-
In this study the author makes an analysis of the institution of waiver of criminal prosecution, including from the perspective of other systems of law, of the conditions provided by law for ordering the waiver of criminal prosecution, as well as of other optional criteria of opportunity, which must be considered when ordering this solution provided by law. Likewise, he formulates some critical remarks referring to the practice of some units of the prosecutor’s office, the author also making some de lege ferenda proposals on some problematic issues. -
A special normative act [the Government Emergency Ordinance No 109/2011 on the corporate governance of public undertakings (the autonomous regies established by the State or by an administrative-territorial unit, the national firms and companies, the companies in which the State or an administrative-territorial unit is a sole or majority shareholder etc.)] shall also regulate, as an exception, the situation where such a public undertaking is organized as a joint-stock companies with a sole shareholder. Whereas the legal regulation on such companies is incomplete, the author examines, in this study, a series of legal problems generated by the existence and functioning of such companies.
-
The Government Emergency Ordinance No 111/2010 has established in Romania the grant of the leave for raising children (also called parental leave), with the payment of the related allowance. This normative act represents the transposition, in the Romanian legislation, of Directive 2010/18/EU of the Council of 8 March 2010, without, however, also properly supplementing the (Romanian) Labour Code (the Law No 53/2003). Given this situation and also taking into account the relevant creative case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the author makes an analysis of the regulations and of the practice in the field and, retaining some discrepancies, it comes to the conclusion that the provisions of the Emergency Government Ordinance No 111/2010 and of the Labour Code must be interpreted and applied in the light and in accordance with EU legislation and of the case-law of the Court in Luxembourg, the supplementation of the Labour Code being also required, so that the right of the employee to fully benefit by the rest leave, after taking the leave for raising children, be expressly provided in the Romanian legislation, a series of discussions and controversies being thus avoided.
-
This study intends to make a critical analysis of the solution enacted by Article 52 (2) of the Labour Code under three aspects: the holder of the obligation to pay damages, the content, their extent and the period for which they are owed. The solution prescribed by Article 52 (2) of the Labour Code is in conflict with other regulations of the same Code. In relation to the second sentence of Article 52 (1) b) of the Labour Code, the author considers that the holder of the payment obligation must be the Romanian State, for the reasons for which it is also liable in the situations regulated by Article 50 (1) g), Article 52 c1) and Article 61 b) of the Labour Code. The author’s opinion is that the damages are unreasonably limited. Provided that, de lege ferenda, reference would be made to the provisions of Article 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code, one can notice that this text does not cover the same limits and it would allow the compensation of the employee in relation to the real damages produced, both material and moral. As a protective measure, for the duration of the suspension motivated by the indictment for acts incompatible with the position held, the employee should have, ope legis, the quality of insured within the health social insurance system. The author also believes that it should be expressly regulated a period in which the employee must notify the employer both on the cause which can determine the suspension and the reason which requires its cessation.
-
This study deals with the issues related to the regulation included in Article 262 of the new Criminal Code of Romania. The author notes that, as compared to the regulation prior to the entry into force of the new Criminal Code, the taking over in this Code of the norm of incrimination previously included in Article 70 of the Government Emergency Ordinance No 105/2001 on the state border of Romania has been preferred as a reflection of the importance given to the social value of the regime of the state border. At the same time, it is pointed out that the norm in the Code in force is subject to completion by provisions included in other normative acts, inferior to the law, as in the Government Emergency Ordinance No 194/2002 on the regime of foreigners in Romania.
-
This study is meant to analyse the provisions of Article 333 of the Civil Code regarding the preciput clause. Specifically, there are discussed issues such as: the relevant provisions; the definition of the analyzed institution; the subjects, the object and the legal nature of the preciput clause; the legal characters of the preciput; the effects of the preciput clause; inefficiency and enforcement of the preciput.
-
The study is devoted to the analysis of the provisions of Article 304 of the Civil Code referring to the „putative marriage”, a legal institution meant to protect the good faith upon the conclusion of the null or annulled marriage. Unlike other authors, but in agreement with the provisions of Article 304 (1) of the Civil Code, we have also analyzed, together with the condition that at least one of the future spouses act in good faith, the requirement of existence, on the date of conclusion of marriage, of a factual situation which causes the nullity or the annulment thereof. Similarly, because the analysis of the effects of the putative marriage does not present difficulties of interpretation in case both future spouses have acted in good faith upon the conclusion of the marriage, we have focused on the situation in which, on the contrary, one of them acted in good faith and the other acted in bad faith. Finally, we have tried to elucidate the reason which determined the legislator to subject the patrimonial relations between former spouses, including in case that only one of them acted in good faith, to the provisions concerning the divorce and we have grounded a proposal de lege ferenda likely to eliminate the „legal compromise” generated by the current normative solution.
