-
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. -
The article analyzes the jurisdiction of the Romanian court to settle the divorce application in case of spouses, Romanian citizens, who do no longer reside on the Romanian territory. The problems are analyzed in relation to the Community regulations directly applicable in the Member States of the European Union, as well as to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code in this matter. -
According to the Labor Code (Law no. 53/2003, republished on the 18 of May 2011), the employer, under the pain of absolute nullity, cannot inflict any disciplinary sanction (except the written warning), without beforehand and compulsorily, performing a disciplinary investigation as well, by an individual authorized by the employer to this end. The minimum rules regarding the disciplinary procedure (namely, also those regarding the prior disciplinary investigation) are set forth in the Labor Code and are developed by the Internal Regulations of the unit. Such being the case, this kind of rules cannot be legally established in the collective employment agreement, no matter its level of negotiation (at the level of the unit, of the group of units or of the fields of activity), even if during the period 2007–2010 the national unique Collective Employment Agreement (terminated at present) regulated, against the law, a procedure regarding the (prior and compulsory) disciplinary investigation which included also provisions obviously contrary to the Labor Code. -
-
International agreements constitute a category of legal acts within the European Union (EU). They are concluded by the EU acting alone or jointly with Member States depending on the provisions of the founding Treaties. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union (EU) acquired legal personality. It is therefore a subject of international law which is capable of negotiating and concluding international agreements on its own behalf. The external competences of the EU are defined in Article 216 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. The division of competences between the EU and Member States is also expressed at international level. The current division of competences between the EU and Member States is not set in stone. However, the reduction or extension of EU competences is a delicate matter which requires the consent of all Member States and necessitates a revision of the Treaties.
