-
The statistics at national level of the disputes of administrative contentious indicate a substantial share thereof in relation to the other matters handled by the courts and reveals an increasingly „blunt” relationship of the Romanian State with its citizen. The alternative means of solving the disputes generated by the activity of the public administration, present in the Romanian legislation, prove to be insufficient to reach the purpose for which they were instituted, and the recent changes brought to the material competence of the administrative contentious courts have generated to a small extent the results pursued by the legislator. The global phenomenon that marks the public law, of progressive replacement of the unilateral character of the public action with models based on dialogue and consensus, more suitable to strengthen the democratic legitimacy and the efficiency of the relations between the administration and the citizens, requires the connection of policies in the field of judicial organization, in this case of the specialized component of administrative contentious and the doctrine of administrative law, to the global approach regarding the resolution of conflicts between the administration and the citizens, including by applying the solutions validated by the experience of other national systems. -
The article analyzes how there are settled in court, according to Chapter V of the Law No 101/2016, the disputes in matters of award of public procurement contracts, of sectoral contracts, of works concession and services concession contracts. The authors emphasise the specific features of the manner of settlement of these disputes, mentioning among them: the material jurisdiction pertains to the section of administrative disputes and fiscal matters of the tribunal, through panels specialized in public procurement, and the territorial jurisdiction pertains to the tribunal in whose district it is located the head office of the contracting authority. The case shall be settled as a matter of emergency and with priority, and filing a request for summons in matters of public procurement shall not have an enforcement suspensive effect. The first hearing shall be set 20 days after the date of registration of the complaint, and the subsequent trial terms can not be longer than 15 days, and the entire duration of the procedure can not exceed 45 days from the date of referral to the court. The judgment may be challenged by recourse, within 10 days from the communication, at the section of administrative disputes and fiscal matters of the court of appeal, which sits in a panel specialized in public procurement. According to the authors, it is justified to establish a special law for the settlement of the disputes in matters of public procurement. -
The article analyzes the advantages which the settlement of disputes by means of arbitration has to offer. Arbitration is an exception from the principle that administration of justice is done by the courts and represents that effective legal mechanism, designed to ensure a fair, faster and less formal, confidential trial finalized by judgments subject to enforcement. Most patrimonial and non-patrimonial causes may be settled by way of arbitration, so that this method of settlement of disputes can be chosen by parties, instead of the common law justice. The conclusion that can be drawn is that, in order to relieve the courts of their role, arbitration is a viable alternative of settlement of disputes. -
Medical malpractice is a subject that lately generates more and more and increasingly heated controversies. On the one hand, the patients are more and more dissatisfied with the medical services and the way they are cared for, the conditions existing in the hospital units, the quality itself of the medical act, and on the other hand, the doctors, besides the fact that they carry on their activity in poor conditions, in underfunded and understaffed hospital units, feel more and more harassed and fear that they can at any time be brought before the prosecutors as possible „criminals”. Within this article we intend to approach a quite delicate topic, namely the settlement of malpractice conflicts. Why is this a difficult problem? Why malpractice conflicts are more „delicate”? Why is it harder to solve such a conflict, as compared to a different kind of conflict? The answer is simple and widely accepted. The doctor-patient relationship is a special one. The doctorpatient relationship involves more than rights and obligations and the exercise thereof. This paper aims to draw attention and highlight the benefits of the settlement of the malpractice conflicts by using alternative methods. The results of the study can be used in the future both as a source for a possible future expansion of this study, but also as a starting point for a possible de lege ferenda amendment of the current legislation. -
The regulation (Article 225) of the new Criminal Procedure Code is not too different from the one (Article 1491 paragraphs 3–8 and Article 150) of the previous Criminal Procedure Code (1968). Instead, the new criminal processual law does no longer provide for the possibility to settle the proposal of preventive detention, in the absence of the defendant, when the defendant is abroad, as it was stipulated in the previous Criminal Procedure Code. The authors analyze the institution of settlement of the proposal of preventive detention, by presenting some critical issues and by proposing some improvements to the new regulation. -
The preventive measures are institutions of criminal law of a coercive nature, by which the suspect or defendant is prevented from engaging in certain activities that would adversely affect the conduct of the criminal proceedings or the achievement of the purpose of the crimin al proceedings. The preventive measures provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure in our country are: detention, judicial control, judicial control on bail, house arrest and pre-trial detention. Of these, pre-trial detention is the measure that generates the most important problems in judicial practice. In this study, we do not intend to make an exhaustive analysis of this preventive measure or to present in detail the conditions for its disposal. -
