-
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. -
Cererea formulată în temeiul art. 595 alin. (1) C.pr.pen., respectiv în caz de intervenire a unei legi penale noi după rămânerea definitivă a hotărârii de condamnare sau a hotărârii prin care s-a aplicat o măsură educativă, se adresează fie instanței de executare, fie instanței corespunzătoare în grad acesteia în a cărei circumscripție se află locul de deținere sau, după caz, centrul educativ ori centrul de detenție. Din perspectiva formelor competenței, cea reglementată potrivit art. 595 alin. (2) raportat la art. 553 alin. (1) C.pr.pen. este o competență funcțională (ratione officii) întrucât vizează o activitate ce se poate realiza strict de către instanța de executare ori de către instanța corespunzătoare în grad acesteia în circumscripția căreia se află locul de executare a pedepsei ori măsurii privative de libertate.
-
The faulty interpretations of the normative system as a hierarchical system are due to analysing the matters of validity and of withdrawal of legality on the basis of the same methods of interpretation as when the matter of conformity is examined. If we clearly operate this distinction, using the pre-war case law, then the ordinary courts have competences in the matter of contentious of validity of rules and even some competences in the matter of contentious of conformity, despite the Constitutional Court’s claim to monopolize the constitutional contentious of rules. Likewise, they have competences in the matter of contentious of conformity of the infraconstitutional rules with the Constitution, which is questioned only due to the understanding of the normative hierarchy according to the French model, which is not applicable pursuant to the Constitution of Romania. Finally, I will prove that the ordinary courts have the competence to verify the agreement of the rules declared unconstitutional with the C.C.R decision. -
The ordinary courts have the general competence to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals, whether provided or not in the international treaties or in the Constitution of Romania. The Constitutional Court’s claim to be the only one to exercise constitutional justice powers is based on a faulty interpretation of its own competence, which is constitutionally determined as being to ensure the supremacy of the Constitution, and on reducing the constitutional contentious to the contentious of rules. A correct interpretation of the constitutional provisions and the fructification of the Romanian tradition in the matter of constitutional justice demonstrate that the ordinary courts are competent to apply the Constitution in order to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals, therefore to exercise constitutional justice powers, because this is not reduced to the control of the constitutionality of the laws. -
This study is an analysis of the conditions of admissibility by the procedure covered by Article 56 of the Law No 254/2013 of complaints made by the convicted persons in connection with the awarding of compensation days for inadequate conditions of accommodation and the cancellation of the wage garnishment, measure set up by the tax enforcement bodies in order to recover judicial expenses due to the state by those persons. I have chosen to analyse these two situations in the context in which the judge of surveillance of deprivation of liberty is increasingly faced with such complaints from private persons deprived of liberty claiming violation of rights as a result of the application of these two measures. For the presentation of legal problems and the situation I used national case law of judges of surveillance of deprivation of liberty, but also the national case law of the courts. -
Dispozițiile art. 44 alin. (3) C.pr.pen. reglementează un caz de prorogare legală a competenței, în sensul că infracțiunea de favorizare a făptuitorului este de competența instanței care judecă infracțiunea la care aceasta se referă, competența materială a infracțiunii corelative fiind câștigată mai înainte și independent de reunirea cauzelor. În acest context, dacă judecătorul de cameră preliminară care funcționează la judecătorie, fiind sesizat prin rechizitoriu cu judecarea unei infracțiuni de favorizare a făptuitorului – făptuitorul favorizat fiind judecat de către tribunal – verifică și menține măsura preventivă luată în faza urmăririi penale, violează dispozițiile relative la competența materială a instanțelor de judecată prevăzute sub sancțiunea nulității absolute, potrivit art. 281 alin. (1) lit. b) C.pr.pen. (cu notă critică). -
This article discusses the material and territorial jurisdiction for the settlement in the matter of land fund disputes. The material jurisdiction is examined in terms of art. 94 item 1. letter j), art. 94 items 3 and 4, Art. 95 item 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the special regulations contained in Law no. 18/1991, as republished, and the territorial jurisdiction of the perspective of art. 107 para. (1), art. 117 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the special law. The jurisdiction issue concerns the various actions on the land fund, arising from the enforcement of the Law no. 18/1991, as republished. The regulation of the jurisdiction of the actions settlement in the matter of the land fund, in favor of the same court, is proposed de lege ferenda.
