-
The article offers an analysis of the regulation of the institution of unworthiness to inherit as regulated by the Civil Code which entered into force on 1 October 2011. First the author had in view both the influences of the foreign regulations which served as a model for drafting the normative act and the conclusions of the Romanian doctrine and of the case law relevant in the matter, which the Romanian legislator has taken into account. Starting from the nature of civil sanction of the unworthiness to inherit, there are analyzed the modalities which can remove the effects thereof, formulating, at the same time, relevant de lege ferenda proposals in order to create a unitary system as comprehensive as possible relative to the related procedure. -
În ipoteza unei promisiuni bilaterale de vânzare-cumpărare, respectiv a unui act juridic prin care părțile se obligă să încheie în viitor un contract de vânzarecumpărare, acțiunea prin care beneficiarul promisiunii îi solicită instanței să pronunțe o hotărâre care să țină loc de act autentic de vânzare-cumpărare este supusă termenului general de prescripție extinctivă, chiar dacă bunul la care se referă convenția părților este un imobil, deoarece obiectul antecontractului nu este bunul imobil, ci obligația de a face, a cărei executare poate fi solicitată doar în cadrul termenului de prescripție extinctivă. (Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, Secția I civilă, Decizia nr. 3447 din 4 decembrie 2014) -
The author examines the problems of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (in reference to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union to give preliminary rulings). The analysis, starting from brief theoretical considerations, grounds the author’s conclusions on the presentation of a vast case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg in the matter.
-
Furt calificat. Obiect material, bun mobil aparținând patrimoniului cultural național. Sit arheologic și zone cu patrimoniu arheologic protejat. Aplicarea legii penale mai favorabile. Grup infracțional organizat Faptele inculpaților de a constitui un grup infracțional organizat, urmate de comiterea unor detecții neautorizate într-un sit arheologic protejat, aparținând patrimoniului cultural național, și sustragerea de artefacte arheologice mobile întrunesc elementele infracțiunilor de: constituire a unui grup infracțional organizat, prevăzută în art. 367 alin. (1) C.pen., accesul cu detectoare de metale și utilizarea lor în zonele cu patrimoniu arheologic, fără autorizarea prealabilă, prevăzută în art. 26 alin. (1) din Ordonanța Guvernului nr. 43/2000 privind protecția patrimoniului arheologic și declararea unor situri arheologice ca zone de interes național, republicată, și furt calificat asupra unui bun care face parte din patrimoniul cultural, prevăzută în art. 228, 229 alin. (2) lit. a) C.pen., cu aplicarea art. 5 C.pen.
-
In this article, the author argues that the offences of deprivation of liberty and outrage committed against the criminal prosecution bodies on the occasion of finding a flagrant offence of corruption have prejudiced the public confidence in the possibilities of the competent authorities to combat such forms of criminal illicitness, the climate of public order and peace being also affected and the impact in the media being significant. It is clearly reflected from the contents of the publicized facts a shade of hilarity on the criminal prosecution bodies, an aspect that generates feelings of insecurity among the public, the comments made by readers of the online media being also made in this respect. Considering these aspects, the author initiates some discussions on the mentioned case, by presenting data about the legal proceedings, the duration thereof, the pronounced solutions, the factual situation, the means of evidence and others.
-
The theme of this study concerns the distinction between the source of fiscal obligations (chargeable event of the tax base), on the one hand, and the individualization of these obligations through various fiscal administrative acts, issued for the application of the legal rules of tax law, on the other hand. In this regard, the author considers both the current Fiscal Procedure Code (the Government Ordinance No 92/2003, in force until 31 December 2015) and the new Fiscal Procedure Code (the Law No 207/2015), which expressly repeals the current Fiscal Procedure Code and shall enter into force on 1 January 2016. The author’s conclusion is that the source of the fiscal obligations is not the law itself, but the legal act, licit or illicit, which gives rise to the fiscal obligatory relation under the terms provided by law and materialized in the individual acts of application of law.
