-
In the study with the above title, the author makes a comparison between the regime of pleadings’ invalidity settled under the (Romanian) Code of Civil Procedure in force (since 1865), yet successively amended and supplemented by a series of laws (including Law no. 202/2010 regarding some measures to accelerate the settlement process) and the new Romanian Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 134/2010, published on July 15th, 2010, but still unenforced), underlining – in a positive manner – modern and flexible legislation, superior to the latter, pointing out, though – critically – the sketchiness and occasional ambiguity of the new Code. -
In the present study, the authors analyze extensively the situations of non-unitary practice that appeared both at the level of the Bureau of the judge of surveillance of deprivation of liberty and at the level of the courts, due to the different ways in which the magistrates understood to deal with the problem of the transfers of the persons deprived of liberty and the legal nature of the transfer decisions issued by the National Administration of Penitentiaries. The purpose of the present analysis is to clarify the regime applicable to requests made by the persons deprived of liberty to cancel the transfer decisions, because the lack of regulation in the Law No 254/2013 regarding the possibility of appeal, as well as of the competent court to resolve the appeals, led to the outline of divergent currents of opinion reflected in the non-unitary solutions given in complaints or appeals. -
The evolution of technology has facilitated the development of the so-called collaborative economy. Through collaborative online platforms, which „remove” the borders between states, various services such as short-term housing rental (Airbnb type), urban transport (Uber type), pet-sitting (PetBacker type), and others are provided. In Romania, the activities specific to the collaborative economy are in full development, in the context of the absence of some regulations specific in the matter. The purpose of the paper is to determine the role of the service provider in electronic contracts concluded through collaborative platforms and to which rules they must be subjected, taking as reference system the service provider with the habitual residence in Romania. It is analysed only the situation of service providers – natural persons, which can be grouped into two categories: a category of persons providing various services on an occasional basis, in leisure time, in order to obtain additional incomes (the so-called prosumers), category which is the basis of the collaborative economy, and the second category, which includes the persons who provide services on a regular basis, on a continuous basis, on their own and aiming at obtaining profit. The distinction between non-professional and professional service providers is difficult to achieve; there are no criteria in the legislation in the field of services for this purpose. The quality of professional or non-professional must therefore be analysed on a case-by-case basis, using the rules of the common law. The legal regime depends on the classification of the service provider into one category or another. The contracts in the collaborative economy are concluded by means of online collaborative platforms. Those operating in Romania mostly have their headquarters abroad, which awards international character to the contracts concluded. Using the regulations in force, there are analyzed the modalities to determine the law applicable to contracts and the authority competent to solve the disputes, which may arise between the service provider and the platform or between the service provider and their user. The study captures only a small part of the collaborative economy phenomenon and seeks to clarify some day-to-day situations, which can give rise to some complex legal problems. -
Within the study hereunder, the legal regime of joint ownership, in both its forms (common and temporary, respectively forced and perpetual) is analyzed, from a critical point of view, with special regard on the second type. The author analyzes the differences between the legal regime of these types of ownership established under the Civil Code (Law no. 287/2009, as republished) by comparison with the regulation of the Civil Code of 1864. The inconsistencies instituted under the new regulation, the illegitimate and unconstitutional nature of some of them, as well as the recent legislative amendments intervening in this respect are analyzed, all these being accompanied by examples extracted from the Romanian and foreign jurisprudence. -
In this paper we intend to determine if the legal regime applicable to the superficies consisting in the right to build on the land of another is different from that prescribed for the superficies established on an existing building. Although it defines it in Article 693 (1), as a form of the right of superficies, the Civil Code does not contain provisions with special reference to the exercise of the superficies consisting in the right to build. Only in the event of ending of this special superficies due to the expiry of its duration, Article 699 (1) and (2) of the Civil Code provides for a regime derogating from the general rules of artificial real estate accession. In these circumstances, the powers of the superficiary who acquired the right to build on the land of another were indirectly inferred from the restrictive provisions contained in Article 695 (2) of the Civil Code, applicable to the superficies established on an existing building. The conclusion we reached is that, when superficies takes the form of the right to build, the superficiary enjoys a preferential treatment compared to that applied to the one who has acquired a superficies on existing buildings. This regime remains favorable in case of ending of the right of superficies due to the expiry of its duration, based on the special rules derogating from the general ones regulating artificial real estate accession established as a result of the ending of the superficies. The common rules applicable to both forms of the right of superficies were not tackled in this paper. -
-
-
The apparition of the first Administrative Code of Romania – an essential legislative document for the activity of the public administration, for the life of the Romanian State, as a whole – brings, among other things, a significant novelty: the regulation of the legal regime applicable to contractual staff. Such a regime is a justified option of the legislator, taking into account the particularities of this category of personnel – an integral part of those who perform the work as employees. The study carefully analyzes the specific legal norms that apply to the contractual staff and solutions are offered for their practical application. It is concluded that two categories of legal norms produce their effects: the first is constituted by the norms specific to the contractual staff, and the second is formed of the norms that apply also to public servants. Although both categories of norms are part of the Administrative Code, they – respectively those that apply to the contractual staff – are also integrated as part of the labour law, being at the confluence of labour law with administrative law. The common law for the regulations regarding the contractual staff can be found in the norms of the Labour Code.
-
Cross-border private life is under the rule of legislative changes occurred in the European law and in the national private international law. The property regimes of the international couples benefit from parallel regulations – the Regulation „matrimonial regimes” and the Regulation „registered partnerships”, for the states participating in enhanced judicial cooperation, the national law respectively, for the other Member States. Although they have different sources (the marriage, the registered partnership), the matrimonial regime and the partnership regime have multiple areas of convergence (the role of the will of the parties in determining the law of the patrimonial regime and in designating the competent court of law, the objective location of regimes, the most connecting factors). At the same time, the elements that differentiate the property regime of the spouses and of the partners configurate the specifics of the couples’ unions and the instruments of achieving the predictability and security of the civil circuit with an element of extraneity. -
The article aims to analyze the regime of regulation and of application of punishments ordered by the judgments of the international criminal courts, at a moment when the two ad-hoc tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, are in a period close to the end of their mandate, and the International Criminal Court is undergoing crystallization of a practice, after the first final judgments of its activity were delivered. There are reviewed, on the one hand, the regulations within the statutes of these courts on punishments, their doctrinal foundations, as well as controversial aspects or aspects which give rise to comments in their judicial practice. There are also mentioned some aspects concerning the enforcement of punishments, taking into account the special circumstances in which these courts carry on their activity. -
Taking into consideration the subtle and random criteria as an incidence in the delimitation of influence peddling from the fraud offences, it is likely that in very similar cases of misleading, the criminal will be lucky due to the occurrence of the influence peddling or it is likely that should not have been lucky when he committed materialized deeds supplementing the constitutive content of the fraud offence in relation to similar material damages. It is likely to cause material damages also in the matter of the formal criminal deeds and in the process of the legal and judicial individualization of the punishment, also the amount of the material damages produced as a result of the concrete endangerment offence should be taken into account. -
The new Romanian Civil Code (Law no. 287/2009), voted by the Parliament, promulgated, and published (on 24 July 2009), but not yet in force, regulates the following matrimonial regimes: the regime of legal community; the regime of conventional community; the regime of separation of property. In this study, the regime of separation of property is examined, in the light of art. 360–365 and art. 370–372 of the new Civil Code. In this regard, the author examines the categories of property under the regime of separation of property; the personal property of the spouses, the common property per shares of the spouses; the use of one spouse’s property by the other spouse; the liability of spouses for the personal obligations.
