-
The EU is a union of states and citizens. The legal nature of this Union is disputable. However, most of the scholars admit that it works on federal bases; in the Brussels language called „the communitarian method”. If the EU is a federation, it is a sui generis federation of sovereign states. Those states have transferred to the European transnational institutions, they have established by their joint will, the power to exercise on their behalf, to their benefit and in their common interests some of their national competences. By doing this the respective states did not give up their sovereignty, but simply decided to exercise parts of it in common, for the sake of their common security. Likewise, they did not abrogate their Constitutions, but it was precisely because those Constitutions allowed them to enter such international agreements that they have signed the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). That explains why the above-mentioned founding legal instruments of the EU were adopted and later modified by and within intergovernmental conferences, as well as why they had to be ratified by all national parliaments of the signatory states. Those treaties include the principle of „attribution”, which means that the European institutions could not have, accept or enforce any power which has been not explicitly attributed to them by every and all member states. This „attribution” is achieved and could only be achieved in full respect and in complete observance of the respective national Constitutions of the member states. -
This study deals with the extremely complex problems of the legal relation of criminal enforcement law, often confused with the legal relation of substantive criminal law or even with the relation of criminal processual law. That is precisely why the author insists on the specific elements of the analyzed relation, thus creating clear delimitations between the three institutions that have separate existence, and also areas of very strong interference.
-
Romania, by adhering in July 1961, to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, adopted in New-York as at 10 June 1958, on that occasion formulated a reserve, in the sense that our country shall enforce the Convention „only to disputes arising from lawful contractual or non-contractual relations being deemed as commercial by the national law”. Since as at the 1st October 2011 the current Romanian Civil Code entered into force (Law no. 287/2009, as republished as at 15 July 2011), as well as Law no. 71/2011 for the enforcement of the current Civil Code, both of them having a monist character (without considering the commercial law as an autonomous discipline of law), but recognizing further the category of merchants (a component of the professionals’ category) the authoress considers that, on one hand, the above mentioned reserve shall be construed as referring exclusively to the legal relations among merchants, and, on the other hand, as opposed to what the law is, that Romania is about to waive the concerned reserve at issue in the future. -
In the study above, the author examines the issue of redemption of own shares by a company admitted for trading on a regulated market, under the conditions of art. 1031 of Law no. 31/1990 regarding trading companies (republished on November 17, 2004), of EC Regulation 2273/2003 and of Directive 71/91/EEC. For this purpose, the author reviews: how the redemption of own shares is performed in practice, the juridical effects of such redemption, the funds employed to make the redemption; various specific cases in the matter. -
The study is devoted to the institution of civil tort liability, namely the matter of reparable prejudices, with a special look at the special assumption of liability consisting in the damage to the right to one’s own image, as a right of the human personality. The analysis has as its starting point the presentation of a case-law solution, whereby the court has awarded civil damages for non-property prejudices caused by committing an illegal act, consisting in the launching, without the consent of the complainant, on a social networking site of wide circulation – Facebook, of a blog for public debates about his professional work, in which he has used his image, without obtaining prior consent. As objectives of our research, we have established the conditions for the reparable prejudices under the tort liability, followed by an analysis of the special liability assumption by bringing prejudice to the right to one’s own image, as right of personality. In the realization of the study, through the results obtained, we have found that this way of approaching the topic by presenting a case study followed by a doctrinal analysis can be a useful tool for theoreticians, but also for the practitioners of law, in achieving the topicality and complexity of the problems, from the perspective of the legal discourse of the controversial issues, as well as of the didactic one. -
Executarea pedepsei închisorii se face în locuri de detenție special amenajate, pentru a se asigura atât rolul sancționator al pedepsei, cât mai ales, cel educativ, apt să conducă la reeducarea celor condamnați. Din nefericire, condițiile degradante de detenție din multe penitenciare românești au fost ignorate de puterile legiuitoare și executivă din România. Deși este o problemă de zeci de ani, mare parte a societății civile a rămas în pasivitate sub acest aspect, fapt ce, poate, oglindește nepăsarea multor români față de modul de executare a pedepselor penale, privative de libertate.
