-
The new Civil Code has regulated, for the first time in our legislation, the periodic property. This new legal form of the right of property has been established as a forced joint ownership, although its owners do not exercise the prerogatives of the property right concurrently and together, but successively and repetitively. This study criticizes some provisions which govern the periodic property and sets out the arguments supporting the idea that this forced property cannot be considered joint ownership of property, as the Civil Code names it. -
The study aims to demonstrate ability to expand criminal proceedings regardless of the current procedural stage, on grounds of its general trait of being indivisible, as well as its ways of expression during the prosecution phase within the procedural framework set forth in article 238 in the Criminal Procedure Code. There are also reviewed the legal nature of the ordinance extending the criminal investigation and its trial functions, as well as the legal effects of the expansion of criminal proceedings during the first stage of the Romanian criminal trial over other procedural institutions. From the perspective of the new criminal procedure code, the avatars of this extremely important procedural institution for the criminal prosecution phase are tracked and analyzed comparatively. -
Essentially, throughout this study, the authors criticize the completion brought by Law no. 206/2012 both to the previous Code of Civil Procedure and to the new Code of Civil Procedure (republished), which entered into force on 1 February 2012, to the effect that, if an arbitration award involved a dispute relating to the transfer of ownership and / or the establishment of another right in rem on a real estate, the arbitration award will be “submitted” to the Court or the Notary Public to “get a court order or, where appropriate, a notarized document” and only after “verifying” the respective arbitration award (by the Court or the Notary Public), one will proceed to the registration of the arbitral award in the real estate registry and thus the transfer of ownership and / or establishment of rights in rem on thee concerned real estate will be achieved. -
In this study, the authors express a critical opinion referring to the content of the Law No 212/2018 amending and supplementing the Law on administrative disputes No 554/2004 and other normative acts. The amendment of the Law No 554/2004 was determined by the overcrowding of the administrative disputes courts with such litigations and, hence, the need to rethink the provisions of the framework-law in the matter, especially as regards the competence and some procedural aspects. However, the analysis carried out showed that between the objectives assumed by the author of the Law No 212/2018 and the final result, namely the actual content of this new regulation, there is no compatibility and harmony. Many of the provisions of the new law are matters of drafting or of legislative technique, which does not affect the content of the normative act and does not meet the alleged need to rationalize the settlement of these litigations. Secondly, the study emphasizes the lack of foundation of some of the solutions promoted by the Law No 212/2018 and has regard, in particular, to the manner in which the litigations concerning the administrative contracts will be settled in the future. Thus, according to the Law No 212/2018, the litigations regarding the performance of these contracts will be settled by the ordinary courts, and the other litigations, which concern the conclusion, amendment and cessation of the administrative contracts, will be settled by the administrative disputes courts. The authors draw attention to the fact that this new regulation will create disturbances in practice, because litigious situations may arise that will equally concern both an amendment of the contract and the performance thereof. How will such cases be solved? -
Simplification and debureaucratization, in many cases, indeed, lead to a positive result. However, the complexity and apparent bureaucratization of some institutions and procedures, in many cases, have a well-defined, useful, even necessary role. The elimination of functional and strict requirements may drive the expected rationalization but an undesirable adverse effect: dysfunctions and legal uncertainty. These ideas can be best illustrated by the recent amendment of the Law No 31/1990 on companies, through Law No 23/2020 for the simplification and debureaucratization of the transfer of shares („social parts”) and the payment of the share capital. Unfortunately, in recent years, the limited liability company has become a subject of experimentation for different improvement attempts, without noticing that companies’ legal regime is an organic whole. Most of the time, reforms are well-intentioned but distorted by enduring normative realities. They also distort the existing law: as is currently the case with share capital and shares transfer. -
The minor traffic offence is one of the most serious offences, being included in the field of judicial cooperation in all European legislative instruments. The study describes a general and critical examination of the legal provisions into force which, according to the author, do not guarantee an adequate judicial protection to minor persons being the victims of the offence. By publishing it, the research of this very important field and at the same time in the pipeline at the level of the member states of the European Union, is continued. The research may be useful both to practitioners, and to ideologists in the field of criminal and criminal proceedings law. The essential contribution of the study is limited to the critical remarks exposed and to the concrete proposals on amending and supplementing the special law, especially from the point of view of the indictment of other offences or of establishing the obligation to provide defense to the minor person who is victim, under the sanction of absolute nullity. -
