-
Very high frequency of facts consisting of possession and sale of cigarettes from smuggling, as well as significant damage to the state budget by committing such acts with adverse consequences exacerbated in the current economic climate, require a consistent jurisprudence to prevent and effectively combat such deeds. Building on the diversity of solutions pronounced by the courts on the legal classification of the offense of possession, outside a fiscal warehouse and by an authorized warehouse-keeper, of unmarked excisable goods for which duty has not been paid and originate form smuggling, the author points out the need to promote a referral in the interests of the law and identifies a possible solution to unify the judicial practice, holding that the said deed meets the constitutive elements of the offenses provided for in art. 2961 par. (1) l) of the Fiscal Code, art. 9 para. (1). a) of Law no. 241/2005 on preventing and combating tax evasion and art. 270 para. (3) of the Customs Code. -
Any scientific approach which seeks to understand the meanings of “rule of law” must be an interdisciplinary approach based on the philosophy of law. This study carries out such an analysis in order to highlight the many theoretical meanings for this concept, and the relationship between principles and legal rules, respectively the regulatory value of law principles. Such analysis is a plea for relating to principles in the work of law establishment and enforcement.
-
Given the many amendments to the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 34/2006 and the entry into force of the new Code of Civil Procedure and the law implementing thereof, the author conducts an extensive review of the regulations relating to the appeal and recourse remedies at law, the competent courts of law and the possibility to join the appeals filed against the same public procurement procedure. In this context, the author carries out an analysis of a relatively recent and relevant judgment pronounced on a public procurement procedure by the Contentious Administrative and Fiscal Matters Section of the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
-
Once the Labor Code (Law no. 53/2003, republished on 18 May 2011) was supplemented with art.248 para.(3) regulating the deletion by law of the disciplinary sanction imposed (obviously under certain conditions), a controversy arose in the Romanian labor law doctrine in the sense whether the said legal norm is incident or not and whether the sanction imposed resulted in the disciplinary termination (dismissal) of the individual employment contract. In this study, after an extensive reasoning, a positive conclusion related to the raised controversy is reached also analyzing a number of this conclusion’s legal implications.
-
The study examines the issue of autonomy of labor law in relation to civil law while considering the recent assertions in legal literature. Taking into account the classical criteria for delimiting the legal branches within the law – the subject, the specific principles and regulatory method - it is concluded that labor law is a mixed law branch which belongs mainly to private law, applies by way of common law to all labor legal relationships unfounded on individual employment agreement, is self-contained and it capitalizes, where appropriate and possible, the rules of civil law as common law rules. Labor law is not a branch (part) of civil law, but independent component of private law along with common law (civil law).
-
Starting on October 1, 2011, the new Romanian Civil Code (Law no. 287/ 2009, republished on July 15, 2011) entered into force and, as of February 1, 2013 the new Romanian Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 134/2010, republished on 3 August 2012) shall come into force. Both the above mentioned codes are being developed by Law no. 71/2011 for the implementation of the new Civil Code, and respectively by Law.76/2012 for the implementation of the new Code of Civil Procedure. The new regulations introduced in the Romanian legislation the concept of guardianship court but until the entry into force of such court its powers which are set out in the new Civil Code shall be exerted by the courts, sections or, where appropriate, the existing specialized juvenile and family panels. Unfortunately, during 2011-2012, the regulations in the new Civil Code, the new Code of Civil Procedure and the two laws for application thereof, as being amended and supplemented several times, the guardianship court relevant legislation is confusing at the present time, thus its transposition in practice is difficult. That being the case, the author attempts in this study to solve a number of problems arising from the situation described and to make some proposals with a view to the future law.
-
In terms of Romanian Tax legislation, extinctive prescription rules are contained in both the Code of Fiscal Procedure (Government Ordinance no. 92/ 2003, republished on July 31, 2007) and in the new Civil Code (Law no. 287/ 2009, republished on July 15, 2011) as well as in the new Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 134/2010, republished on August 3, 2012 and which shall enter into force on February 1, 2013). In relation to this, the author specifically examines how these rules – in fiscal matters - should be correlated and interpreted whilst being distributed in three acts (different codes).
-
As expected, sanctions and solutions covered by the Code of Civil Procedure of 1865 were taken over by Law no. 134/2010 regarding the Code of Civil Procedure (republished) entering into force on February 1, 2013. In this regard, fines, voidness, decay, obsolescence, application rejection or accept are regulated. The latest law also establishes new sanctions and solutions, some of them unusual: closing the case, out of trial, trial settlement, ignoring, remaining ineffective.
-
The new Romanian Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 134/2010, as republished on 3 August 2012 and coming into force on the 1st of February 2013) supersedes the previous Code of Civil Procedure (of the year 1865) regulating (in articles 303-320) the witness-based evidence. In this study the author makes a wide-ranging analysis of this regulation, from the triple perspective of the admissibility, of the administration, of the appreciation of this mean of evidence, comparing the new provisions in this matter by those set forth in the previous Code of Civil Procedure.
-
Following the entry into force of the new Romanian Civil Code (on October 1, 2011) and the new Romanian Code of Civil Procedure (which will take place on February 1, 2013), in the Romanian civil law doctrine a controversy arose in the sense that divorce exclusive fault of the defendant State (that if the respondent spouse doesn’t file a counterclaim) is admissible only by way of exception, where the reason for divorce consists of a minimum 2-year de facto separation of spouses or, on the contrary in other situations as well. After a thorough analysis, the author opts for restrictive solution, i.e. divorce for applicant spouse’s exclusive fault (if the respondent spouse doesn’t file a counterclaim) is admissible only by way of exception, where the reason for divorce consists of a minimum 2-year de facto separation of spouses.
-
Through its varied meanings, “loyalty” is perhaps the noblest moral value. It is, in terms of law, a factor and a marker of legal relationships “moralization”, procedural relations including. Although unanimously accredited in the field legal relationships as well, including procedural relations, the loyalty principle is enshrined in terminis as a fundamental principle of civil proceedings. However, it is an implicit result of numerous provisions in the law of civil procedure, which finds appropriate forms of legal and judicial sanction. In our procedural civil regulatory climate, certain peremptory procedural exceptions having permanent effect make unnecessary the application of the praetorian “estoppel” rule established in common law and subsequently in other legal systems. Fundamental right of access to justice is not incompatible with assuming „duty of loyalty”.
-
One of the major problems with direct implications in the effective implementation of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the European Union is related to the need for coherent legal norms regarding the establishment of the territorial jurisdiction in the event of positive or negative conflicts of jurisdiction between the competent legal bodies of two or more Member States. In the study, the author examined the provisions of the European regulatory document framework which set out a series of legal norms on preventing and settling conflicts of jurisdiction between the Member States, making some critical remarks designed to help the improvement of the legal system. This paper is aimed at all those interested in this field and can be useful to academics and to practitioners as well. The innovations consist of the general examination of the European regulatory document provisions, of the Romanian special law, with some critical comments, and of proposals for rewording legal rules, aiming at improving the complex system of judicial cooperation in criminal matters between the Member States.
