-
This paper deals with the problems of establishing the garnishment when the debtor is the Romanian State itself. The analysis is carried out in the light of the provisions of Article 5 (1) of the Government Emergency Ordinance No 146/2002, republished. At the same time, it is also analyzed the lack of incidence of the provisions of the Government Ordinance No 22/2002 in case of this debtor. -
The idea of this study has been inspired by obviously modest doctrinaire concerns in connection with the analysis of the legal regulations dedicated to the legal protection of „databases”. In fact, in the specialized literature, as a rule, the approaches usually do not exceed the level of reproduction of the regulations in the field or the subject is simply avoided. Probably this situation is determined, mostly, by the redundant style of wording the provisions of Articles 1221–1224 of the Law No 8/1996 on copyright and neighbouring rights and the provisions of Directive No 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of databases. This normative situation should represent the spring of some normative doctrinaire measures deeply studied and it should by no means demobilize the analysis of the problems in the matter.
-
Introducing the provision on the administrative measure of non-voluntary hospitalization, provided in Article 315 (2) e) of the Criminal Procedure Code, has created confusion with regard to the cases in which this measure applies and to the cases in which the safety measure of medical hospitalization applies and, likewise, with regard to the jurisdiction of the court which orders one of these measures to be taken.
-
With the entry into force of the current Criminal Code, the Romanian legislator has eliminated the mixed regime of sanctions made of punishments and educational measures, provided by the old criminal regulation, in favour of a regime of sanctions exclusively consisting in educational measures. By this study, the author subjects the provisions specific to the educational measures involving deprivation of liberty regulated by Chapter III of Title V of the Criminal Code to a thorough analysis.
-
In the context of the new legal framework existing after the entry into force of the Law No 85/2014, this study analyzes the final table of claims and the contestations against it, by emphasizing the notable differences as compared to the old regulation – the Law No 85/2006 – and the importance of the final table of claims over the debtor’s estate in the insolvency procedure, as well as the exceptional character of the contestations against it. The registration of claims in the final table of claims against the debtor’s estate is generating rights for the creditors, and, consequently, the analysis and the thorough study of how this is produced, of the content of the final table of claims, of the time of its registration and publication, as well as of the rights and obligations of the participants in this procedure are essential. The contestations against the final table of claims have an exceptional character and the conditions in which these may be formulated are strictly, expressly and limitatively enumerated by the law. Under these circumstances, this legal remedy is approached from the perspective of the persons who may have the legal standing to file the contestation, from the perspective of the time limit for their submission – which appears as a highly opportune legislative novelty for the stability of the procedure – and, finally, from the perspective of the exceptional situations which may lead to the admission of such contestation.
-
In this study, it is analyzed the direct action of the mandator against the sub-mandatary, in light of the new Romanian Civil Code (the Law No 287/2009, republished on 15 July 2011). In this respect there are examined successively: the direct action in the legal relations arising from the contract of mandate, both under the old Romanian Civil Code (of 1864, in force until 30 September 2011) and under the influence of the new Civil Code (in force since 1 October 2011); the liability of the mandatary towards the mandator; the problem whether the mandatary and the sub-mandatary are jointly liable or not; the effects of the direct action of the mandator against the sub-mandatary and others.
-
In this study, the author makes an analysis of the provisions of Article 2319 of the new Romanian Civil Code, which entered into force on 1 October 2011, a text according to which „the personal guarantee ceases to exist following the death of the personal guarantor, although there is a contrary stipulation”, in relation to the general rules of principle of the Civil Code regarding the death of a contracting party (the natural person), respectively the cessation of the capacity of use (in case of the legal person). It is mentioned that the solution regulated by Article 2319 of the Romanian Civil Code did not exist in the previous Romanian Civil Code (of 1864), being taken from the Civil Code of the Province of Québec (Canada).
-
By critically analyzing the foundation of the civil contract, in light of the provisions of the current Romanian Civil Code, in relation to the modern Western European legal doctrine, and by insisting on some obsolete and/or contradictory legal regulations of the new Romanian Civil Code, the author of this study, on the one hand, considers that the principle pacta sunt servanda has presently become a myth, that we are witnessing the constant decline of the autonomy of will in matters of civil contracts and, at the same time, a series of new developments as regards the limits of the contractual freedom, the legal regulation of unpredictability in the new Romanian Civil Code (Article 1271) being relevant in this respect. Finally, the author believes that the current Romanian Civil Code (of 2009) contains a number of inconsistencies and contradictory regulations under the mentioned aspects, for which reason he proposes, in conclusion, the recast of the Code as soon as possible, taking into account the numerous failures thereof.
-
In this study, the author examines the problems of granting in Romania the subsidiary protection for the asylum seekers in case of generalized violence in situations of armed conflict, stating that, according to the internal and international legal terminology, the subsidiary protection is a form of international protection from which the asylum seekers can benefit. In this respect there are presented: the legal framework – international, European and internal – in the matter, as well as the conditions of granting the protection in question for the asylum seekers in case of generalized violence in situations of armed conflict.
-
The normative act which regulates the Romanian citizenship is the Law No 21/1991, republished on 13 August 2010. Recently (on 15 September 2015), the Law on the Romanian citizenship No 21/1991, republished, has undergone important amendments and supplements brought by the Government Emergency Ordinance No 37/2015, an ordinance whose content is the subject of this study.
-
Contestația în anulare împotriva deciziilor rămase definitive în recurs, prin care a fost invocată încălcarea principiului non bis in idem, se judecă în conformitate cu dispozițiile noului Cod de procedură penală în materia contestației în anulare. Cazul de contestație în anulare, prevăzut în art. 426 lit. i) din noul Cod de procedură penală, referitor la ipoteza în care „împotriva unei persoane s-au pronunțat două hotărâri definitive pentru aceeași faptă”, nu este incident, dacă faptele cu privire la care s-au pronunțat două hotărâri definitive de condamnare sunt diferite, neexistând identitate de faptă, indiferent dacă încadrarea juridică a faptelor este aceeași. (Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, Secția penală, Decizia nr. 1479 din 29 aprilie 2014) -
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.
