-
By Law no. 221/2009 on political convictions and the administrative measures related to them, pronounced during 6 March 1945 – 22 December 1989. This law provides for two categories of political convictions (during the mentioned period), namely two categories of administrative measures of a political nature, namely: the first category (by right), when the political nature of the criminal conviction (administrative measures) results from certain legal texts, explicitly indicated by Law no. 221/2009; the second category, when the political nature of the criminal conviction (administrative measures) can be established – at the request of the interested party –, at present, by the civil court. At the same time, either in the case of the first category, or in the case of the second category, the person in question, the husband/wife or the descendants (up to the 2nd degree) may request ordering the Romanian State to pay moral damages. According to the texts of Law no. 221/2009, the prosecutor’s participation is mandatory only in case the establishment by the civil court of the political nature of the criminal conviction or of the administrative measure is previously discussed. -
Recunoașterea calității de cetățean român, acordată Românilor de origine supuși unui Stat străin, confirmând o calitate preexistentă, are efect retroactiv în deosebire de naturalizare, care nu conferă străinilor această calitate decât din momentul împământenirei lor. -
In the study hereby, the author reviews provisions of the new Romanian Civil Code (enacted by Parliament, published in the „Official Gazette of Romania”, Part I, in July 2009, but still unenforced) on the artificial property accession, by reference to the current Civil Code (since 1865), still in force, and to the relevant Romanian jurisprudence and doctrine. Conclusion of the analysis is that, on the one hand, the new Romanian Civil Code in the matter of artificial property accession keeps the rules and principles enshrined in the current Civil Code, doctrine and jurisprudence, though it reveals the innovating desire of the new Code, where the current Code keeps silent. -
In this study it is examined how the patrimonial allocation estates are formed and their legal status only for those persons practicing authorised liberal professions individually, that is only for a certain category of professionals. The author has analyzed the consequences which the inclusion of a joint asset of the spouses, subject to the matrimonial regime of the legal community, into the patrimonial estate of professional allocation of one of these may have. Such a change of destination of the joint asset, even temporary, requires the consent of both spouses, and, in case of buildings, the declaration of patrimonial allocation must comply with the authentic form and must be registered in the land register in order to be opposed to the personal or professional creditors of the spouses. The specialized and exclusive guarantee of the professional creditors on the patrimonial estate of professional allocation can make possible the pursuit by these of the joint asset, so that the consent of one of the spouses to the inclusion of the joint asset in the professional allocation estate of the other spouse may be interpreted as an implicit guarantee of the performance of the professional obligations by the professional spouse who practices an authorized liberal profession. -
The entry into force of the EU Regulation No 1215/2012 brings an important element within the process of evolution designed to ensure the free movement of judgments on the territory of the European Union: suppression of the exequatur. Given that, under the influence of the Regulation No 44/2001, the first judgment delivered in the Member State of enforcement was precisely the declaration of enforceability (or the exequatur), changing the enforcement procedure within the Regulation No 1215/2012 has also brought, necessarily, a reform of the system of legal remedies. Without studying thoroughly the fundamental conditions which can lead to the refusal of enforcement, this paper aims at analyzing the main amendments which the new regulation brings in the matter of legal remedies which are available to the debtor in the Member State of enforcement, trying to make an adjustment of the case law of the European Court of Justice in the matter, to the new wording within the Regulation No 1215/2012, as well as an analysis of the compatibility of the measures adopted by Romania in view of applying the Regulation No 44/2001 on the declaration of enforceability in relation to the new system proposed by the European legislation now in force. -
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.
