-
-
The remand on custody and the preventive detention are placed among the most important institutions of criminal processual law. The adoption of the new criminal processual legislation regarding the remand on custody and the preventive detention raises the question of analysing the elements of novelty contained by the new legal provisions, as well as the question of their compliance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. -
Hardship (as grounds for contractual amendment or termination thereof, even in default of contractual provisions in this respect) had not been legally regulated under the former Romanian Civil Code (dated 1864), but only under some special laws. However, during the past two decades, there was shaped in legal doctrine and the Romanian reference jurisprudence a theory of hardship (as shown), which substituted, in part and controversially, the legal deficiency in the matter. This deficiency wore away by the entry into force of the new Civil Code (Law no. 287/2009, republished on July 15th, 2011 and enforced on October 10th, 2011), which, by a single fundamental wording (Article 1271, entitled „Hardship”) regulates the conditions under which the Court may rule, where appropriate, upon the adoption of a contract or even termination thereof „should the performance of the contract become excessively burdensome due to an exceptional change of circumstances that would make manifestly unjust the binding of the debtor to the execution of its duty”. In the study above, the authors make an analysis of the configuration of hardship in the light of Article 1271 under the new Civil Code. -
Potrivit art. 342 alin. (6) C.pen., constituie infracțiune și se pedepsește cu închisoare de la 6 luni la 3 ani nedepunerea armei și a muniției la un armurier autorizat în termen de 10 zile de la expirarea perioadei de valabilitate a permisului de armă. Totodată, conform art. 112 alin. (1) lit. f) C.pen., bunurile a căror deținere este interzisă de legea penală sunt supuse confiscării speciale (cu notă parțial aprobativă). În cazul faptei prevăzute în art. 342 alin. (6) C.pen., cu privire la care s-a dispus o soluție de clasare întemeiată pe dispozițiile art. 16 alin. (1) lit. b) teza a II-a C.pr.pen., arma și muniția intră sub incidența confiscării speciale, în temeiul art. 112 alin. (1) lit. f) C.pen., în procedura reglementată de art. 5491 C.pr.pen., în ipoteza în care făptuitorul nu a depus arma și muniția la un armurier autorizat în termen de 10 zile de la expirarea perioadei de valabilitate a permisului de armă. (Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, Completul competent să judece recursul în interesul legii, Decizia nr. 10/2019). -
Extensive confiscation safety measure has a narrow enforcement scope, as it can be ordered only for the crimes expressly provided by law. On the other hand, extended confiscation can cover only property or the equivalent thereof, obtained by the convicted person whilst committing, in a specified time period, other crimes for which the law provides for such safety measures. Prerequisite to be met for the enforcement of extended confiscation is the existence of an obvious disproportion between income earned lawfully by the person convicted and the value of goods obtained through criminal activity for which the law provides for this safety measure. -
The article presents the evidentiary standards in case of the extended confiscation, claiming the necessity to establish the difference between the legal income and the value of assets acquired, also taking into account the expenses made by the accused and their family members, mentioning the assets or sums of money subject to extended confiscation, based on an evaluation report drawn up by an expert, by the indictment. -
This paper analyses the offence of conflict of interests, as incriminated in the new Criminal Code, by comparison with the old regulation, as well as the similar incrimination in the French Criminal Code, the study being illustrated with Romanian and French case law. Likewise, the author formulates some de lege ferenda proposals in order to improve the legislation in the field. -
By carrying out a review of Articles 312 to 328 of the new Romanian Civil Code, the author concludes that this Code allows conflict of laws relating to primary matrimonial regime; enforcement of mentioned rules is not required, as they are components of Romanian private international law public order. -
The author starts in this study from the premise that a law may not be retroactive, after presenting the regulation on retroactivity in the previous Civil Code (of 1865), and makes an actually exhaustive analysis of the matters related to the implementation of civil law in time, as related to the continuity of the Romanian new Civil Code (applicable as of 1 October 2011). Finally, the author reaches the conclusion that the provisions of the Romanian new Civil Code as regards the set of civil laws in time are much more complex, and therefore superior, in relation to the regulations concerning the old Civil Code. -
Starting from the legal rule of the non-retroactivity of law (initially included only in art. 1 of the Romanian Civil Code of 1864, still in force, and, afterwards, in art. 15, parag. 2 of the current Constitution of Romania – of 1991), the author makes an analysis of the theory of the non-retroactivity of law (according to the Romanian judicial doctrine), and then he examines the rules of the new Romanian Civil Code (published in 2009, but not yet in force), as well as the Draft Law for implementing the new Romanian Civil Code) which, by regulating various legal situations representing a conflict of laws in time, applies the principle of non-retroactivity of the civil law. -
In the study hereby, the author makes a comparative analysis of the problematics of conflict between freedom of the press and reputation in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the United States Supreme Court, respectively, managing to capture a number of differences regarding the deviation of the litigious issue. -
This study deals from a theoretical point of view with the offence of conflict of interests in the light of its new regulation by the provisions of Article 301 of the Criminal Code. It also has in view some decisions of the Constitutional Court and of the High Court of Cassation and Justice which bring clarifications and simultaneously place on a constitutional path the legal text mentioned above. Within the paper it is also made a comparative analysis between the criminal incrimination of the conflict of interests and other provisions covering administrative aspects of this notion.
