-
În cele ce urmează, vom comenta două hotărâri ale Curții de Justiție a Uniunii Europene, ambele pronunțate în materia dreptului la liberă circulație și, respectiv, a securității sociale, în cadrul procedurii chestiunii preliminare. -
In the present study we will make some critical comments on two judicial decisions – a decision of the Romanian Constitutional Court and a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union – with impact on a problem of high importance for Romania: the nature, the character and the legal force of the Decision 928/2006 of the European Commission (which institutes the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism) and of the recommendations of the Commission included in the reports issued within the above-mentioned mechanism, the compatibility with the Union law of the legal provisions concerning the Section for the investigation of the offences committed within the judicial system. The decision of the Court of Justice was given prior to that of the Constitutional Court, within the procedure of the preliminary ruling unleashed before more Romanian administrative jurisdictions, and the control of the Constitutional Court was unleashed with the aim at establishing the unconstitutionality of the legal provision concerning the above-mentioned section. Although the Constitutional Court knew about the decision of the Court of Justice, which ruled that, if the law is found by the national jurisdictions to be incompatible with the Union law, it must be set aside in the respective litigations, by virtue of the (total) supremacy of the Union law, the constitutional jurisdiction declared the constitutionality of the law and, more than that, stated that the ordinary jurisdictions are not permitted to set aside the law, because the supremacy of the Constitution is not questioned by the adherence to the Union and by the Union law, the latter being superior only to the infraconstitutional laws. So, the point is: of the two decisions, which one must the jurisdictions apply? Which one is superior to another? -
Prezentul comentariu este generat de o notă critică la Decizia nr. 3915/2013 a Înaltei Curți de Casație și Justiție, Secția a II-a civilă, pronunțată în Dosarul nr. 2342/111/20071, notă critică publicată pe site-ul Juridice.ro, în „Revista de note și studii juridice”, la data de 15 august 20142. -
This study proposes a thorough and precise examination of the provisions of the present Civil Code regarding the institution of the contract, especially, its drafting mechanism. The objective of our research concerns the reference made to the innovative items, but also a critical view regarding the possible discrepancies existing between the legal text and the judicial practice, respectively the concepts developed by the specialty literature under the pressure of the Civil Code of the year 1864. The approach is based upon a permanent tendency to refer to the comparative law, especially the European law and the great projects of unifying the regulation of the international commercial contracts, UNIDROIT Principles and the Principles of European Contract Law. We notice that one of the basic ideas taken into account by the editors of the Civil Code is that of „unifying” the civil law and the commercial law, by adopting the solutions proposed by other Codes, such as the Swiss or the Italian code. The assembly of the regulations applicable to the mechanism of the contract drafting has to be construed from this perspective. The usefulness is undisputable considering that the distinction cannot be justified at this level in a modern society. Likewise, it is required to specify that in the matter of drafting the contract, the good faith principle was raised to the rank of an „axiological summum”, being present both in the negotiations-related regulations and in the rigorous and detailed provisions of the offer and of its acceptance. -
10 December 2016 marks 60 years from the date when the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation opened for signature (and 50 years from the date when they entered into force) the two international covenants on human rights: International Covenant on civil and political rights and International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. These, along with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Organisation Charter, make up the hard core of the protection of human rights, within the United Nations Organisation (UNO). The 50th anniversary of their entry into force is equally a reason for balance, namely reflection and projection into the future. Thus, in 1966, the design of the two different conventional instruments, corresponding to the two traditional categories of human rights (civil and political rights, on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights, on the other hand), was based on their different legal nature, on the East-West ideological divisions, or on the necessity to treat them differently in the process of implementation at state level: the immediate implementation (civil and political rights) v. progressive realization (economic, social and cultural rights). However, the initial situation did not stay within the same parameters, but it gradually evolved. Although initially conceived as „political obligations” in the economic, social and cultural fields and rather left at the discretion of StatesParties, the economic, social and cultural rights have acquired, in time, through the work carried on by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), a position that allows them to claim, in the next 15 years, a significant role in the process of implementation of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. In such conditions, in this paper, the author initiates an evaluation of the doctrine of economic, social and cultural rights in the past two and a half decades, as well as of the way in which CESCR has built the „profile” of these rights, in this regard being evaluated two of the work methods used by CESCR, namely: General comments and the new LOIPR procedure – List of Issues Prior to Reporting. -
The author, after explaining the „valorism” and „value debt” concepts, enters into details on the issue of aggregation of default interests (art. 1088 of the Romanian Civil Code – 1865 –, still into force), reaching a conclusion, which agrees to a minority juridical doctrine, that the interest may be aggregated to a value debt.