-
This paper aims to analyze the difficulties which the Romanian judge faces, in the attempt to ensure the exigencies imposed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in matters of reasonable time. In this regard, the paper is structured in three parts: the first part briefly presents the Court’s standard as regards the reasonable time; the second part analyzes the compatibility of an institution recently introduced in the Civil Procedure Code – the contestation concerning the delay of the trial (Articles 522–526 of the Civil Procedure Code) – to the notion of effective remedy, within the meaning of Article 6 and Article 13 of the Convention; the last part emphasizes, based on some jurisprudential examples, the risks which the national judge must manage very carefully when he tries to ensure the reasonable time: the risk of acting ultra vires and the risk of creating a non-unitary case-law, thus generating the premises of some new violations of Article 6 of the Convention.
-
In principle, the confession is admissible as means of evidence in all the matters for which the civil processual law represents the common law of the procedure and for which there is no separate procedure. Exceptionally, the confession is not admissible: when it is expressly prohibited by law; whether, by admitting it, the imperative provisions of the law would be eluded; if the law requires that certain facts be proved only by certain means of evidence; if, by admitting it, one could reach to total or partial loss of a right which may not be waived or may not be subject to a transaction. The judicial confession shall be given by means of cross-examination, as reflected by Articles 351–358 of the Civil Procedure Code. Obviously, it is a question of provoked judicial confession, whereas the spontaneous judicial confession does not require any prior preparation and, as such, it does not require an express regulation. Instead, the written extrajudicial confession is subject to the regime of proof of evidence through written documents, and the extrajudicial verbal confession may be attested by witnesses, if the law allows the testimonial evidence. The legislator of the new Civil Procedure Code expressly establishes the principle of indivisibility of the judicial confession and, at the same time, he provides an exception from this principle, namely the situation in which the judicial confession contains separate facts not connected between them. In this study there are elaborated the ideas presented above
-
This approach is meant to carry out a brief examination of the control which the judge is required to perform on the acts of disposition of the parties in the civil trial. It refers to the main sides of availability and, especially, to the presentness and imperativeness of such a control. In this context, the author notes that the new Civil Procedure Code has not abdicated from the active role of the judge, this being far from the peak of its „glory”. Likewise, the author analyzes the procedural ways of invalidation of the acts of disposition, first noting the incidental legislative regulation both with regard to the transaction and to the judgment that confirms the agreement of the party. It is noted that, from a normative point of view, the party does not have an option right between the exercise of the action for annulment and the means of recourse against the judicial transaction. At the end of the study, the author analyzes some aspects of the recourse which can be exercised against the acts of divestment and acquiescence to the claims of the applicant.
-
În cazul în care prin acțiunea introductivă promitentul-cumpărător a solicitat numai restituirea avansului achitat în temeiul antecontractului de vânzare-cumpărare și dobânda legală aferentă, nesolicitând și constatarea intervenirii pactului comisoriu expres stipulat de părțile contractante cu consecința repunerii părților în situația anterioară sau rezoluțiunea judiciară a convenției, în temeiul art. 1020–1021 C.civ., este lipsit de fundament juridic demersul său, astfel cum a fost formulat, deoarece numai în caz de desființare a convenției se poate dispune obligarea părții în privința căreia angajamentul nu s-a executat la daune-interese. (Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, Secția a II-a civilă, Decizia nr. 3261 din 24 octombrie 2014) -
Dispozițiile art. 44 alin. (3) C.pr.pen. reglementează un caz de prorogare legală a competenței, în sensul că infracțiunea de favorizare a făptuitorului este de competența instanței care judecă infracțiunea la care aceasta se referă, competența materială a infracțiunii corelative fiind câștigată mai înainte și independent de reunirea cauzelor. În acest context, dacă judecătorul de cameră preliminară care funcționează la judecătorie, fiind sesizat prin rechizitoriu cu judecarea unei infracțiuni de favorizare a făptuitorului – făptuitorul favorizat fiind judecat de către tribunal – verifică și menține măsura preventivă luată în faza urmăririi penale, violează dispozițiile relative la competența materială a instanțelor de judecată prevăzute sub sancțiunea nulității absolute, potrivit art. 281 alin. (1) lit. b) C.pr.pen. (cu notă critică).
