-
The appeal for annulment –Articles 503-508 of the new Romanian Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 134/2010 republished on August 3, 2012 and which will enter into force on February 1, 2013) is one of three extraordinary remedies at law (appeal, appeal for annulment and motion for revision). Appeal for annulment was also regulated by the previous Code of Civil Procedure (of 1865, republished in 1948, countless times subsequently amended and supplemented). This study is a comparative analysis of the regulation on the appeal for annulment in the previous of Civil Procedure Code and the new Code of Civil Procedure, compassing both similarities and differences between the two regulations. -
The paper proposes to examine, based upon a comparison, the system of the appeal for annulment and of the motion for revision, according to the new Code of Civil Procedure and to the prior regulation, in the light of the principle of the right to a fair trial in due and foreseeable time. Considering the nature of the appeal for annulment and the motion for revision of the extraordinary remedies, also the principle of the legal relationships security is emphasized, which requires that the final and irrevocable court orders could not be put up for discussion, except in the presence of certain “fundamental flaws”, set forth by law expressly and in a restrictive manner. The paper describes the amendments and the supplements brought by the new Code of Civil Procedure and in so far as they meet the needs of the issues which received several interpretations in the practice under the regulation of the Code of Civil Procedure of the year 1865, such as the period for the exercise of the appeal for annulment or, on the contrary, they may generate a non-unitary practice, such as the obligation to assist/represent by a lawyer in the matter of the means of appeal related to the withdrawal. -
Law no. 202/2010 regarding some measures aiming at the celerity of cases’ settlement establishes, inter alia, a number of important (fundamental) amendments and completions to the Family Code and the Code of Civil Procedure in force in relation to dissolution of marriage through divorce under parties’ agreement. The study hereby reviews – comprehensively – amendments and completions in question, highlighting in relevant cases some critical approaches on the new regulations. -
The entry into force of the Civil Code leads to significant changes in the existence and manifestation of the right of first refusal, by explicitly enshrining the right of legal first refusal, and the right of conventional first refusal, on one hand and secondly by extending the scope. The emergence of new regulations requires consultation of French regulations, doctrine and practice in these matters so as to achieve an overall understanding of the concept, its functionality and role, and also an analysis of the effects of these provisions on the doctrine and domestic practice. -
The institution of suspension of the individual labour contract is regulated by Articles 49–54 of the Labour Code (Law No 53/2003, republished on 18 May 2011). More or less recently, the Law No 255/2013 for the implementation of Law No 135/2010 on the Criminal Procedure Code (entered into force on 1 February 2014) and for amending and supplementing some normative acts which include criminal procedural provisions, supplemented the Labour Code (republished) by adding Article 52 (1) c1), pursuant to which the suspension of the individual labour contract occurs (on the employer’s initiative) also „in case the measure of judicial control or of judicial control on bail has been taken against the employee, under the terms of the Criminal Procedure Code, if there have been established, as his duty, obligations which prevent the performance of the labour contract, as well as in case the employee is under house arrest, and the content of the measure prevents the performance of the labour contract”. In this study, the author analyses this new and recently regulated case of suspension of the individual labour contract on the employer’s initiative. -
The engagement – although traditionally used in social life k did not have any legal regulation in the modern Romanian legislation, prior to the enforcement of the new Civil Code (October 1st 2011), namely: the Civil Code of 1864 and next, the Family Code. Instead, the new Civil Code (Law no. 287/2009, republished on July 15th 2011) regulates engagement in art. 266-270. The authors of this study analyze the aforementioned enactment of engagement, concluding that the express regulation of this private law institution in the new Civil Code is beneficial. -
The authors of the new Criminal Code intended to redesign the punitive model of relapse, but the solutions proposed reveal the inconsistencies of the model. The new Criminal Code no longer defines the post-condemnation relapse distinctly from the post-execution relapse, and the small relapse no longer exists in the new regulation, the lawmaker preferring a general definition of relapse. Although the intention of the code’s authors, transmitted to the lawmaker, was to aggravate the punishment regimen of relapse, by increasing the duration of imprisonment, which may represent a first term for relapse in one year, in practice a more favorable regimen is created for those who have been punished to imprisonment for less than one year, a thing, however, not justified given the statistic evolution of the number of persons with a judicial record who reiterate their criminal behavior. The idea of the project’s authors was to simplify the regimen of punishment of relapses, based on an arithmetic sum in the case of post-condemnation relapse, and on the legal increase of special punishment limits by half in the case of post-execution relapse, but the proposed model of punishments leads to a more severe punishment regiment for post-condemnation relapse than for the post-execution relapse, although the latter is believed to represent the worse modality of relapse, as the social danger of the relapsing criminal appears, in this case, to be more precisely shaped, by proving the inefficiency of the punishment the criminal has executed. -
