-
This article aims to analyze a recent normative act through that were amended and supplemented the normative acts in matters of education, respectively, the Law on national education No 1/2011 and the Government Emergency Ordinance No 75/2005 on quality assurance in education. The approach is focused both on procedural aspects of the adoption of administrative act, in order to determine how the constitutional requirements have been met, but also on the substantive issues, that aim some of the legislative solutions which it enshrines. Among them, the article paid a special attention to the consecration, for the first time in the Romanian legislation, of the possibility that the holder of a scientific title can give up to it. In our opinion, the newly introduced rule has some weaknesses, both in terms of how it is written, but also on the legitimacy of the solution itself. -
The need of instituting specialized jurisdictions in a given area is generated by the existence of a specification of the branch of law, of its major particularities and the scale of the litigation that this jurisdiction is called to resolute. Starting with the second half of the twentieth century, environmental law has claimed its autonomy as a new branch of law and scientific field, having its own principles, and centered on the fundamental right to sane and ecologically balanced environment. The need to increase the effectiveness and to assert its specificity has determined in a number of states various judicial experiences, identifying the trend of environmental specialization in this field. In Romania, the volume of the environmental litigation doesn’t seem to prioritize the creation of a special jurisdiction, but the complexity of the matters, the limits of the classical jurisdictions in solving them and the imperative of assuring the effectiveness of the environmental legislation demand for triggering a phased process of institutionalization of such specialized jurisdictions. -
According to the opinion of the author of this study, the periodical verification, during the trial, upon the receipt of the criminal file, but also at time intervals of maximum 60 days, of the legality and validity of the measure of preventive arrest of the defendant, shall be carried out by the court, no matter whether the warrant of preventive arrest was executed or not. Failure to perform this obligation during the trial, even for the non-confined defendant, shall lead to the rightful termination of the preventive arrest. -
The article’s author attempts to identify and customize various approaches on the groundlessness or illegality of the procedure to request and issue audio and video interception and recording releases, both within the criminal procedure field and within the national security field, suggesting a fortiori customized penalties or remedies - where appropriate –. The purpose of the analysis is to eliminate any mistakes or even abuses that may occur during the approval of hidden research means mentioned above, as well as to guarantee everyone’s right to respect for private and family life.
-
Following a critical study of the provisions of the Government Ordinance No 121/1998 on the material liability of the military, the author points out that this normative act is contrary to Article 73 (3) j), Article 118 (2), (3) of the Constitution. The juridical reasoning is based on the standard imposed by the case law of the Constitutional Court in respect of the status of the public officers and of the military staff, the author emphasising the necessity to adopt an organic law/several organic laws to regulate the material liability of the military staff and of the public officers within the Ministry of National Defence, Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Romanian Intelligence Service, the Protection and Guard Service, the Foreign Intelligence Service, the Special Telecommunications Service and the Ministry of Justice.
-
In this article the author expresses his opinion according to which the provisions of Article 10 of Law No 187/2012 and of Article 39 (1) b) and c) of the Criminal Code are contrary to the Constitution of Romania, republished, as well as to the European standard in the matter, namely the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. -
Within this paper, the author makes a brief review of the background, respectively of the grounds of the Decision No 363/2015 of the Constitutional Court, and afterwards he stops to analyze the effects of this decision on the criminal trials ongoing at the date when the mentioned decision is pronounced. In relation to the exigences imposed by the principle of legality of incrimination and to the fact that the text declared unconstitutional has incriminated for the first time a certain conduct as an offence, the failure to reconcile, within the legal time limit, the incrimination text with the provisions of the Constitution of Romania, republished, has the value of a decriminalization. -
Pentru motivele pe care le vom detalia în continuare, ne vom pronunța de la început în legătură cu problemele anunțate în titlu și vom afirma că este necesară revizuirea Constituției, dar, deocamdată, nu este oportună. Este necesară deoarece exercitarea puterii politico-etatice pe baza Constituției, pe parcursul a mai bine de 22 de ani, a întâmpinat dificultăți determinate de modul laconic sau deficitar de reglementare care, la rândul său, a condus la interpretarea diferită, uneori contrară, a unor reguli constituționale de către principalii actori politici, de contradicția dintre unele texte constituționale, de lipsa existenței unor principii clar formulate privind organizarea și exercitarea puterii politice, de căderea în desuetudine a unor reguli sau principii juridice înscrise în legea fundamentală, de caracterul confuz al unor reglementări, de integrarea României în Uniunea Europeană și consecințele acestui fapt pe planul exercitării puterii etc. -