-
Analyzing the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on freedom of expression (Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms), the author reveals the close connection between the concept of States’ margin of appreciation (paragraph 2 of Art. 10 of the Convention) and the quality of the Convention as “a living instrument”. Therefore, the purpose of the study is precisely the dialecticism of the relationship between the “freedom of expression” (proclaimed by the Convention) and the exercise of that freedom “that carries with it duties and responsibilities” and which, under national law, may be subject to “such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties” (granted under Art. 10 of the Convention, as well). In light of this line of thinking, the author carries forth an extensive case law of the European Court of Human Rights, expression of a broad relevant casuistry. -
The repeated conviction by the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter ECHR) of the Republic of Moldova for violating Article 1 of Protocol No 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter ECHR) was a mandatory invitation for national actors to harmonize their own legal system with the European case law, both by legislative, administrative way and by judicial way. Although there have been reported cases in which the European Court of Human Rights has pointed out some shortcomings with regard to harmonizing the Moldovan law with the European exigencies, however most judgments are based on jurisprudential shortcomings. Thus, in order to avoid new convictions by the Strasbourg Court in the sphere of Article 1 of Protocol No 1, in this study the techniques of compatibilization of the national case law with the European ones are researched. Starting from the stated purpose, in the present study it is realized a jurisprudential exercise of the notion of „good” from the perspective of the conventional judge and of the way in which the national courts received it in their own judgments. At the same time, this scientific approach identifies the positive and negative obligations of states and their margin of appreciation left by the ECHR in case of some issues concerning the right to respect for property, as well as the consequences for the state in case of a judgment of conviction.
-
This article underpins the normative framework given to judicial bodies competent to make investigations into marine navigation in Romania, according to the provisions of the Romanian criminal law, followed by a brief history of the establishing and dissolving of the courts in Romania regarding maritime and river matters, and examination of the normative framework given to the competencies of the Court of justice on investigations into marine navigation, and finally this article is drawing some conclusions and implications related to lex ferenda.
-
The author analyzes the territorial jurisdiction of the court to settle the actions for annulment of the decisions of invalidation or for amendment of the settlement decisions issued by the National Commission for Real Estate Settlement pursuant to the Law No 165/2013, appreciating that it lies with the civil section of the Bucharest Tribunal, as the court in whose district it is located the headquarters of the entity issuing the contested act. The term „entity” within Article 35 (1) must be understood in relation to the provisions of Article 3 points 4 and 5 of the Law No 165/2013, which enumerates the entities involved in the restitution procedure in various stages thereof, as well as the document issued by these entities. -
The article analyzes the material jurisdiction to settle the action for liability of the mayor for the prejudice caused to the state budget in the exercise of his mandate by the deficient fulfilment of the duties devolving on him, a prejudice established by the Court of Auditors by its act of control. In the absence of a derogatory regulation concerning jurisdiction, such an action, being governed by the rules and principles of the tort civil liability regulated by Article 1349 of the Civil Code, falls under the material jurisdiction of the court or of the tribunal, depending on the value of the object of the dispute (of the quantum of the damage requested to be repaired), according to Article 95 point 1 in relation to Article 94 point 1 k) of the Civil Procedure Code. -
Law no. 119/2010 settled that all service pensions (except those of magistrates and judges of the Constitutional Court) become common pensions (therefore established under the common law of pensions, i.e. Law no. 19/2000). In order to enforce Law no. 119/2010, Government Decision no. 735/2010 was issued. Among service pensions (now common pensions) are also the pensions awarded to retired persons coming from the system of defense, public order and national security. From July 2010 to January 2011, these service pensions were recalculated as common pensions under Law no. 119/2010 and Government Decision no. 735/ 2010. Subsequently, under Government Emergency Ordinance no. 1 / 2011, from February to December 2011, based on other criteria, said pensions were recalculated again (under Government Emergency Ordinance no. 1 / 2011). Being that, by law, each of these recalculations can be challenged in court, the author of this study examines the jurisdiction to settle the appeal of the decisions to recalculate the pensions in question, both those set initially according to Law no. 119/2010 and Government Decision no. 735/2010, and those recalculated again subsequently according to Government Emergency Ordinance no. 1 / 2011.
