-
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. -
The author, comparatively examining the provisions set forth under Articles 1402-1404 of the former Civil Code (1864), Article 45 of the former Commercial Code (from 1887), both currently repealed, with those set forth under Article 124 of Law No. 71/2011 relating to the implementation of the new Civil Code, concludes that, despite an explicit intervention, under the rule of the new Civil Code (Law No. 287/2009) disputed revocation is forbidden at present for all contentious rights, irrespective of their nature. Currently, disputed revocation is allowed only for assignment of rights concluded prior to October 1st, 2011 (when the new Civil Code was enacted) -
In this study, the author examines the two special banking procedures (the special supervision and the special administration), which can be ordered by the National Bank of Romania with respect to the Romanian credit institutions, based on the Romanian legislation in the field (Art. 237 – Art. 24022 of the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 99/2006 on the credit institutions and the capital adequacy, successively modified and amended through four laws and three emergency ordinances between 2007–2011). -
The legal regime of the penalty clause is established under the purports of Articles 1538-1543 of the new Romanian Civil Code (yet unenforced). Analysis of these regulations is undertaken in the study hereby by putting forward three issues considered defining: the legal nature of the penalty clause, its incidental character and mutability. Taking as reference point the definition of penalty clause set forth in Article 1358 par. (1), it is argued that the Romanian legislature has endorsed dualistic theory, according to which the penalty clause is a civil reparation remedy or a sanctioning repair, for the case of unlawful non-performance of the main contract by the debtor. The incidental character of the penalty clause is explained on account of the dependency relationship that exists between it and the obligation arising out of the main contract. Consequently, in principle, the penalty clause follows the legal destiny of the main obligation, according to the principle accesorium sequitur. To this rule there is but one exception: resolution of the main contract does not affect the existence and enforcement of the penalty clause. In terms of mutability of the penalty clause, it is found that its judicial review is permissible only by way of reductibility, where it is manifestly excessive as compared to the foreseeable damage caused to the creditor through unlawful non-performance of the obligation arising from the main contract. -
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.
