-
This study first analyzes the amendments brought to the offence provided in Article 141 of the Law No 8/1996 by the Law No 187/2012. The author emphasizes the non-correlations of the incrimination with the moral copyrights which it protects, as well as the lack of clear and precise wordings, which should exclude any ambiguity in the drafting of the incriminating rules. The analysis of the offence provided in the special law is connected to the provisions in the matter contained in the Criminal Code, as well as to the doctrinaire opinions expressed in the field. The critical remarks expressed by the author concerning the meaning of legal rules are intended to be impulses addressed to the legislator to correct the drafting of texts, in order to achieve the desideratum of compliance with the requirements of accessibility and foreseeability of the law for its addressees. -
La data de 20 octombrie 2014, Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (ÎCCJ) – Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept a soluționat trei cauze cercetând „problema de drept ce formează obiectul acțiunii privind caracterul discriminatoriu al dispozițiilor cuprinse în Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 9/2013 privind timbrul de mediu pentru autovehicule, aprobată cu modificări și completări prin Legea nr. 37/2014, cu modificările ulterioare, în raportare la dispozițiile comunitare cu care intră în conflict”1 și „dacă dispozițiile art. 4 din Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 9/2013 privind timbrul de mediu pentru autovehicule, aprobată cu modificări și completări prin Legea nr. 37/2014, și ale art. 1 alin. (2) din Normele metodologice de aplicare a Ordonanței de urgență a Guvernului nr. 9/2013 privind timbrul de mediu pentru autovehicule, aprobate prin Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 88/2013, se interpretează în sensul că timbrul de mediu se datorează și în situația transcrierii dreptului de proprietate asupra unui autovehicul rulat provenit de pe piața internă a cărui primă înmatriculare a fost anterioară datei de 1 ianuarie 2007”2.
-
In this study the authors examine, rather exhaustively, the problems of regulating the submission of the written notes by the parties, namely: both the „common law” in the matter [Article 244 (2) and Article 394 (2) of the new (Romanian) Civil Procedure Code] and a series of special provisions in the field, included in the same Code [Article 244 (3); Article 244 (4); Article 222 (2); Article 383], and finally, after examining the legal consequences of the non-compliance with the mentioned rules, they formulate a series of interesting conclusions with respect to the topic discussed.
-
The author, by accurately examining Book IV of the new Romanian Civil Code (regarding the inheritance and the liberalities), entered into force on 1 October 2011, notes that, as a rule, like in the previous Civil Code of 1864, there are some more important institutions of successoral law which, in his opinion, may be considered controversial (questionable), inopportune or unclear such as, for example: – the notions of „heir”; „successor”; „inheritor”; – whether the status of heir is affected or not by disinheritance or by the waiver of inheritance; – whether the contractual appointment and the preciput clause are two separate legal institutions or not; – whether the successoral reserve has an individual or collective nature; – whether the prohibition of the (mutual) consummated will is opportune or not; – whether the successoral option is always a disposition act or not; – the inopportunity of the multiple vocation to inheritance; – the questionable nature of the utility of the „seizin”.
-
The former regulation – the Law No 85/2006 – did not define the principles underlying the application of the insolvency procedures, these being identified, explained and developed by the legal doctrine. The 13 principles provided by the Law No 85/2014 are applicable both to the procedures for preventing insolvency and to the insolvency procedures. The principles are applied by the bodies involved in the procedure, in the absence of some express provisions, which regulate some specific situation, or are used for the interpretation of an unclear text. Defining the principles is extremely important, the practice following to prove their usefulness, where the regulation is lacking or is unclear. This study aims to analyze comparatively the principles stated by the legal doctrine in the ambiance of the provisions of the Law No 85/2006, as well as the principles provided by Article 4 of Law No 85/2014, with special regard to the principle of maximizing the degree of realisation of assets and of recovery of claims.
