-
The authors look at the equipollence principle – related to the moment when the period for the enforcement of a mechanism of redress starts to run – mostly in terms of the case law. Starting from the publication, a short time ago, of the decision issued in a case by the Criminal Section of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, note is taken of the fact that the case law of the supreme judicial authority in criminal matters has varied in this respect in time, starting by the acceptance and enforcement of this principle, followed by the denial of its applicability, and then by its re-enforcement. As regards the same principle, the judicial practice of the High Court of Cassation and Justice in the civil trial-related matter is unitary and constant, meaning that the equipollence theory strictly applies to the cases expressly regulated by law, and no cases when equipollence is also applied for other assumptions as well are identified. The conclusion is that the inconsistencies between the criminal and civil trial-related matters in terms of legislative, doctrine-related and case law approach of this principle, underlined throughout the analysis, should be eliminated both by legislative amendments and by judicial practice unification mechanisms. -
Law no. 202/2010 on certain measures regarding the acceleration of the settlement of lawsuits, the so-called “small reform”, was adopted in order to accelerate the settlement of lawsuits, by ensuring the swiftness of procedures, both in criminal matters and in civil matters, even before the expected entry into force of the new codes (the Criminal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Civil Code, the Civil Procedure Code). In the field of criminal prosecution, certain provisions of the current Criminal Procedure Code were amended, with a view to ensuring swiftness by eliminating the provisions that required the court intervention for the revocation or termination of certain preventive measures if the prosecutor issues a decision for the non-initiation of court proceedings; however, no amendments were correlatively made to other provisions of the code in relation thereto. Therefore, certain disputes might arise in connection with the implementation of such texts of law.
-
The excessive activity of the criminal trial-related law in the case of transient situations can ensure the predictable nature of law and the elimination of the cases when the parties are harmed by the limitation of the mechanisms of redress. The reporting of the implementation of the criminal trial-related law regarding hearings and mechanisms of redress upon the court’s notification provides to the parties sufficient prediction as regards the knowledge of such hearings and mechanisms of redress since the initial moment of the judgment phase. The author appreciates that such an approach in the law implementing the new Criminal Procedure Code would ensure an efficient transition from the old criminal trial-related law to the new criminal trial-related law.
-
The article reviews the organized crime phenomenon, as cross-border and multinational crime. The first section substantiates the concepts, both from a doctrine-related and a legislative perspective. An important part in terms of content and scope is dedicated to the analysis of European policies and strategies, emphasizing the security strategy of the European Union. The last part presents certain solutions for fighting against the cross-border crime phenomenon.
-
Constrângerea moralã, cauzã care înlãturã caracterul penal al faptei prevãzute în art. 46 alin. 2 C.pen., presupune îndeplinirea urmãtoarelor condiþii: sã existe o acþiune de constrângere exercitatã de o persoanã asupra psihicului unei alte persoane, prin ameninþare; ameninþarea sã creeze un pericol grav pentru fãptuitor sau pentru o altã persoanã, în cazul în care nu ar sãvârºi fapta prevãzutã de legea penalã; pericolul cu care se ameninþã sã nu poatã fi înlãturat decât prin sãvârºirea faptei prevãzute de legea penalã.
-
The author, in the above mention study, makes a general analysis of Law no. 71/2011 for the implementation of Law no. 287/2009 regarding the Civil Code. In the author’s opinion, Law no. 71/2011 is an extremely valuable legislative act, which ensures very good conditions, not just the understanding and application of the new Civil Code (which entered into force on 1 October 2011), but also the “transition” from the previous Civil Code (from, 1865) to the new ones. -
The autonomous collaterals are regulated, for the first time, by the new Civil Code, within the personal collateral, together with the parent guaranty. The law allots them a small portion, equally essential and simple, so that they may have substance and legal identity. But their legal regime can be essentially revealed through the extension of the analysis to the regulations in the field. The uniform rules for demand guarantees constituted by the International Chamber of Commerce from Paris and the Convention of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law with respect to the independent guarantee and the stand-by letter of credit. The present paper analyses the legal regulation, the concept and the legal category of the autonomous collateral. The author’s objective is that of revealing its complexity as a legal fundamental instrument in the field of internal and international business.
-
The current article examines the issue of the monitoring of the general revenues of the fixed assets (owned by the debtor), by the creditor according to the regulations included in Art. 789-801 of the new (Romanian) Civil Procedure Code (Law no. 134/2010), as compared to the appropriate provisions of the old (Romanian) Civil Procedure Code from 1865, which was successively republished in 1900, as well as in 1948. All in all, as it is only natural, usually, the new regulations are usually, as it is only natural, obviously superior to the previous ones.
-
In this study, the author, while reporting certain provisions of the new Civil Code (Law no. 287/2009) and of Law no. 71/2011 for the implementation of the new Code, as compared to certain provisions of the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 44/2008 regarding the performance of the economic activities by self-employed persons, believes that through Art. 11 of Law no. 71/2011, one has not granted legal personality to the individual and family enterprises regulated by the ordinance mentioned above, while on the contrary, through Art. 2324 (4) of the new Civil code (in force as of 1 October 2011), one has implicitly amended Art. 31 of the said Emergency Ordinance. Finally, the author opinionates that the “Monist” concept of the new Romanian Civil Code (namely, the cancelation of the trade law and the existence of a unique civil law, which also incorporates the former trade law) is more of a formal issue, not a substance one.
-
The article approaches the offence of “patrimonial exploitation of a vulnerable individual” under the provisions of Article 247 of the new Criminal Code. On these lines, the author conducted a thorough review of its legal content and highlighted issues of procedural nature. Likewise, there are also expressed critical opinions on how the legislature sought to regulate the offence’s conditions of existence, likely to severely limit its factual scope thereof.
-
The author analyses crimes such as “Not helping a person who is in need” and “Preventing help” from the new Penal code, revealing, if the case may be, the similarities and differences as compared to the effective penal law. The last part of the article contains elements of comparative law, with reference to the approached theme.
-
Sometimes, the deed provided by the penal law was perpetrated in the context of certain states, situations or specific circumstances, which grants it this legitimacy, and under these conditions, one removes one of the essential features of the crime, namely the unjustified nature. The category of the justification causes, which lead to the removal of the essential feature of the crime, consisting of the anti-lawfulness nature also includes the exercising of a right or the fulfilment of an obligation. In order to be deemed as justification, the perpetration of the penal deed must, usually, originate in a normative act, while the consequence of the perpetration of the penal deed must not be the consequence of the abusive exercising of that right. The author of the article shows that the fulfilling of an obligation removes the anti-lawful nature of the penal deed if the obligation is provided by the law, and if the deed is perpetrated within the limits regulated by it. The unjustified nature of the penal deed is removed, and the perpetrator acts so as to fulfil certain obligations imposed by the competent authority, on condition that the order or command is given by a legitimate authority, is mainly given in writing, and it must not be obviously illegal.
