-
The premise of this study is that the current legislation uses two legal notions with relatively different names, that is the „legitimate interest” in the administrative contentious procedure, regulated by the Law No 554/2004, and the „interest to act”, used in the Civil Procedure Code, both representing conditions of admissibility of the judicial action (in administrative contentious and, respectively, civil action). The aim pursued by the author was to observe whether these legal notions are synonyms or they differ, in terms of their processual connotation, depending on the nature of the legal action promoted. In this regard, the author has compared the two legal notions, revealing the similarities and differences between them, and, at the end of the study, he has set out the theoretical and practical arguments for the purpose of recognizing their processual autonomy. -
The review is the only legal remedy that can be declared against the judgments of first instance pronounced by the administrative contentious sections. The former regulation of the Civil Procedure Code established that the review is devolutive, only inso far as the reviewed judgment cannot be contested by appeal. At present, being an extraordinary legal remedy, the review can only concern grounds of illegality of the judgment pronounced by the court of first instance. The present study has as object the analysis of the grounds for cassation listed by the Romanian legislator in Article 488 of the Civil Procedure Code from the perspective of the matter of administrative contentious. Thus, each ground for cassation will be briefly analyzed separately, from the perspective of applicability in the processual stage of review carried on before the administrative contentious courts. The analysis contains explanations of the normative texts, as well as examples from the national judicial practice, in which the R omanian courts have applied the grounds for cassation corresponding to the cases brought before the court. The aim of the research is to identify in the national practice the applicability of the grounds for cassation listed by the legislator and to present their effectiveness, following that, in the concluding part of the study, possible remedies regarding the currently existing grounds for cassation be proposed.
-
How firm the authority of the state should be and how wide the margin of freedom of the citizens of a state should be are questions without a convenient answer for either the state, or for the citizen. This is a truth that can be insisted upon for a long time, but without satisfactory results. The citizen has always demanded from the public power a sphere of his freedom as wide as possible and the public power has been and is, in principle, ready to retain an extra authority over the citizen. The author aims in this study to show that both the authority of the state and the vocation of freedom of the citizen must slide between reasonable and legitimate limits, so that the state can exercise its role and social functions established through constitutional norm and put in the service of the common good of the society and that the citizen can enjoy, without any illegitimate restraints or restrictions, a freedom (recognized and guaranteed by the state), which allows him to develop his personality and dignity as a human being, in the general interpersonal relations and in its relations with the state, in a determined social-historical, economic, political, cultural, religious context, etc. The author also shows that the relationship between authority and freedom is in its essence a fragile one, in which the state may have, in certain political circumstances or of other nature, leviathan temptations, with oppressive effects on the constitutional freedoms, a position from which it reproduces tools of force in ever new forms and it restricts the exercise of the citizens’ rights. The author draws attention to a serious social danger that threatens the foundations of a democratic government: the excess of authority and its repeated, illegitimate and unjustified use can be premises of the establishment of an authoritarian regime, in front of which the citizen is powerless. The excess of authority and the unlawful violation of public liberties call into question the democratic character of the state. In its turn and also in certain given political or social circumstances, the associated citizen or citizens may be tempted to resort to extreme forms of manifestation, claiming a higher degree of individual or collective freedom, to the detriment of the original authority of public power.
-
The article describes the common law system in terms of sources of law, in the British system, the term legislation being used to describe the statutes of Parliament and delegated legislation, and the formula case law to designate both common law and equity. Statute law or Acts of Parliament represents in the law system of Great Britain the equivalent of the laws adopted in the Romanian law by the Romanian Parliament, and the term delegated legislation describes all those rules adopted by authorities other than the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but under its authority. At the same time, it is characteristic of the British jurisprudential system to publish cases settled by the courts of law or to report them, this activity being carried out by lawyers, by a barrister or by a solicitor.
