-
-
As a result of the particular regulation of a long-standing principle of European Union law, as of 25 May 2018, data controllers have an express obligation to process personal data „lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject («lawfulness, fairness and transparency»)”. In the light of the arguments which will be presented in this article, it will follow that the principle of transparency gives data subjects the possibility to hold controllers and processors accountable and, in particular, to exercise concrete and effective control over their personal data, e.g. by giving or withdrawing informed consent, and by exercising regulated rights in favour of data subjects. In other words, by virtue of the principle of transparency, data controllers are obliged to take any measure necessary to ensure that data subjects – customers or other users – whose data are processed are fully and accurately informed. As regards the concrete way in which compliance with this fundamental principle can be ensured, the General Data Protection Regulation provides some guidance, stating in Article 12 (1) that the controller is obliged to take appropriate measures to provide the data subject with any information referred to in Articles 13 and 14 and any communications pursuant to Articles 15–22 and 34 relating to processing in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language, in particular for any information addressed specifically to a child. Therefore, the information shall be provided in writing, or by other means, including, where appropriate, by electronic means. When requested by the data subject, the information may be provided orally, provided that the identity of the data subject is proven by other means. Last but not least, information or communication should, as a rule, be provided free of charge. Throughout the article, on the basis of the doctrine and case law, the meaning of the notions used by the European legislator in Articles 5, 12, 13 and 14 of the General Data Protection Regulation will be explained. -
Although the European Union’s activities hardly integrate into the civilist logic of the „illicit legal act”, its non-contractual liability is triggered in particular for what the doctrine generically calls „behaviours” considered to be illegal. Even under this generous hypothesis, the Union liability can only be engaged under very strict conditions, less established by the Treaties and, rather, by the judge in Luxembourg, on the basis of some rules that discourage the litigants, limiting the possibility, in procedural and material terms, to bring such actions. The jurisdiction to settle the disputes concerning non-contractual liability of EU exclusively pertains to the European Unional jurisdictions, by applying Article 268 TFEU, which necessarily implies that the non-contractual liability of the Union must be engaged solely on the basis and under the conditions of EU law. Such an argument is fundamentally justified by the fact that engaging this liability very often implies that the scope of application is an appreciation of the Union’s policy, which is why the exclusion of the competence of any national jurisdiction appears to be natural. -
At this moment, the question of the application of the more favorable criminal law, as compared to the previous Criminal Code, of the existence of the transitional situations, of the comparative analysis of the criminalization norms of the current Criminal Code and of the provisions of the previous Criminal Code is less and less raised, but not all decisions pronounced by the High Court of Cassation and Justice in appeal in the interest of the law before 1 February 2014 have lost their applicability, as the opinions expressed in the specialised literature, regarding the different criminalization norms, in their evolution over time, are still of interest, both from a theoretical and a practical point of view. Although it entered into force relatively recently, the Criminal Code has undergone a series of changes, in its content, especially in the special part, either by criminalizing new acts, or by increasing the special punishment limits, or by introducing new aggravated variants of the already existing crimes. Considering the multitude of normative acts by which the provisions of the special part were amended and supplemented, we consider it necessary to analyze the way of drafting the various norms, having as a reference point also the various opinions from the recent specialized literature, with regard thereto. -
Guaranteeing the right to defence is a fundamental principle under the Romanian criminal procedure law. Although it has strong constitutional and criminal procedure guarantees, however, its practical implementation is in some cases misinterpreted and, on the other hand, the prosecution bodies violate it sometimes, the consequence being the discrediting of the judicial process. The present article refers to jurisprudence in two cases where the defender’s right to question the opposing party and to inspect the prosecution file is restricted without legal basis. -
Entrusting personal property to view and verify its operation does not constitute a waiver of its possession or detention, and the appropriation of someone else’s stuff touch-and-go in his grip stands for a fraudulent possession, which, without the consent of the victim, with strict reference to the stuff’s acquisition and not otherwise, shall be construed as crime of theft and not crime of fraud. -
By Decision No 405/2016, the Romanian Constitutional Court (CCR) ruled that the provisions of Article 297 (1) of the Criminal Code (misfeasance in office or misconduct in office) are constitutional only if the sentence „fulfils wrongfully” has the meaning of „fulfils by breaching the law”. However, in more than two years from the publication of this Constitutional Court Decision, it is worth to notice that the jurisprudence of the criminal courts knows diametrically opposed interpretations. In one opinion, the Decision is interpreted as of the utmost generality, while a second opinion regards the CCR provisions as being of strict interpretation, whereas for the existence of the respective criminal offence is necessary that the public servant breach one of the laws that govern his activity or at least a provision that is part of its duties in office. The article presents the jurisprudence of the Romanian courts related to the crime of „misfeasance in office” while examining it in the light of the requirements of the principle of legality and of the CCR Decision considerations.
-
-
Luarea măsurii recoltării de probe biologice de la inculpatul condamnat, chiar și pentru una dintre infracțiunile indicate expres în anexa la Legea nr. 76/2008 privind organizarea și funcționarea Sistemului Național de Date Genetice Judiciare (în continuare S.N.D.G.J.), în vederea determinării profilului genetic și înscrierii în S.N.D.G.J. este o măsură facultativă.
-
At the conclusion of the individual labour contract it can be established, as provided in Article 31 of the Labour Code, a probation period. The legislator has established only the maximum duration of the probation period; specifically, the duration of the probation period is agreed upon in the individual labour contract, when negotiating the clauses. The probation period cannot be modified, being established upon the conclusion of the individual labour contract, but it can be suspended. In the case of the probation period, the dismissal procedure is limited only to the written notification, which must not be motivated, without other obligations for the employer, not even granting a notice period, nor carrying out the procedure of evaluation of the employee.
-
As the author herself states, the purpose of this study is to identify the sources of the international law which grounds the interdiction of the „hate speech”, as well as the manner of their perception and application at European level, particularly in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. In this respect there are presented: the foundations of the interdiction of the „hate speech” at universal and European level; the elements analyzed in this respect by the European Court of Human Rights (reference to the context of the speech; instigation to hatred on grounds of race and religion; negativistic and revisionist speech); the regulations adopted by the Council of Europe and by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance; the normative framework of the European Union on racism and xenophobia, and, finally, the reference of the current Romanian criminal legislation to international exigences. -
