-
Prin arvonă (arrha)1 se înțelege ceea ce una din părțile contractante, în genere cumpărătorul (art. 1297, 1298 C. C.) sau locatarul (art. 1416), dă celeilalte, fie pentru a asigura executarea contractului (arrha confirmatoria), fie pentru a’și procura mijlocul de a se putea desista de el (arrha paenitentialis). -
-
Aspecte generale privind incriminarea faptei de abuz în serviciu. În Codul penal în vigoare infracțiunile de corupție și cele de serviciu sunt prevăzute în două capitole distincte ale titlului V din Partea specială – „Infracțiuni de corupție și de serviciu”. Ceea ce caracterizează în principal grupul infracțiunilor de serviciu sau în legătură cu serviciul este valoarea socială apărată, și anume bunul mers al activității instituțiilor și organizațiilor publice, regiilor autonome sau oricăror alte persoane juridice cu capital integral ori majoritar de stat sau declarate ca fiind de utilitate publică și, implicit, apărarea intereselor legale ale persoanelor particulare. -
During the state of emergency both some press articles and the official communiques of the prosecutor’s offices mentioned the criminal investigation in the case of persons who, being confirmed as infected with SARS-CoV-2, refused to be hospitalized. The present study does not aim to provide a classic analysis of the crime of thwarting disease control, but is limited to trying to find an answer to the question of whether it is possible to retain this criminal offence in the case of infected persons who refuse hospitalization. As such, this paper discusses the current Romanian legislation and concludes that, having regard to both the provisions of the Protocol for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection and the systematic interpretation of the legal framework, since the Minister of Health enacted only measures to prevent and manage the emergency generated by the pandemic, as well as the obligation to diagnose the symptomatic persons, the measure of hospitalization cannot result exclusively from the unilateral will of the doctor, in reality the will of the latter playing no role, but must derive from the law in order to impose itself on both the patient and the doctor. Therefore it cannot be retained the crime of thwarting disease control in the case of infected persons who refused to be hospitalized.
-
În România, dreptul de proprietate privată este unul esențial, fiind prevăzut în Constituție1 în cadrul capitolului II referitor la drepturile și libertățile fundamentale. Acest act normativ reglementează dreptul de proprietate privată în mod detaliat, în cele nouă alineate ale art. 44. Pentru a reglementa acest drept, legiuitorul constituant a avut la dispoziție un vast material documentar, format în primul rând din dispozițiile vechiului Cod civil referitoare la proprietate și la regimul ei juridic, bogata doctrină acumulată între timp, precum și practica judiciară a instanțelor, toate acestea fiind adaptate la dinamica continuă a vieții sociale și a circuitului civil din societatea românească, la care se adaugă dreptul comparat în materie
-
The paper analyzes the European legislative act establishing the conditions of compensation to victims of violent crimes committed in another Member State than that of the victims residence. The research has led to the identification of some provisions which will cause some difficulties both in practice and in enunciation of scientifically critical observations. The study is useful for theorists and practitioners and also for the European legislator. The scientific contribution of this research is given by the critical remarks and future law proposals made in order to improve the complex activity to compensate the victims of all kinds of crimes, not just of violent crimes, as required by the legislative act in question. -
-
The article addresses the issue of cancellation of documents resulting from the commission of a crime, mainly concerning the special procedure regulated in Article 5491 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The legal nature of the institution of cancellation of documents resulting from the commission of an offence is the same, regardless of whether it is ordered by the court of law, pursuant to Article 25 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, or by the judge of the preliminary chamber, pursuant to Article 5491 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the majority specialized literature it was embraced the opinion according to which within the procedure of abolition of documents regulated in Article 5491 of the Criminal Procedure Code only the document regarded as instrumentum probationis may be revoked, and not the legal operation attested by the respective document as negotium juris. Also, the majority doctrine considers that the procedure for the cancellation of documents can be applied only in case of committing forgery offences, not also in case the documents would come from committing other offences. This article seeks to question the correctness of these doctrinal opinions, bringing some arguments in the sense that the cancellation also refers to the legal operation (negotium) and may also concern documents resulting from the commission of offences other than those of forgery.