-
It is necessary in the Romanian criminal procedural law to differentiate the conditions for the exclusion of derivative evidence from the conditions for the irradiation of nullity in continental law and to move them closer to the criteria of the fruit of the poisonous tree originating from the United States of America. We adapt these criteria and other criteria from foreign law systems to the context of Romanian law through the standards of the European Court of Human Rights. One of the conditions for excluding the derivative evidence is that the infringement from which it derives requires the exclusion of the resulting evidence to ensure the fairness of the proceedings. The derivative evidence has the capacity to convey the effect of the violation of the rights of the defence, the right to privacy or domestic law on the fairness of the proceedings, but in such situations the unfairness of the proceedings must be established on a case-by-case basis. The unfairness can be automatic if the infringement concerns Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights or consists in entrapment by law enforcement officers. The consequence is the automatic, absolute or relative exclusion of derivative evidence, depending on the nature of the infringement. The derivative nature of the evidence is determined quasi-automatically in the case of entrapment. In other cases, it must be concretely established, on the basis of the conditions of the causal link between the infringement and the evidence: the effect of the primary evidence and the effect of the unlawfulness on obtaining the derived evidence. The conditions for the exclusion of derivative evidence have consequences for its applicability. The sanction is not applicable when the primary evidence is not obtained illegally, but is inadmissible by its nature, because in this case the unlawfulness is missing. This condition is met in the case of acts such as arrest, therefore the exclusion of derivative evidence is applicable. The effect of the infringement is transmitted by means of the stress test in the case of early exclusion, occurs directly in the case of a continuing infringement and must be analyzed, mutatis mutandis, in the case of alternative means of proof concerning the same evidence. Since in the case of the irradiation of nullity according to the continental model the effect of the primary evidence is irrelevant and the effect of the unlawfulness is established in the abstract by law, the sanction is distinct from the exclusion of derivative evidence.
-
Parole was defined in Romanian doctrine as a way to individualize the execution of the custodial sentences, without deprivation of liberty, granted by the final decision of the court which are the conviction that the convicted person has been rehabilitated, as a result of meeting the required conditions during the execution of minimum statutory sentence, there is the semi-open or open regime of enforcement, the person has fulfilled his/her civil obligations, as well as subject to full fulfillment, under probation services, within supervision, of the measures and obligations. As a legal nature, the parole represents a post iudicium individualization of the execution of the custodial sentences and involves the release of the convict before the full execution of the sentence because the convict has proved that he has made obvious progress towards social reintegration. However, the parole is not a right of the convict not to serve the entire sentence, but a legal instrument by which the court finds that it is no longer necessary to continue the execution of the sentence in detention until the full period established by the final conviction has been fulfilled and the early release poses no danger to the community.
-
The provisions of Article 320 of the Law No 95/2006 on health reform have raised serious problems of interpretation in judicial practice. The question has therefore been raised as to whether persons who have suffered physical injury may be required to pay their hospital costs of hospitalization and medical treatment in the healthcare facilities concerned, where the author of the injury has not been identified or the injured party does not disclose his identity, or where he is simply not liable for criminal action. The question was also raised as to whether the injured party had failed to make or withdraw his plea or had the parties reconciled or not committed the offense claimed.
-
-
Comentariu la Sentința penală nr. 1564 din 9 mai 2019 a Judecătoriei Timișoara și la Decizia penală nr. 903/A din 24 septembrie 2019 a Curții de Apel Timișoara
-
-
The persons without discernment, being incapable of understanding at all the gravity of their own deeds, are protected by the legislator by the establishment of a cause exonerating civil liability. However, for reasons of fairness, it was opted to introduce the subsidiary mechanism of the obligation of compensation, an innovation of the Civil Code that entered into force in 2011. Thus, even unaware of their own acts, a person may still be obliged to pay a certain amount of money which may, but not necessarily, be equivalent to the damage suffered by the injured party. The mechanism thus created tends to mitigate an inequity, but it is confused with a type of actual civil liability, be it objective. The present study aimed to analyze this mechanism, taking into account its jurisprudential applications, not numerous, but sufficient to draw some useful conclusions. -
The active procedural quality in the direct guarantee action is one of the basic elements of the legal mechanism, regardless of whether we are talking about the active or the passive one. At first glance, we would say that the mechanism of direct action in general should not create too much discussion about its protagonists. However, in legal practice there has been a confusion about the subjects of the direct action, which has led to the questioning of the creditor’s active procedural capacity within the legal mechanism. Through this study, we are trying to shed some light on the practical application of direct collateral action, but also on the interest and procedural quality of the creditor and the debtor within the legal mechanism. Also, since the direct action in classic guarantee does not have a legal basis, unlike the direct action in payment, being derived from the notion of group of contracts, we will show why, in order to avoid contesting the procedural quality of the creditor within the legal mechanism of the direct action under warranty, the contracting parties must expressly insert a clause in the contract giving their consent to the transfer of the right of action to the sub-acquirer, in order to strengthen the transfer of the right of action under the guarantee for hidden defects. At the same time, as the direct action is an exception to the principle of relativity of the effects of the contract, the legislator is obliged to intervene, by introducing expressly some texts in the Civil Code, both in terms of the guarantee for eviction and in terms of the guarantee for hidden defects, so that the direct action in the guarantee finds its practical application. Only in this way will creditors be able to be protected from the effects of the exception of the lack of active procedural capacity, in terms of both guarantees provided by law (hidden defects and eviction).
