-
-
Curtea Constituțională a pronunțat recent o decizie asupra constituționalității art. III, pct. a) și b) din Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 70/2016 pentru modificarea și completarea Codului de procedură penală și a Legii nr. 304/2004 privind organizarea judiciară, admițând excepția în privința pct. b), cu opinie separată. Anterior și în mod similar, Curtea a pronunțat o decizie de admitere a neconstituționalității art. 27 din Codul de procedură civilă astfel cum fusese el interpretat de Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție – Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept1. Considerăm că ambele soluții ale Curții ridică probleme legate de efectele în timp ale unor decizii ale sale pronunțate anterior în aceeași privință, probleme la care, de altfel, face referire și opinia separată publicată la prima menționată, deși nu suntem întru totul de acord cu aceasta din urmă. -
The Government Emergency Ordinance No 111/2010 has established in Romania the grant of the leave for raising children (also called parental leave), with the payment of the related allowance. This normative act represents the transposition, in the Romanian legislation, of Directive 2010/18/EU of the Council of 8 March 2010, without, however, also properly supplementing the (Romanian) Labour Code (the Law No 53/2003). Given this situation and also taking into account the relevant creative case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the author makes an analysis of the regulations and of the practice in the field and, retaining some discrepancies, it comes to the conclusion that the provisions of the Emergency Government Ordinance No 111/2010 and of the Labour Code must be interpreted and applied in the light and in accordance with EU legislation and of the case-law of the Court in Luxembourg, the supplementation of the Labour Code being also required, so that the right of the employee to fully benefit by the rest leave, after taking the leave for raising children, be expressly provided in the Romanian legislation, a series of discussions and controversies being thus avoided. -
The author, having in view a recent controversy in the Romanian doctrine of labour law, resumes the analysis and reaches the following conclusion: • According to the Romanian Labour Code, the legal institution (of labour law) of the temporary labour contract (Article 88 of the Labour Code) is separate from the legal institution of posting (Article 45 et seq. of the same Code); • Conversely, the employee who, according to Article 88 of the Labour Code, has concluded with his employer a temporary labour contract, in order to be hired out to a user undertaking from another Member State of the European Union, has the status of posted employee, within the meaning of Directive 96/71. -
The article, a continuation of the study with the same title published in the previous issue of „Dreptul” magazine, presents in detail the minority point of view expressed within the civil procedure collective of the Faculty of Law of the West University from Timișoara, according to which the object of the incidental or provoked appeal/review may be the grounds or the solutions contained in the judgment of the court and in the preliminary conclusions, whether they have been challenged or not by means of the main appeal/review
-
This paper mainly includes a critical analysis of the provisions of the Law No 4/2008, made from the perspective of the political and legislative technique exigencies. Subsidiarily, the paper contains a presentation of the sports policy, as it is promoted by the European bodies and by most of the Western European states. -
In Romania, Article 5 paragraph 1 of Government Decision no. 250/1992 (which usually applies only to the personnel budget units) provides that employees who missed work because they were on sick leave throughout the calendar year are not entitled to the holiday leave corresponding to that year. We emphasize that this (exceptional) provision is not found in the (Romanian) Labour Code (Law no. 53/2003, republished on May 18, 2011). On the other hand, Article 7 paragraph 1 of the Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council provides for the right to annual leave of any employee, without exception, as the case law of the European Court of Justice states that this is a principle of European social law. So being, the author concludes that Art. 5 paragraph 1 of Government Decision no. 250/1992 can no longer be applied (to the budgetary personnel); however, through an interpretation consistent with the Directive, the employees who are not part of the budgetary personnel due to the direct effect of the European norm (Directive 2003/88/EC) benefit from the provisions thereof, even if the directive has not yet been transposed into Romanian legislation, especially as, in terms of this discussion, is not contrary to the Romanian Labour Code. -
Starting from a finding of the relevant division within the European Commission (i.e., in present-day Europe, women earn on average 17.8% of men’s earnings for the same jobs), the author conducts an extensive and interesting analysis on legislation encompassing primary law (treaties) and secondary law (regulations, directives) of the European Union, as well as on the jurisprudence of the European Union Court of Justice regarding the prohibition of discrimination between men and women in terms of remuneration (salary) (income gender gap). In this context, the author reviews the Romanian legislation and the Romanian Constitutional Court’s resolutions on this issue, altogether.
-
The author analyzes the rules of Directive 2001/23/EC of March 12, 2001 on the appropriation of the European Union Member States’ laws relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or establishments, by reference to the rules of the Labor Code (republished) and the provisions of Law no. 64/2006 on the protection of employees’ rights for transfers of undertakings, business or parts thereof; this comparative analysis reached some interesting conclusions useful both for theorists, and practitioners. -
In this study, the author makes an analysis – partly critical – of the provisions of Law no. 50/2011 on the performance of certain seasonal activities by day-workers, focusing on the correlation of this law with the European regulation in the field (Directive 1999/70/EC), noting that a series of provisions of Law no. 52/2011 should not be interpreted literally, but according to a „consistent interpretation” in order to avoid a series of contradictions and inconsistencies between the said directive and Law. 52/2011. -
Further to the analysis of article 289 (3) of National Education Law no. 1/ 2001, the author reaches the conclusion that this piece of legislation (according to which the teaching or research staff of higher education institutions may carry on their activity after retirement provided that individual employment agreements are concluded for a limited – annual – period) breaches the European rule in the field (Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999). Therefore, if a fourth agreement is successive, this time, such ope legis becomes concluded for a unlimited period. -
In this paper the author makes a comparative analysis of Art.72 (“notifying the enforcement of collective redundancy”) and Art. 74 (prohibition of new employment subsequent to collective redundancies, employees right to reemployment) of the Labor Code (Law no. 53/2003, republished on May 18, 2011), texts related to the Council Directive no. 98/59/EC of July 20, 1998. In this respect, the author concludes that although usually the said texts of the Labor Code are consistent with the aforementioned Directive, however, the amending / supplementing of the Labor Code is required to imperatively establish a mandatory form of employees representation outside the union organization, taking into account that the “employees representatives” institution (Articles 221 to 226 of the Labor Code) is currently optionally governed (and not mandatory), and only where the employer exceeding 20 employees had not constituted representative unions.
