-
An in-depth analysis of the mechanisms by which the recipients of the legal norm end up evading the payment of the tax obligations and, subsequently, giving an appearance of legality to the illegally obtained amounts, can only be beneficial for an overall understanding of the typical elements of those two offences (tax evasion and money laundering). Without a tradition in our criminal law, incriminated for only two decades, the offence of money laundering has surprisingly gathered around it a rich case law, which is the subject of numerous criminal cases. At the same time, the analysis of the outlined case law has revealed different approaches and solutions from the courts on some important aspects of the offence of money laundering and their clarification is all the more necessary as we are talking precisely about its typicality elements. Whereas the offence of money laundering is often concurrent with the offence of tax evasion, it is necessary to analyze their points of interference, both at the level of their objective side and from the perspective of reparation of the damage.
-
After a summary examination of the regulations and of the doctrine regarding the institution of civil nullities, the author illustrates the uncertainties produced by some special norms that establish absolute nullities for the violation of some imperative norms of protection for some categories delimited by subjects; it is concluded – starting from the principles – and with exemplification of jurisprudence – that such express nullities produce only some effects of absolute nullity and that the legal regime of absolute nullities does not always apply, in its entirety, as a whole. The presented legal construction offers the opportunity to observe the acute need for prejudicial procedures at the disposal of those who have to make decisions for the application of rules that produce legal uncertainty.
-
În cele ce urmează, vom comenta două hotărâri ale Curții de Justiție a Uniunii Europene, ambele pronunțate în materia dreptului la liberă circulație și, respectiv, a securității sociale, în cadrul procedurii chestiunii preliminare.
-
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.
-
This study examines the following issues: the legal nature of the survivor’s pension, the possibility of obtaining the survivor’s pension by a person, if his legal provider was also the holder of a survivor’s pension, how to calculate the survivor’s pension in case it is established, having as legal reference another survivor’s pension, the possibility of applying the correction index when establishing the amount of the survivor’s pension. The beginning of a relatively detailed legal analysis, in connection with these aspects presents a relevant degree of novelty for the Romanian legal literature, as neither the doctrine, nor the case law paid due attention to these problems, of indisputable theoretical interest and real practical utility.
-
Potrivit prevederilor art. 60 alin. (1) lit. c) din Codul muncii și art. 21 alin. (1) lit. a) din Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 96/2003, interdicția temporară de concediere a salariatei gravide se aplică numai în situația în care angajatorul avea cunoștință la data emiterii deciziei de concediere despre starea de graviditate a salariatei concediate. Deși art. 272 din Codul muncii prevede că sarcina probei în litigiile de muncă revine angajatorului, dovada faptului pozitiv al informării prealabile cade în sarcina salariatei gravide care contestă faptul negativ invocat de angajator că nu a luat cunoștință de starea de graviditate anterior concedierii.
-
The following study has as research and reflection theme the influence of force majeure on labour relations, determined, in particular, by the legal norms specially adopted in the context of the existence of the pandemic caused by the spread of the SARS-COV-2 coronavirus. There are defined the force majeure, and its specificity is presented, taking into account the regulation of the Civil Code [Article 1351 (2)], as well as relevant doctrinal theories. Next, what is the essence of this stage, there are presented and analyzed the consequences of force majeure, especially consisting of the afore-mentioned pandemic, namely with regard to: forced labour, employment in public institutions and authorities, duration of labour relation, individualized work schedules and overtime work, change of place and type of work, suspension of labour relations, notice periods, patrimonial liability, collective labour agreements and labour disputes. The study ends with the conclusions on the analyzed problems.
-
Potrivit art. 273 alin. (1) C.pen., fapta martorului care, într-o cauză penală, civilă sau în orice altă procedură în care se ascultă martori, face afirmații mincinoase ori nu spune tot ce știe în legătură cu faptele sau împrejurările esențiale cu privire la care este întrebat se pedepsește cu închisoare de la 6 luni la 3 ani sau cu amendă.
