-
The cases examined in this study were generated by a recent decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal. In essence, the author considers legally admissible the conclusion of agreements between the employer and the trade union, outside the formal framework established by Law no. 130/1996 regarding the collective labor agreement, but only subject to complying with certain limits, which he presents. -
The author examines the – complex – issue of the procedure – in Romania – in case of exequatur and the recognition of foreign judgments given in the Member States of the European Union, taking into consideration that in our country, at present, the common law in the matter is represented by Law no. 105/ 1992 regarding the regulation of the private international law relationships, while in case of judgments given in the other Member States of the European Union, a special law in the matter is considered, namely: the Council Regulation (E.C.) no. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, respectively the Council Regulation (E.C.) no. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
-
By the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 51/2008 regarding the legal public aid in civil matters, the Romanian lawmaker transposed the European Union Council Directive no. 2003/8/EC of 27 January 2003 in this matter. In the above-mentioned study, the author discusses – also in relation to the cases appearing before the courts – the following matters: – The elements taken into consideration when applying the applicant’s material situation; – The jurisdiction to solve the application for legal public aid in the form of exemption from, reduction etc. of the judicial stamp duty established in the appeal as the debts for the merits of the case; – The actual procedure of providing the legal aid in the form of legal assistance through a lawyer.
-
In the above-mentioned study, the author, bringing to discussion a number of provisions included in the recently adopted Law no. 202/2010 on certain measures to accelerate the settlement of trials (usually called, the Law of the “small reform” of civil procedure) detects a number of inconsistencies between some provisions of this law and the future new Civil Procedure Code (Law no. 134/2010), adopted by the Parliament, published in the “Official Journal of Romania” on 15 July 2010, but, unfortunately, not yet in force), inconsistencies that, inexorably, will generate difficulties and complications upon the entry into force of the new Civil Procedure Code.
-
Potrivit art. 145 alin. 12 lit. f C.pr.pen., organul judiciar care a dispus mãsura preventivã a obligãrii de a nu pãrãsi localitatea poate impune învinuitului sau inculpatului ca pe durata mãsurii „sã nu exercite profesia, meseria sau sã nu desfãșoare activitatea în exercitarea cãreia a sãvârșit fapta”, și anume sã nu-și exercite atribuțiile de primar (cu notã criticã).
-
O cerere în constatare vizând obținerea unei hotãrâri judecãtorești care sã fie opusã organelor fiscale și în temeiul cãreia sã se beneficieze de scutiri la plata impozitelor pe terenuri și clãdiri nu poate fi primitã întrucât art. 111 C.pr.civ. condiționeazã formularea acțiunii în constatare de inexistenþa unei acțiuni în realizare (Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, Secția comercialã, decizia nr. 952 din 9 martie 2010).
-
In the following study, the author criticizes the legal regulations in Romania (mainly the Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Code) strictly limiting the cases of abstention and recusal of judges, proposing in the end that, in addition to these, it should be generically provided that the abstention and recusal shall also act in any other situations in which the objectivity and impartiality of the judge may be questioned.
-
SECȚIILE UNITE, deliberând asupra recursului în interesul legii, constatã urmãtoarele: În practica instanțelor judecãtorești s-a constatat cã nu existã un punct de vedere unitar în aplicarea dispozițiilor art. 105, cu referire la art. 10 din Legea nr. 46/2008 privind fondul forestier proprietate privatã a persoanelor fizice sau juridice.
-
Starting from the Decision no. 1.105/2010 on the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 63/2010 for the amendment and supplementing of Law no. 373/2006 regarding the local public finances, as well as for establishing some financial measures, by which the Constitutional Court ruled that the subsequent effective dates of certain provisions of the emergency ordinance do not invalidate the urgent and extraordinary nature of the situation being regulated, the study examines the matter of the coming into force of emergency ordinances, in the light of the constitutional provisions and the provisions of Law no. 24/2000 regarding the norms of legislative technique for drafting regulations (republished). The study also presents a situation regarding the effective date of the Government Emergency Ordinances, starting with the year 2004 (subsequent to the revision of the Constitution).
-
1. Principiul nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. Reguli generale. Drepturile fundamentale fac parte integrantã din principiile generale de drept a cãror respectare este asiguratã de cãtre instanțele europene în cauzele de concurențã, ținând cont în special de Convenția (europeanã) pentru apãrarea drepturilor omului și a libertãților fundamentale (în continuare denumitã Convenția) ca sursã de inspirație.
-
While the matter of the restoration of real estate abusively seized by the communist state has raised a special interest, both from individuals and from authorities, the subject of the restoration of movable cultural property remained relatively marginalized until the coming into force of Law no. 182/2000, which provides the persons entitled with the possibility of an action for special recovery of movable property, for the purpose of recovering ownership over the movable cultural property illegally seized by the State. This study intends to examine this matter, focusing on the essential aspects of the action for special recovery of movable property put into operation by the lawmaker.
-
Although the administrator of the association of owners or tenants can also commit the offense of embezzlement by the acquisition of surpluses created in his/her management by fraudulent means, he/she can be sued only for embezzlement and not for having committed the offense of creating surpluses in management as well. This study analyses whether the administrator has the capacity of manager according to the provisions of art. 1, parag. (1) of Law no. 22/1969 and presents the reasons why the administrator cannot be an active subject of the offense of creating surpluses in management by fraudulent means, although he/she is an employee, due to the fact that he/she is employed with an individual employment contract and has as main work tasks the management of the property and values of the association of owners or tenants.