The field „Public Health”, regulated by Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, is part of the category of fields of competence shared between the Member States and the Union. The decision to subsidize the price of medicines is the result of several factors: technical, financial and political. For this reason, the Union leaves the decision in this field to the discretion of the Member States but, pursuant to the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality, it tries to standardize certain procedural aspects, meant to ensure the free movement of goods and services. In this respect, it has been adopted Directive 89/105/EEC of the Council of 21 December 1988. In order to ensure a better transposition of this directive, in 2014, Romania has fundamentally changed the normative framework regulating the criteria and the procedures by which new medicines are assessed in order to be introduced on the List including the international common names for medicines for insured persons, with or without personal contribution, based on medical prescription, within the health social insurance system (list of subsidized medicines). For the first time it has been introduced the system of inclusion in the list of subsidized medicines conditioned by the conclusion of cost-volume/cost-volume-outcome type contracts. However, as we will further show, the current Romanian legislation in the field of subsidized medicines does not ensure an effective and integral transposition of the European directive, particularly with regard to the compliance with the imperative time limit for adopting the inclusion/non-inclusion decisions provided in Article 6 (1) of the Directive 89/105/EEC of the Council of 21 December 1988. This study deals with the limits of the current normative framework from a theoretical perspective confirmed by the relevant majority case law in the field. -
Review of judgments in civil proceedings is, together with the appeal for annulment, the chance for a final procedural possibility for a “remedy” legal solution so that, ultimately, an irrevocable court decision is consistent with normative propositions incidents to that legal dispute. Often, this extraordinary means of attack is not, as commonly, a “reverential” one anymore, but is “aggressive”, based upon the urgent requirement of retrial as a consequence of “passing final and irrevocable judgments in violation of the principle of Community law priority, governed by Art. 148 para. (2), in conjunction with Art. 20 para. (2) of the Romanian Constitution, republished” as stated in Art. 21 para. (2) of the Administrative Litigation Law no. 554/2004. Review mechanism, as put into operation, focuses on controversial or debatable issues, some unpublished. In this study, the authors note to identify and comment on some of the aforementioned. -
-
This study, having as theme general and special observations regarding the new Romanian Civil Procedure Code (Law no. 134/2010), after some brief preliminary observations, proceeds to a more thorough analysis of the fundamental themes of this Code, namely: the accentuation of procedural liberalism; the quality of the civil procedure law; the right of access to justice; the uniform interpretation and application of the law by the courts; celerity in the civil trial; accentuation of the effectiveness of remedies at law; higher-quality valorization of enforcement orders. -
This study is meant to analyse the provisions of Article 333 of the Civil Code regarding the preciput clause. Specifically, there are discussed issues such as: the relevant provisions; the definition of the analyzed institution; the subjects, the object and the legal nature of the preciput clause; the legal characters of the preciput; the effects of the preciput clause; inefficiency and enforcement of the preciput. -
Making the due observations regarding the legal content of Article 6 of the Law No 143/2000, republished in 2014, the authors came to the final conclusion that Article 6 of the mentioned law contains three distinct incriminations regarding the high-risk drug trafficking. Thus, Article 6 (1) of the Law No 143/2000, republished, includes the crime of high-risk drug trafficking, representing the medically unnecessary prescription of such substances by a doctor. In paragraph (2) of Article 6 of the same law it is incriminated the high-risk drug trafficking, by releasing such substances from pharmacies on the basis of a recipe that includes a prescription that is not medically necessary or is falsified. In paragraph (3) of Article 6 of the same law, the high-risk drug trafficking is incriminated, by obtaining such substances from a pharmacy based on a fictitious medical recipe. In conclusion, the authors state, if a drug addict doctor prescribes to himself high-risk drugs on a recipe without being medically necessary and obtains them from a pharmacy, he will commit two crimes in real concurrence, namely the one provided in Article 6 (1) and the one provided in Article 6 (3) of the Law No 143/2000, republished.
