-
In this article, the author proposes to make some theoretical and practical reflections on the definition of the law. Until now, in no law school and no judicial culture system it was formulated a definition of the law, to be accepted as a universal definition. Latin jurists – to whom the entire European judicial civilization is related – have not even been preoccupied with defining the law, but they have left us as legacy several definitions of the law, that is of positive law. The author points out that the scientific concept of law depends on the particularities of the judicial regulation of the social relations, which are different from country to country and from one national judicial system to another. It would be very difficult to formulate a universal definition of the law, given that each people has its own psycho-social characteristics which can not be accommodated with similar characteristics of other peoples. The author considers that in democratic societies, based on the principles of the state of law and which have at the centre of their public policies the individual, through law it is achieved a balance between the power of the state and the autonomy of the individual will. By law it is ensured the respect for the fundamental values of the nation, a democratic government centred on the sovereign will of the nation, as well as the individual rights and freedoms of citizens. In conclusion, the author points out that the law-making process in any state must be legitimate, namely it must express the will and fundamental demands of the citizens, the most general interests of the population. Finally, the author proposes a set of formal requirements-criteria for assessing the laws passed by the Parliament. -
-
Following the observations submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Case C-69/14 Târșia1, EUCJ gave, on 6 October 2015, a preliminary ruling, which held that: the Union law, in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those in the dispute in the main proceedings, a national court from not having the opportunity to review a final judgment delivered within civil proceedings, in case this judgment proves to be incompatible with an interpretation of the European Union law retained by the Court of Justice of the European Union subsequently to the date on which the mentioned judgment became final, even if there is such a possibility in respect of final judgments incompatible with the European Union law, delivered within some administrative proceedings. -
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. -