The article presents the nullities in the Criminal Procedure Code and supports the necessity to regulate the virtual nullities through a common provision, allowing the appeal court to cancel the sentence of the court of first instance and to send the case back for re-examination to the court whose judgment has been cancelled, when the challenged sentence is annulled and the court examining the merits is required to give another sentence. -
This study is dedicated to the Special Part of the Criminal Procedure Code, in terms of the amendments brought by Law No. 202/2010, with reference to criminal prosecution, judgment on the merits, ordinary and extraordinary means of challenge, enforcement decisions or special judgment procedures. The study contains equally an analysis of the new regulations introduced in the field of recourse in the interest of the law. The text comments concerning the referral of the case to another Prosecutor’ Office, the information of the next hearing date, the judgment in case of admittance of guilt, the limits of the recourse judgment, the procedure in case of review can be indicated as examples. For an easier understanding of the study, the sequence of the analyzed legal regulations complies with both the structure of the Criminal Procedure Code, and with the chronology of the texts of the amending laws. Otherwise, given the fact that the work is especially addressing practitioners in criminal law and in criminal procedural law and given the fact that, for reasons of economy of the publishing space, the amended or amending texts were only rarely and partially reproduced, authors believe that the latter should be concomitantly available for a complete understanding of the study. With special reference to the contents of the second part of the study, emphasis needs to be placed on the fact that the work tried to highlight both the progressive and positively innovating provisions in the criminal procedure, and certain errors, non-compliances or legislative omissions or potential lack of correlation with the constitutional provisions. CUMPĂRĂ ACUM -
In 2010, considering the deadline for the entry into force of new procedure codes, there arose the need to establish procedural rules with immediate effect, under way for the implementation of codes and consistent with legislative solutions established thereupon, so as to smooth efficient enforcement of court proceedings and expedient settlement of cases. The Law regarding some measures aiming at the celerity of cases’ settlement no. 202/2010 frames a series of specific legislative measures, mainly pointing to simplify and increase the celerity of cases’ settlement, with direct impact on the execution of judgments, as well. In the study hereby, the authors analyze, from an applied perspective mainly, amendments and completions to the Code of Criminal Procedure under Law no. 202/2010 on the celerity of cases’ settlement. As regards the general part domain of the Criminal Procedure Code, there have been highlighted a series of situations, resulting from the introduction of the mediation agreement as basis for settling the criminal or the civil case, from the rethinking of the material competence of courts or from express regulation of specific cases on conflict of jurisdiction arisen during the criminal prosecution. Other comments concern completions brought in the field of evidence management, application of the institution of preventive measures’ cessation by right, or relating to enforcement of peremptory writ of mandate, payment of court fees and court fines. As a general observation, since legal provisions under review are at the beginning of their application, and the subject covered is very wide ranging, the work developed by the two authors could not set its purpose neither on their exhaustive analysis, nor on the issue, in all cases, of conclusions claimed as legal certainty, but rather attempted to bring to the attention of practitioners working hypotheses, problems that may arise and their possible solutions. -
Meeting the practical needs and views expressed in recent doctrine of constitutional law, amendments to the Code of criminal procedure under Law no. 177/2010 stand for an important step in streamlining the justice process in Romania and its harmonization with EU standards. In this article, the authors review amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure under Law no. 177/2010, in terms of effects arising from repeal of paragraph 6 of Art. 303 C. Cr. Pr., wording stipulating mandatory suspension of trial proceedings in the case of referral to the Constitutional Court to settle the constitutional challenge. Simultaneously, in this article there are also set forth and considered issues of novelty arising from the introduction within the two procedure codes of a new review case, aiming at restoring legality, just for the cases where the final decision in a case was grounded upon a statutory provision subsequently deemed unconstitutional.