-
Modern society is based on the predominance of organic solidarity over mechanical solidarity and, consequently, on the predominance of the law which ensures cooperation between autonomous subjects from repressive law, which sanctions, through penalty, any deviation from the standards of the common conscience. Modern society is „civilized”, i.e. it is firstly and foremost based on „civil” law, the repressive law only being exceptional, which translates into three principles: that of the subsidiarity of criminal law, that of the necessity and legality of offences and penalties, and that of the additional protection of individual freedom when the subject is criminally charged. The consequence thereof is that, in modern liberal democracies, all repressive law is criminal, that any charge which may lead to the application of a repressive sanction is a criminal charge and that the law-maker cannot assign to the administration the competence regarding the application of repressive sanctions. Under these circumstances, the transformation of some repressive norms into norms of administrative law is a violation of the fundamental principles that structure the legal order of modern liberal states. Nonetheless, this type of practice is becoming more common. In order to ensure individual freedom, this tendency must be corrected. As politicians are not willing to do so, naturally this is a task for the judicial courts, that can rely for this endeavour on the European Court of Human Rights’ constructive jurisprudence.
-
European democratic societies have shown, in recent years, an increased interest in reforming justice, the aim being to make more efficient the process of administration thereof. Likewise the efficiency of justice is a complex and continuous process which involves, among other things, guaranteeing the quality of the judicial decision and resolving the cases within a reasonable time. Within the present approach the author made a radiography of the most important reforms initiated and partially carried out in France, Italy and Spain. The investigation carried out has led to the conclusion of the existence of some common regulatory trends, but also to the existence of some different solutions. Common trends have been identified in terms of judicial organization, distinguishing itself a process of concentration of jurisdictions and of specialization thereof. The most significant example from this point of view is that of France, a country where a recent reform has led to the merger of the courts with the high courts. The courts resulting from this concentration are called judicial courts. In Spain, the justice reforms were initiated in 2001 following the conclusion of a „State Agreement” between the Government, the People’s Party and the Socialist Party. In Italy in recent years it was undertaken a reform which led to the increase in the competence of justices of the peace. In all the mentioned states there was also a marked tendency towards making more efficient the alternative ways of resolving the conflicts. Different procedural and judicial options were found regarding the composition of the superior councils of the magistracy, the organization of judicial inspections and the organization of the Public Ministry. Such options take into account the particularities of each judicial system, which excludes a total uniformity and are part of the democratic processes aimed at consolidating the state of law.
-
The national system of public administration is subject to the impact of the medical-sanitary crisis in various forms, on all levels of organization, being additionally responsible and obliged to identify solutions of a normative and administrative nature. One of the important negative effects generated by the current medical-sanitary crisis is the impossibility of the administration to ensure the continuity of activities whose realization is conditioned by administrative authorization, by extension/renewal of authorizations, approvals, agreements, etc., making use of some acts during the validity period, in the sense of giving them the effects provided by law, or the exercise of some personal rights, on the basis of some documents (such as identity documents) when they are in the period of validity. The lack of an infralegal normative framework, of secondary regulation, establishing the scope of the documents the validity of which is extended during and beyond the cessation of special states of emergency and of alert and the conditions in which the prorogation of validity operates, leads to a non-unitary application of the normative act of primary regulation, which includes a general formulation, and inevitably at an additional pressure on the specialized administrative contentious courts, which will be notified either by their holders/beneficiaries, or by third parties whose rights and legitimate interests are harmed.
-
Potrivit art. 457 alin. (1) C.pr.civ., hotărârea judecătorească este supusă numai căilor de atac prevăzute de lege, în condițiile și termenele stabilite de aceasta, indiferent de mențiunile din dispozitivul ei. De asemenea, conform prevederilor art. 460 alin. (3) C.pr.civ., în cazul în care prin aceeași hotărâre au fost soluționate mai multe cereri principale sau incidentale, dintre care unele sunt supuse apelului, iar altele recursului, hotărârea în întregul ei este supusă apelului.