-
The article presents the itinerary covered since the entry into force of the new Civil Procedure Code (15 February 2013) by the manner in which it has been regulated the execution of the arbitral judgment. Initially, the arbitral judgment had to be invested with executory formula for the purpose of being enforced. By the Law No 76/2012 for the implementation of the new Civil Procedure Code it has been eliminated the formality of investing the arbitral judgment with executory formula, which corresponds to the imperative to accelerate the enforcement of such judgments. In our opinion, the Law No 138/2014 amending and supplementing the new Civil Procedure Code has reintroduced, however criticizably, the procedure of investment with executory formula of the arbitral judgment, in view of enforcement. The author’s conclusion is that the legislator should have kept the elimination of the procedure of investment with executory formula of the arbitral judgment, thereby contributing to the simplification and the encouragement to resort to the arbitration procedure.
-
The article analyzes the jurisdiction of the Romanian court to settle the divorce application in case of spouses, Romanian citizens, who do no longer reside on the Romanian territory. The problems are analyzed in relation to the Community regulations directly applicable in the Member States of the European Union, as well as to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code in this matter.
-
Este acceptabilă din punctul de vedere al cerințelor impuse de dreptul la un proces echitabil motivarea hotărârii judecătorești realizată prin preluarea în considerente a unei părți din argumentele invocate, în cadrul dezbaterilor, de către una dintre părți. Câtă vreme această preluare nu s-a realizat automat, ci este rodul propriului demers al judecătorului de interpretare și aplicare a legii la situația de fapt prin prisma susținerilor părților, nu există suport pentru a se aprecia că argumentele celeilalte părți ar fi fost ignorate. (Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, Secția de contencios administrativ și fiscal, Decizia nr. 1312 din 13 martie 2014) -
Conform art. 207 alin. (1) C.pr.pen., atunci când procurorul dispune trimiterea în judecată a inculpatului față de care s-a luat o măsură preventivă, rechizitoriul, împreună cu dosarul cauzei, se înaintează judecătorului de cameră preliminară de la instanța competentă, cu cel puțin 5 zile înainte de expirarea duratei acestei măsuri. Apreciem că acest termen trebuie a fi considerat un termen de decădere, pentru a fi în concordanță cu prevederile Constituției României, republicată, iar nerespectarea lui atrage decăderea procurorului din dreptul de a solicita menținerea măsurii preventive (cu notă aprobativă).
-
In order to achieve the objective of free circulation of civil and commercial judgments, as part of the process of judicial cooperation in civil matters, it was adopted the Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters which shall apply only to actions brought, to authentic instruments formally drawn up or registered and to court settlements approved or concluded on or after 10 January 2015. In spite of the fact that the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 which regulated the same matters, has significantly contributed to the development of an area of the free circulation of judgments, certain differences between national rules governing jurisdiction and recognition of judgments have been constantly hindering the effectiveness of the access to justice of the Union’s members. In regard to such difficulties, the Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 shall be superseded by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 whose provisions are aimed at unifying the rules of conflicts of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters and at ensuring rapid and simple recognition and enforcement of judgments given in a Member State. For that purpose, the new Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 has brought, in the matters of recognition and enforcement, not only necessary clarifications but also substantial changes, such as the exclusion of the requirement of a declaration of enforceability. Moreover, a short analysis of its provisions is required regarding several aspects, such as the refusal of recognition and enforcement, the applicable procedure, the transitional provisions and the circumstances in which Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 shall continue to apply even after 10 January 2015.
-
The entry into force of the new Criminal Code has determined, as it was natural, new approaches to doctrine and jurisprudence, and one of the perspectives of analysis is the correlation with the constitutional provisions. This study aims to establish an examination of constitutionality, as regards the offence of deceit, from the practice of the Constitutional Court on the previous Criminal Code provisions, identifying situations where the new rules can generate discussions on the compatibility with the Constitution.