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. -
The current Civil Procedure Code clarifies some doctrinal controversies and controversies of the arbitral case law and transposes on legislative level some solutions of the arbitral practice, meant to make the arbitral jurisdiction more efficient. Among these aspects of making it more efficient, the study mentions those related to the extension of the competence of arbitration and the autonomy of will of the parties in organizing and conducting the arbitral procedure, likely to increase the access to this private jurisdiction, as an alternative to the state jurisdiction. Another dimension of the current regulation is related to the ways of materializing the arbitral convention and of the presumption of arbitrariness of the disputes regarding all misunderstandings arising from the contract or from the legal relations to which the agreement refers. The current regulation is concerned with the quality of the jurisdictional act which it connects to the qualification of the members of the arbitration tribunal, to their impartiality, by extending the causes of incompatibility as compared to those of judges and by guaranteeing the right to defence, by representing or assisting the parties by a lawyer. The autonomy of will, which impregnates the arbitral procedure, is associated with the principles of the civil trial, extended by the current regulation to the arbitral procedure, in order to increase the procedural guarantees offered by this private jurisdiction. An innovative solution is related to the participation of third parties in the arbitral procedure, under the terms of maintaining the composition of the arbitral tribunal, in order to ensure the complete and global settlement of the dispute. Another novelty of the current regulation is related to the material competence of the courts of appeal in resolving the action for annulment and the solutions that can be pronounced in case of admitting the action for annulment. Last but not least, the regulation makes the distinction between the procedure of the institutionalized and ad-hoc arbitration, in the context of the autonomy of will of the parties.
-
The author carries out a thorough analysis of all the regulations under art. 1381-1395 of the new Civil Code regarding the recovery of damages caused by extra-contractual causes. Thus, in the first part of the study, the author approaches joint liability, in case two or more persons are liable for one and the same damage. Also, a large part of the work deals with the principles governing the right and correlative obligation to recover the damages: the principle of full recovery and the principle of recovery in kind of the damages; both principles are explicitly provided in the texts of art. 1385 and 1386 of the new Civil Code. The central part of the work deals with a review of the recovery of damages by means of a money equivalent, referring in particular to the establishment of compensation for the full repair of personal injuries, both in their material and in their moral form; in the same context, large discussions are presented in relation to the pecuniary recovery of indirect damages. Another special place in the work is held by the presentation of the regulation regarding the correlation between the social security rights of the immediate or the indirect victim and the compensation that may be granted to such victim for recovery of the damages caused. The study ends with a review of the extinctive prescription of the right to claim and obtain in court the recovery of damages under tort liability. -
The author carries out a thorough analysis of all the regulations under art. 1381-1395 of the new Civil Code regarding the recovery of damages caused by extra-contractual causes. Thus, in the first part of the study, the author approaches joint liability, in case two or more persons are liable for one and the same damage. Also, a large part of the work deals with the principles governing the right and correlative obligation to recover the damages: the principle of full recovery and the principle of recovery in kind of the damages; both principles are explicitly provided in the texts of art. 1385 and 1386 of the new Civil Code. The central part of the work deals with a review of the recovery of damages by means of a money equivalent, referring in particular to the establishment of compensation for the full repair of personal injuries, both in their material and in their moral form; in the same context, large discussions are presented in relation to the pecuniary recovery of indirect damages. Another special place in the work is held by the presentation of the regulation regarding the correlation between the social security rights of the immediate or the indirect victim and the compensation that may be granted to such victim for recovery of the damages caused. The study ends with a review of the extinctive prescription of the right to claim and obtain in court the recovery of damages under tort liability. -
From the Decision No 42/2008 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, United Sections, it emerges the rule cancellation excludes revocation in respect of which, given the finality of decisions in the interest of law to ensure a unitary practice, it must be admitted that the applicability is wider than the hypothesis that has generated it.