The aim of this study is to point out the way in which transnational spaces exert their influences on the international legal order and the national legal ones. Theorizing transnational law opens the way of such demarche. Therefore, the overview of some schools of transnational law offers the opportunity for understanding the link between transnational spaces, transnational legal orders and transnational law. The transnational spaces "Mitsubishi" and "FIFA" evolve in transnational legal orders; the latter legal orders inspire the scholars to theorize actively the transnational law itself. Such theorizing may help us to be conceptually equipped in front of future transnational spaces. -
Within the international trade relations, risks may currently arise from certain facts or events that result in conflict situations between the parties involved in commercial operations, having as consequence the appearance of the litigation. In this context, a special place is occupied by maritime litigation, a complex, plurivalent dispute, combining elements emerging from international trade law, transport law and maritime law. The present study aims to identify and analyze the main issues that give the maritime litigation a particular nature, conferring it, legally, a specific character compared to other international trade disputes. The objectives of the research are circumscribed to the analysis of the characteristics of the maritime litigation, of the causes of its occurrence and of its conditions of manifestation. Within the paper, special attention was devoted to studying how to instrument the maritime litigations, with the methods of the maritime technique and the legal and economic solutions used in this matter. With regard to the procedures of settlement of maritime litigations, the study focuses on highlighting the operational phases, the analysis of evidence and of other issues that configure the applicable procedural framework in case the parties involved have expressed the option to settle the dispute for the contentious procedure. Examining the specific features of this original type of disagreement has highlighted a pronounced pragmatic character over the theoretical argumentation taking into account the force of maritime or harbour regulations or usages in this field. The notion of maritime litigation and its regulation became outstanding at a stage preceding the emergence of maritime law. Over time, seafarer’s practices have created usages and traditions specific to trade in goods carried by sea, which have led to the unification and even codification thereof in the context of classical maritime law. The scope of the notion of maritime litigation is much wider than that of the maritime trial and has an earlier application over time, whereas only a part of the maritime litigations lead to a proper judicial trial or to a maritime arbitration. Maritime litigations can be defined as disputes between two or more parties involved in the maritime expedition or between the signatory parties to specific contracts used in all activities related to maritime trade. In this regard, disputes of a maritime nature may arise as a consequence of the non-performance or malfunction of maritime transport contracts, so that it is indicated to mention in these contracts some specific clauses, stating the modality and rules for solving such conflict situations, including the jurisdiction clause, since the non-inclusion of this clause raises disputes over the jurisdiction of the courts of such litigious cases. Maritime litigations are dealt with by the specialists in the field both in the ante-judicial and judicial stage, through the correct coordination of the parties involved and the professional settlement of all the litigious aspects. The specialist in maritime litigations should be a person with cumulative competencies in the technical, economic and legal field, maritime navigation and port exploitation. Solving major maritime disputes is a complex and laborious process, which requires pragmatism, accuracy, increased attention, quick decision and efficiency. The general procedure for dealing with this disagreement is carried out on the basis of a strictly technical, specialized methodology and requires going through several phases such as the finding the occurrence of the event or conflict-generating act, the notification of the parties involved, the collection and preservation of the evidence for defence or for the drawing up of the complaint, quantifying and filing the complaint, taking a decision on the modality of approach, the negotiation and pronunciation of the solution to finalize the case. The resolution of maritime litigations is based on the case law in the field, strongly influenced by international maritime conventions and on the relations created between the rules from various law systems, applicable in the field, in the context of assimilation and implementation of the international trade usages. -
-
-
The paper intends to emphasize the importance and echo of the motivation of jurisdictional acts given in the operation of individualization of procedural measures, with emphasis on preventive measures in criminal proceedings. The analysis is imposed in the recent social and legal context, in which the individual freedom of the person is subjected to particular trials and must be preserved, an objective finally achievable through the analysis and rigorous argumentation of the acts of disposition elaborated by the judicial bodies.
-
This article aims to analyze a wage increase for people who traditionally have a PhD title and are working in the field in which they obtained this title. Up to the adoption of the legislation on uniform remuneration in budgetary system, all those who had obtained a PhD title received, without distinction, a wage increase for PhD. The current legislation has provided the inclusion of this increase, as a transitional compensatory amount, in the base salary, the basic pay/salary or monthly allowance, for the employees that had it to be paid on 31 December 2009, but not for those who have won the PhD title after this date. That legislation created a discriminatory situation, on which the National Council for Combating Discrimination was notified, and this has expressed a specialised opinion, which advocated for the competent authorities of the State, Parliament and the Government to proceed to eliminate the difference in legal treatment, so additional salary entitlement to be recognized by the legislature to all employees, regardless of the date on which it was awarded a PhD title. To this end we propose the appropriate modification of the law.
