul proprietar – cu care nu a contractat, nici de la proprietarul aparent – cu care a contractat, dar care nu deţinea dreptul –, ci direct de la lege. Aşadar, este un mod originar de dobândire a proprietãţii, iar nu unul derivat. Pentru ca o aparenţã sã fie creatoare de drept, se cer a fi întrunite mai multe condiţii, cumulativ: sã existe o eroare comunã şi invincibilã; subdobânditorul sã fie de bunã-credinţã; actul încheiat între proprietarul aparent şi terţul subdobânditor sã fie cu titlu oneros.
-
Art. 2 paragr. 1 din Convenþia (europeanã) pentru apãrarea drepturilor omului ºi a libertãþilor fundamentale (în continuare denumitã Convenþia) consacrã dreptul la viaþã al fiecãrei persoane ºi protecþia de care aceasta trebuie sã se bucure conform legii, în politica penalã a statelor membre ale Consiliului Europei. Aºadar, în privinþa dreptului la viaþã statul are nu numai o obligaþie substanþialã negativã, ci ºi o obligaþie substanþialã pozitivã; aºa cum rezultã din jurisprudenþa Curþii Europene a Drepturilor Omului (în continuare denumitã C.E.D.O.), statele nu trebuie doar sã se abþinã de a provoca moartea în mod ilegal ºi intenþionat, dar trebuie sã ia ºi mãsurile necesare pentru protecþia vieþii persoanelor aflate sub jurisdicþia lor1.
-
In this study, the authors intend to examine the institution of international liability, dealing with the issue of the constitutive elements of international liability. In the general international law, liability is a relationship created exclusively between two or several international law subjects. The international liability of a state can only be raised by another international law subject whose international right was infringed. If a state suffers a direct damage (immediate), it can approach the liable state directly in order to obtain the repair. On the contrary, the damage suffered by an individual following the infringement of the international right shall not provide the victim with the right to obtain recovery of damages before the international courts. A state shall only be liable internationally if it is the author of an international tort. There is a tort of the state when: a) a behavior consisting of an action or omission can be assigned (attributed), in compliance with the international law, to the state; b) this behavior represents an infringement of an international obligation of the state. The international doctrine generally acknowledges that the occurrence of these two elements generates the international liability of the state.
-
The offence of abuse of social goods is one of the most frequent offences regarding companies. The incrimination of this action has the purpose of protecting the company against their managers’ temptation to consider it their own property and/or abuse of its goods or credit against the company’s interest. The offence that the authors examine can have as material object the goods, the credit and the authority. The offence may also refer to the company’s credibility, namely “the company’s commercial reputation, born out of the good operation of the company, its capital, its volume and the nature of its business”. Using the credit in a negative interest means exposing the company to a risk it should not be exposed to, even if the risk is not achieved.
-
Special procedures are rules derogatory from the common rules governing the criminal trial. They are also of a supplemental type and strict enforcement when a certain procedural aspect is regulated differently than the common rules. However, their purpose is the same, namely the resolution of the criminal and civil action, when required. Among these procedures, the agreement for acknowledgement of guilt is a transaction concluded between the prosecutor, as a representative of the state, and the defendant. The agreement for acknowledgement of guilt must meet certain requirements of substance and form. The court solutions in case of examining the agreement for acknowledgement of guilt can be of accepting the agreement for acknowledgement of guilt and admitting the factual basis of the offence for which the defendant acknowledges his/her guilt and of not accepting the agreement for acknowledgement of guilt. In the first situation, the judgment can be appealed only for procedural errors and the amount of punishment and, in the second situation, the prosecutor may file and appeal within 24 hours or, if not, the court orders the judgment of the case according to the usual procedure.
-
Taking into consideration the fact that the coverage of the World Trade Organization has been expanded to the field of services as well, in this study, the author examines litigations in the matter of services, which can be resolved by the mentioned Organization, with the observation that only countries or, as the case may be, the European Union, can be “parties” in such litigations. The implementation of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) between the countries is conditioned by the “influence” on the international trade in services by various actions taken by the Member States; in this respect, in the practice of GATS implementation, the notion of “influence” is understood extensively.
