-
The criminal procedure rules according to which the „transfer of procedures in criminal matters” is carried out are comprised in the international treaties and conventions to which Romania is a party, which are supplemented by Law no. 302/2004 on international judicial co-operation in criminal matters, plus the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. „The transfer of procedures in criminal matters” entails two manners of performance, according to the capacity in which the Romanian State is involved in its carrying out, namely: - delivery of criminal procedure; - reception of criminal procedure. -
Entities with administrative-jurisdictional activity, such as the National Council for Solving Complaints, have duties strictly delimited by the regulations establishing them and organizing their operation. According to the Law no. 554/ 2004 on administrative litigation, the special administrative jurisdiction represents the activity carried out by an administrative authority that has, according to the applicable special incorporating law, jurisdiction to solve a conflict regarding an administrative action, according to a procedure based upon the principles of adversary proceeding, ensuring the right of defense and the independence of the administrative-jurisdictional activity. In carrying out this complex activity, is sometimes possible that the notifications received by the jurisdictional authority exceed its scope of jurisdiction, a situation in which it has the obligation to establish whether there is a competent court of law or another competent entity with jurisdictional activity, to which it could forward the notification erroneously referred by the complainant. The fulfillment of this legal obligation supports and guarantees to the complainant effective access to the institution having jurisdiction to solve his/her claim, in agreement with the principles of any fair trial. Numerous times, after finding justified the exception of its lack of jurisdiction in trying certain cases, the Council ordered their declining towards the competent courts of law, subsequently referring such cases to the courts. Although most courts towards which the declining was ordered accepted the files received, according to the case law of certain Courts of Appeal, the legal institution of declining is not available to the administrative-jurisdictional entities, which should have dismissed the claims received, and not decline them. This study presents with criticism the latter solutions issued by the courts of law in the legal matter of declining, as well as the author’s arguments in supporting its resolution in agreement with the legal rules.
-
The author examines the concept of administrative-jurisdictional action in the context of the doctrinal opinions issued prior to the enactment of Law no. 554/2004 (amended by Law no. 262/2007), as well as subsequent to the enactment of the above-mentioned law, amended by the law mentioned. Further on, the author examines in detail two characteristics of the administrative-jurisdictional action, namely: the principle of immovability and the res judicata force, reaching the conclusion that such actions have the res judicata force, but only provided that the legal stages of appeal are not filed with the court of law, within the deadlines and under the conditions provided by the law, or that such stages of appeal, being filed, were dismissed and, consequently, the decision of the administrative jurisdictional body was maintained.
-
In this study, the author examines the constitutional and legal statute of the Romanian Court of Accounts, according to art. 140 of the Constitution of Romania (revised and republished on 31 October 2003), corroborated with a series of provisions contained in Law no. 94/1992 for the organization and operation of the Court of Accounts, as republished, for the second time, on 29 April 2009. To this effect, the authors examine the constitutional and legal statute of: the counselors of accounts; the personnel making up the executive management of the Court of Accounts and the Audit Authority, as well as the specialized personnel of the Court of Accounts (external public auditors).
-
In this study, the two authors examine certain particularities of the commercial mandate contract existent between the managers of joint-stock companies and the given companies, with the specification that the term “managers”, in the above context, applies exclusively to the managers referred to under art. 143 paragraph 1 of Law no. 31/1990 regarding companies, republished on 17 November 2004 (those whom the Board of Directors delegated the management of the company and who, as the case may be, can be appointed among the directors or from outside the Board of Directors), and not to members of the directorate (existent in joint-stock companies organized in dual system) or to “specialized” managers, who are not representatives of the social will, but run certain specialized compartment.
-
In this study, the two authors examine certain particularities of the commercial mandate contract existent between the managers of joint-stock companies and the given companies, with the specification that the term “managers”, in the above context, applies exclusively to the managers referred to under art. 143 paragraph 1 of Law no. 31/1990 regarding companies, republished on 17 November 2004 (those whom the Board of Directors delegated the management of the company and who, as the case may be, can be appointed among the directors or from outside the Board of Directors), and not to members of the directorate (existent in joint-stock companies organized in dual system) or to “specialized” managers, who are not representatives of the social will, but run certain specialized compartment.
-
In this study, the author fights – with arguments – an opinion that remained isolated in the Romanian civil law doctrine (an opinion according to which art. 32, paragraph 1 of Law no. 18/1991, republished on 5 January 1998, a text according to which certain categories of terms, assigned according to art. 18 paragraph 1, art. 21 and art. 43 of this law, cannot be transferred for 10 years to the company from the beginning of the year following the year in which the registration of the property was made under the penalty of absolute nullity of the deed of transfer would have been abrogated by Laws no. 54/1998 and no. 247/2005).
-
The author, starting from a personal opinion, expressed in a previous study (published in the year 2000), namely that the employment relationship of the public servant represents a typical form of a legal employment relationship, a relationship that, although different from the individual employment contract (the archetype of the legal employment relationship), is not yet essentially different from the latter and, consequently, from a logical and legal point of view, the employment relationship of the public servant is a basic component of the labor law (legislation), emphasizes afterwards that, in recent years, one can note, from the legal point of view, a continuous reduction of differences between the legal employment relationship of employees and that of public servants. Further on, the author presents the typology of the current legal employment relationships, namely: the legal relationship of employees (generated by the conclusion of the individual employment contract, regulated by the Labor Code); the legal employment relationship of public servants (generated by Law no. 188/ 1999 on the Statute of Public Servants or by some statutes regarding special categories of public servants such as, for instance, police officers, diplomats and consuls, customs personnel etc.); the legal employment relationship of career military personnel (non-commissioned officers and officers – Law no. 80/1995); the legal relationship of persons holding a public office position; the legal employment relationship of magistrates (whose statute is subject to Law no. 303/ 2004); the legal employment relationship between the cooperative company and the cooperative members (Law no. 1/2005). As regards this typology of legal employment relationships, the author believes it is fundamentally erroneous to limit the object of labor law exclusively to the legal employment relationship of employees (regulated by the Labor Code), and firmly believes that all the above-mentioned legal employment relationships are, in his monist vision of the labor law, components of the Romanian labor law, whose summa divisio is made of the common labor law (regarding the legal employment relationship of employees, based upon the individual employment contract that is regulated mainly by the Labor Code provisions) and, on the other hand, of the special labor law (comprising the legal employment relationships of civil and military servants, persons holding public office positions, magistrates and cooperative members), a special labor law focused on regulations other than the Labor Code, but for which the Labor Code still represents common law.