-
Conform art. 315 alin. (2) lit. d) C.pr.pen., în cazul în care procurorul dispune soluția de clasare a cauzei, ordonanța trebuie că cuprindă (după caz) și mențiunea sesizării judecătorului de cameră preliminară cu propunerea de desființare totală sau parțială a unui înscris. Acest aspect este reluat în art. 5491 C.pr.pen., care reglementează procedura în asemenea situații; astfel, potrivit alin. (1), în cazul în care procurorul a dispus clasarea sau renunțarea la urmărire penală și sesizarea judecătorului de cameră preliminară în vederea luării măsurii de siguranță a confiscării speciale sau a desființării unui înscris, ordonanța de clasare, însoțită de dosarul cauzei, se înaintează instanței căreia i-ar reveni, potrivit legii, competența să judece cauza în primă instanță, după expirarea termenului prevăzut la art. 339 alin. (4) ori, după caz, la art. 340 sau după pronunțarea hotărârii prin care plângerea a fost respinsă. Conform alin. (3) al art. 5491 C.pr.pen., judecătorul de cameră preliminară poate dispune una dintre următoarele soluții: -
Contractul de ipotecă poate fi desființat, sub forma anulării, numai în condițiile art. 1648 alin. (1) C.civ. în ceea ce privește soluționarea cererii de anulare a contractului de ipotecă, exclusiv ca o consecință a rezoluțiunii contractului de vânzare prin care pârâta a dobândit dreptul de proprietate asupra terenului, cu privire la care a constituit ulterior un drept real, reprezentat de dreptul de ipotecă în favoarea pârâtei. Aceste dispoziții fac trimitere însă la regulile de carte funciară, urmând, așadar, ca, în continuare, să fie observate dispozițiile art. 908 C.civ., ce reglementează ipotezele în care se poate dispune rectificarea cărții funciare. -
The study analyzes how the investigation of the trial and debate of the fund has been regulated, from the publication of the new Civil Procedure Code to the adoption of the Law No 310/2018 amending and supplementing the Law No 134/2010 on the Civil Procedure Code. Initially, the investigation of the trial before the first instance was expected to be carried out as a rule, in the council chamber and, by exception, in public session. The debate of the fund could take place both in public session and in the council chamber. The entry into force of the provisions regarding the investigation of the trial and the debate of the fund in the council chamber has been postponed several times, never entering into force, so that by the Law No 310/2018 these provisions be abandoned. In this way, the intermediate situation by which the investigation of the trial and the debate of the fund were held in public session became permanent. In our opinion, it is criticizable to abandon the holding of the civil trial in the council chamber, given the predominantly private character of the rights and interests of the parties involved and the guarantee of the right to privacy.
-
The new Romanian Civil Code advances a new conception regarding the divorce, essentially different from the conception with which we were familiar under the legislation that is (still) in force. Analyzing the provisions of Arts. 373-404, contained in Book II, “Family” of the new Civil Code, a note must be made of the non-dissimulated liberal “philosophy” on divorce, particularly expressed through the following features: multiplication of the reasons for divorce – in the sense that divorce by the spouses’ agreement may also take the form of a request accepted by the other spouse, the de facto separation is a distinct reason for divorce, allowing for the dissolution of marriage including out of the exclusive fault of the claimant spouse’ the “de-judiciarization” of the divorce procedure – by the fact that marriage termination does not fall under the exclusive competence of the courts of law, in the case of divorce by proper consent, alongside the judiciary means, being also available the means of administrative or notarial procedure, the latter being accessible even in the presence of spouses’ underage children, the limitation of post-divorce legal issues – by encouraging the settlement of “all issues” related to marriage, patrimonial or non-patrimonial, in the relation between spouses, as well as in the relations between parents and children, preferably by the spouses’ agreement of will and, inasmuch as possible, “in one package”, on the occasion of marriage termination. This study is dedicated to these features. In the introductory part (§1), we propose a systematization model for divorce cases, then we analyze the forms taken by divorce according to the reason for marriage termination (§2), making a distinction between divorce as a remedy – by the spouses’ agreement, at the request of either one of them accepted by the other spouse, for health reasons – and divorce by fault – for reasons that are not provided by the law, due to the de facto separation which lasted at least 2 years.
