-
The following study concerns the causes of inadmissibility in the Romanian constitutional jurisdiction. Thus, after a series of preliminary considerations, the authors examine, in detail, in the light of the case law of the Constitutional Court of Romania, the following: – the causes of inadmissibility regarding the legality of the referral; – the causes of inadmissibility in connection with the authors of the referral; – the causes of inadmissibility referring to the motivation of the referral; – other elements related to the legality of the referral; – the causes of inadmissibility concerning the extent of the control; – the causes of inadmissibility referring to the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. -
Causes leading to change of punishment are such conditions, circumstances or contexts which are exterior to the contents of the crime and which outline a higher or lower level of social danger of the deed or of dangerous behavior of the criminal, thus determining a change of punishment, either in terms of quantity (in the form of duration or amount), or in terms of quality (change of one main punishment by another). In these causes, a distinction is made between attenuating and aggravating causes. The attenuating causes category includes attenuating conditions and attenuating circumstances, while the aggravating causes category includes aggravating conditions and aggravating circumstances. -
In this study, the author reviews the issue of pilot cases before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR praetorian jurisprudence, hardly known), insisting also on the most important pilot cases filed with the Court’s jurisdiction, focusing thereupon on the Romanian Case, related to pilot cases’ new procedure, especially on the subject of property restitution. -
The brief presentation of the appearance and evolution of the case of annulment provided under point 171 of art. 3859 parag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code in force, which mentions that the judgments under appeal are subject to annulment, “when the judgment is contrary to the law or when an erroneous application of the law was made by the judgment”, of the issues of unconstitutionality, of the provisions of art. 13 of the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights represent the arguments of the article for the need and justification of introducing the case of annulment provided under art. 3859 parag. 1 point 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Law on certain measures to accelerate the settlement of trials, which guarantees that jurisdictions can effectively control the legality of the judgment, both in relation to the substantive rules and to the procedure rules, being vested with the prerogative of the possibility to annul the judgment subject to appeal. -
The article aims to review a recent and very controversial decision of the Appellate Division within the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, dated November 16th, 2012, under which were acquitted two Croatian generals, notorious figures of the civil war in the former Yugoslavia, for several war crimes and crimes against humanity, in a surprising manner since it abolished entirely the decision passed by the Court of First Instance, that had indicted these defendants, and gave special interpretations to a number of institutions of law, in respect of which was already crystalized a constant judicial practice of this Court. -
In the regulation of the new Criminal Procedure Code the recourse in cassation is an extraordinary legal remedy exercised only in cases expressly provided by law and only on grounds of unlawfulness. The recourse in cassation is the extraordinary remedy through which the interested parties or the prosecutor may request the High Court, in the conditions and for the reasons expressly and limitatively provided by law, to reform the final judgements in certain cases provided by law. Practically, the recourse in cassation is designed as an extraordinary legal remedy or otherwise, as a last level of jurisdiction within which the parties can defend their rights, by removing the effects of the final judgments pronounced under the conditions of the five cases of unlawfulness provided by Article 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code and does not involve the examination of all aspects of the case, but only the review of the legality of the contested judgment, respectively its consistency with the provisions of the applicable substantive and procedural law. We intend to present the five cases of recourse in cassation by an extensive examination of the doctrine and practice of the High Court of Cassation and Justice. -
-
Questioned by an alleged absence of their own method and investigation field, legal science and research are fully legitimised in reality. Legal doctrine research deals with formal sources of law, and results in deduction and explanation of legal rules. Legal scientific research deals with legal rules in force from a formal point of view and refers to the legitimation (delegitimation) of legal rules of substantial law; its method is the deduction of general principles of law as a specific normative subsystem within the social system and the relation of the legal rules to these principles. -
-
-
The Insolvency Code, in Article 65, provides as follows: „(1) The procedure shall be initiated on the basis of an application filed to the tribunal by the debtor, by one or more creditors, or by the persons or institutions expressly provided by the law. (2) The Financial Supervisory Authority files an application against the entities regulated and supervised by it, which, according to the data available to it, satisfy the criteria provided in the special legal provisions for opening the procedure provided by this Law.” As such, it can be said that the scope of the persons to whom it is recognized the right to refer the matter to the court is delimited by the legal provisions, excluding the ex officio referral to the tribunal, contained in the old regulation of the Commercial Code. The Framework-Law shows very clearly that the debtor in insolvency is obliged to submit an application to the tribunal in order to be subject to the provisions of this Law, within maximum 30 days of the occurrence of the state of insolvency, being able to come before the tribunal with such an application also the debtor for whom the occurrence of the state of insolvency is imminent (Article 66), any creditor entitled to request the opening of the procedure provided in this normative act against a debtor presumed to be in insolvency having the right to initiate, in its turn, an introductory application (Article 70). Given that the debtor himself is the most suitable person to know the state of insolvency or the imminent insolvency of his patrimony, it was normal for the legislator to admit that it had an important role in the initiation of the collective procedure. The creditors, not having the right to request the opening of the imminent insolvency procedure, but only for current (presumed) insolvency, could not act before a real and manifest imbalance was produced in the debtor’s patrimony, when the financial difficulties were already revealed by the inability to pay the due obligations.
-
In this study, the author starts by finding that there is a divergent case law regarding the admission of the application for declaration of enforceability filed by the court executor under Article 666 of the Civil Procedure Code in the event that the enforcement title is represented by a final judgment whereby the debtor is obliged to pay a sum of money to the creditor and the proof thereof is made by a registry certificate (ad similis, an authenticated copy of the minutes drawn up and signed by the members of the court panel). The author finds that the limited doctrine that analyzed the casuistry described above reaches also diametrically opposite conclusions. In this context, making his own analysis, the author comes to the conclusion that in the above-mentioned hypothesis it is correct the solution of the courts which have admitted the applications for declaration of enforcement, based mainly on arguments related to the probative force of the registry certificate, the existence of the court judgment from the date of its pronouncement in the public hearing as the last stage of the trial (i.e., the first phase of the civil trial), since it has full legal effects, as well as on the desideratum of celerity, which governs the second stage of the civil trial, recte the enforcement. Noting that the existence of a divergent case law by which identical juridical situations are solved is likely to lead to the weakening of trust in the act of justice, the author urges for the most urgent use by the actors entitled ope legis of the means for ensuring a unitary judicial practice stated by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and of the Internal Rules of the courts of 2015.
