-
The legal regime of the penalty clause is established under the purports of Articles 1538-1543 of the new Romanian Civil Code (yet unenforced). Analysis of these regulations is undertaken in the study hereby by putting forward three issues considered defining: the legal nature of the penalty clause, its incidental character and mutability. Taking as reference point the definition of penalty clause set forth in Article 1358 par. (1), it is argued that the Romanian legislature has endorsed dualistic theory, according to which the penalty clause is a civil reparation remedy or a sanctioning repair, for the case of unlawful non-performance of the main contract by the debtor. The incidental character of the penalty clause is explained on account of the dependency relationship that exists between it and the obligation arising out of the main contract. Consequently, in principle, the penalty clause follows the legal destiny of the main obligation, according to the principle accesorium sequitur. To this rule there is but one exception: resolution of the main contract does not affect the existence and enforcement of the penalty clause. In terms of mutability of the penalty clause, it is found that its judicial review is permissible only by way of reductibility, where it is manifestly excessive as compared to the foreseeable damage caused to the creditor through unlawful non-performance of the obligation arising from the main contract. -
In the study with the above title, the author makes a comparison between the regime of pleadings’ invalidity settled under the (Romanian) Code of Civil Procedure in force (since 1865), yet successively amended and supplemented by a series of laws (including Law no. 202/2010 regarding some measures to accelerate the settlement process) and the new Romanian Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 134/2010, published on July 15th, 2010, but still unenforced), underlining – in a positive manner – modern and flexible legislation, superior to the latter, pointing out, though – critically – the sketchiness and occasional ambiguity of the new Code.
-
Under Law no. 286/2009 on the Criminal Code there were established two new legal institutions in the Romanian criminal law: the waiver of penalty and penalty delayed. The author carefully examines the contents and terms of implementation of these criminal legal institutions, terms of cancellation and revocation thereof, with reference to comparative law and brief criminological approaches.
-
With the view to overcome the lack of celerity in the conduct of criminal trials, the initiators of the new Code of Criminal Procedure explicitly intended to depart from the extraordinary remedy of appeal for annulment. However, although the code was adopted under the Government’s liability, the legislature has maintained this opportunity to repair final criminal judgments affected by errors. Code’s editors have thought abandon of the litigious remedy, transferring its role and cases of its raising to other extraordinary remedies. But the author points out that the experiment has not been designed fully rigorously, so that a number of hypothetical situations, consistent enough, remained outside the cases provided by law for the performance of extraordinary review procedures. Under the new code system, the appeal for annulment was integrated in a chapter distinct from the review procedures chapter, i.e. after the appeal, as an emphasis on the concept of being within reach of the parties to pursue against final judgments passed in the court of this relevant resort.
-
Availability and predictability of law – essential attributes of quality thereof – are and will certainly be some of the most common grounds for the conventional and constitutional control, not only because these legal requirements stand for fundamental premises of regulating and self-regulating social behaviour in a democratic society, but also because, inevitably, legal regulation always maintains a paradox, apparently insoluble: “the generality of the law” and its “accuracy”. Case law of the European court and the Romanian constitutional litigation court on the availability and predictability of the law is already sufficiently relevant to justify at least a synthetic outline in this area. This is what we attempt to do hereinafter.
-
In the study hereby the author approaches a controversial topic among experts, namely whether granting loans / lending between companies (other than credit institutions – banks, etc.) is legally permissible or not. Analyzing both affirmative and negative statements, the author finally argues that the granting of loans / credits between companies (other than credit institutions) is legally possible, provided such activity occurs transiently.
-
The author, undertaking an analysis of legal EU regulations in relation to occupational pensions, concludes that the statements under Ruling no. 873/2010 of the Constitutional Court of Romania (only in terms of constitutionality of Law no. 119/2010 with reference to the conversion of public military pensions in “common law” pensions, within the meaning of Law no. 19/2000) are erroneous; consequently, the aforementioned conversion itself, set forth under Law no. 119/ 2010, is unconstitutional, in breaching relevant European law.
-
In the study with the above title, the author reviews a recent amendment (under Law no. 202/2010) to Article 153 par. (1) of the current (Romanian) Code of Civil Procedure, which by its wording gives rise among practitioners to a controversy, namely: whether or not the legal entity is presumed to have been or not notified on the term (with the consequence of failure of its summoning on subsequent terms) where the summons was not personally received by the summoned person or a representative (legal or conventional) thereof, but by an employee thereof failing to act in the capacity as its representative. The author judges that non-receipt of summons personally by the summoned person or by his representative, but by another employee of the legal entity shall not denote to have been notified for all subsequent terms.
-
In this study the author develops and substantiates the thesis according to which under reign of King Carol I (1866-1914), despite the clear purports of the Romanian Constitution of 1866 (inspired by the Belgian Constitution of 1831), in reality, illa tempore, there was no real democracy in Romania, a real representative government, but political and constitutional life was dominated, de facto, by moderate monarchical authoritarianism of King Carol I, King who was concerned to impose a personal direction in domestic and foreign policy of the country, with the view to render functional mechanisms of the young Romanian state, and that even at the expense of sacrificing real democracy and the parliamentary regime, proclaimed by the Romanian Constitution of 1866.
-
Article hereby deals with the legal effects of Decision No. 573/2011 of the Constitutional Court on the plea of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 74¹ of the Criminal Code, focusing on its consequences in terms of reinforcing provisions of Article 10 of Law No. 241/2005 on preventing and combating tax evasion, as subsequently amended and supplemented.
-
The article analyzes the regulation of trial when admitting guilt and the practical consequences resulting from this procedure. Admission of guilt can be made either by statement of the defendant in court, or under writ, in which case the proceedings may take place without the presence of the defendant. In terms of object of admission, out of the marginal terms of wording under Article 3201 Code of Criminal Procedure Code, it appears that it refers to “guilt”, but from the reading of paragraph (1) of the said wording it appears that admission refers to “committing acts written down in the document instituting the proceedings”. Should we relate this regulatory text to the provisions of Article 263 par. (1) Code of Criminal Procedure, regulating the indictment contents, it is clear that admission is limited to committing the crime exclusively, failing to refer to the legal classification granted under the document instituting the proceedings or any other person to which it relates. Article 3201 in the Code of Criminal Procedure is, as evidenced by the mere reading of its wording, of its marginal name and the topography of the Code of Criminal Procedure, undeniably, a procedural rule designed to accelerate the settlement process and not a rule of substantive criminal law. Bearing this legal nature, the authors argue that Article 3201 Code of Criminal Procedure can not be considered a more favourable criminal law (mitior lex), its provisions falling outside Articles 13-15 Criminal Code.
-
The mitigation case provided by Article 3201 Code of Criminal Procedure may coexist with the mitigating circumstance under Article 74 par. (1) point c) Criminal Code, whereas the two mitigating circumstances are different in content (especially in terms of intensity of the readiness of the defendant to cooperate with legal authorities) and different functions (under Article 3201 Code of Criminal Procedure it is rewarded the defendant’s readiness to accept a short and summary procedure resulting in reducing the trial’s duration, whereas under Article 74 par. (1) point c) Criminal Code honesty is rewarded). Therefore, there can not be the case of taking advantage twice of the same mitigating circumstance. If there should be agreed upon the idea that the retention of Article 3201 Code of Criminal Procedure prevents retention of Article 74 par. (1) point c) Criminal Code, then the defendant may prefer not to invoke Article 3201 Code of Criminal Procedure in order to capitalize on the more generous mitigating effects of Article 74 par. (1) point c) Criminal Code.