-
The study proposes the analysis of a jurisprudential solution from the perspective of the regulations on the tort civil liability for the prejudices caused by things in order to signal the recognition of the reparable nature of some new categories of prejudices. The arguments exposed are substantiated on the regulation of the Civil Code, but also on the opinions expressed in the classical and contemporary doctrine, supporting the need to ensure the full reparation of all prejudices caused to the victim.
-
The Court of Justice unitarily interprets the law of the European Union by way of the preliminary reference procedure. Social networks make available to every person possibilities of individual communication or in communities. The meeting between the Court of Justice and the social networks is not new, but now the European Court has consolidated the interpretation of the notion of controller within the regulations on personal data protection. The administrator of a page hosted by a social network is a controller within the meaning of European legislation. The study attempts to correlate the main attributes of the controller with the functions of the administrator of a page hosted by a social network and to deepen the liability of this administrator.
-
The following study critically analyzes the civil liability of the civil servants. It is estimated that it is about a contractual liability, however different from the patrimonial liability and from the material liability, regulated in the case of employees, respectively of the military and of other categories of personnel. The cases of civil liability of the civil servants are presented, as well as the conditions of this form of liability. Special attention is paid to the procedure of reparation of damages (imputation order or disposition and the payment commitment), including with regard to the former civil servants. Key words: payment commitment; authority; public institution; imputation decision/disposition/order; illicit deed; civil servant; obligation of restitution; injury; civil liability; material liability; patrimonial liability; guilt.
-
The civil liability of judges and prosecutors for damages caused by torts related to their professional duties is a subject of actuality much debated by legal professionals, the media and the civil society as a whole. Problems such as judicial errors, arrest followed by exculpatory decisions, controls and other forms of discriminatory police abuse performed sometimes at the request of prosecutors are just some of the examples observed by many contemporary societies as dangers for the human rights and liberties. The constitutions, laws and case law provide for answers to the questions in connection with the tort liability of judges and prosecutors. Latest, it becomes visible worldwide a certain way of thinking which advocates for more restrictive rules regarding the subject. This phenomenon is noticeable not only in Romania but also in other countries, such as the United States and France. The paper proposes a synthesis of the constitutional, legal framework and case law in the United States of America, with a special focus on the Supreme Court of Justice cases regarding the civil liability of judges and prosecutors. Since the notions of absolute immunity and qualified immunity in this context are quite unknown to the Romanian legal readers, this paper should add some value to their knowledge of the way of thinking the relation between independence versus accountability of the judiciary specific to the legal traditions of the U.S. From the perspective of the U.S. case law, the paper presents some of the most relevant cases of the Supreme Court of Justice such as: Stump v. Sparkman, Griffith v. Slinkard, Yaselli v. Goff, Imbler v. Pachtman, Burns v. Reed and Buckley v. Fitzsimmons. Although quite old some of them, the majority of the conclusions resulted from this case law are still valid today, with nuances, mainly in the area of the qualified immunity for prosecutors. -
Typical as they could be for the continental legal system and bearing common landmarks recommended by the Council of Europe and European Union, France, Italy and Spain are the three examples of states best suited to illustrate the European vision on the civil liability of judges and prosecutors for the damages caused by the exercise of their legal powers in deciding upon acts and measures taken in the framework of litigation, including the final decision on the case. The analysis of these examples represents the continuation of a former study published in the same legal journal on the matter, but viewed through the lenses of the US Supreme Court of Justice and laws. Based on the Council of Europe Charter on the Statute for Judges and Recommendation on the judge’s independence, efficiency and responsibilities, guided by the case law of the EU Court of Justice and ECHR, the law and legal practices on civil liability of judges and prosecutors find their expression in slightly different manners in France, Italy and Spain, but all of them respect the paramount principle of the indirect liability which could be enacted only based on the state’s direct liability. There are some national differences but nevertheless they don’t represent deviations from the common European approach. The present study searches for all different and common views of the three states on the subject, emphasizing on the main principles that should guide the continental legal system’s states on that respect. -
Legal liability is a relation established by law, by legal rule, between the author of the infringement of legal rule and the state, represented by the officials of the authority, which may be the courts, public servants or other officials of the public power. The contents of this relation is complex, being composed essentially of the right of the state, as a representative of society, to apply the sanctions provided by the legal rules to the persons which are in breach of the legal provisions and the obligation of those persons to be subject to legal penalties, in order to restore the legal order.
