-
1. Principiul nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. Reguli generale. Drepturile fundamentale fac parte integrantã din principiile generale de drept a cãror respectare este asiguratã de cãtre instanțele europene în cauzele de concurențã, ținând cont în special de Convenția (europeanã) pentru apãrarea drepturilor omului și a libertãților fundamentale (în continuare denumitã Convenția) ca sursã de inspirație. -
This article aims to bring forward the essential regulations covered by Law no. 52/2011 on the exercise of occasional activities carried out by day-laborers. In this respect, we shall focus on the legal nature of the agreement concluded between the day-laborer and the beneficiary – i.e. civil service agreement - on its distinctive features, but also on the rights and obligations of the parties. -
The author, in the above mention study, makes a general analysis of Law no. 71/2011 for the implementation of Law no. 287/2009 regarding the Civil Code. In the author’s opinion, Law no. 71/2011 is an extremely valuable legislative act, which ensures very good conditions, not just the understanding and application of the new Civil Code (which entered into force on 1 October 2011), but also the “transition” from the previous Civil Code (from, 1865) to the new ones. -
Meeting the practical needs and views expressed in recent doctrine of constitutional law, amendments to the Code of criminal procedure under Law no. 177/2010 stand for an important step in streamlining the justice process in Romania and its harmonization with EU standards. In this article, the authors review amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure under Law no. 177/2010, in terms of effects arising from repeal of paragraph 6 of Art. 303 C. Cr. Pr., wording stipulating mandatory suspension of trial proceedings in the case of referral to the Constitutional Court to settle the constitutional challenge. Simultaneously, in this article there are also set forth and considered issues of novelty arising from the introduction within the two procedure codes of a new review case, aiming at restoring legality, just for the cases where the final decision in a case was grounded upon a statutory provision subsequently deemed unconstitutional.
-
In 2010, considering the deadline for the entry into force of new procedure codes, there arose the need to establish procedural rules with immediate effect, under way for the implementation of codes and consistent with legislative solutions established thereupon, so as to smooth efficient enforcement of court proceedings and expedient settlement of cases. The Law regarding some measures aiming at the celerity of cases’ settlement no. 202/2010 frames a series of specific legislative measures, mainly pointing to simplify and increase the celerity of cases’ settlement, with direct impact on the execution of judgments, as well. In the study hereby, the authors analyze, from an applied perspective mainly, amendments and completions to the Code of Criminal Procedure under Law no. 202/2010 on the celerity of cases’ settlement. As regards the general part domain of the Criminal Procedure Code, there have been highlighted a series of situations, resulting from the introduction of the mediation agreement as basis for settling the criminal or the civil case, from the rethinking of the material competence of courts or from express regulation of specific cases on conflict of jurisdiction arisen during the criminal prosecution. Other comments concern completions brought in the field of evidence management, application of the institution of preventive measures’ cessation by right, or relating to enforcement of peremptory writ of mandate, payment of court fees and court fines. As a general observation, since legal provisions under review are at the beginning of their application, and the subject covered is very wide ranging, the work developed by the two authors could not set its purpose neither on their exhaustive analysis, nor on the issue, in all cases, of conclusions claimed as legal certainty, but rather attempted to bring to the attention of practitioners working hypotheses, problems that may arise and their possible solutions. -
This study is dedicated to the Special Part of the Criminal Procedure Code, in terms of the amendments brought by Law No. 202/2010, with reference to criminal prosecution, judgment on the merits, ordinary and extraordinary means of challenge, enforcement decisions or special judgment procedures. The study contains equally an analysis of the new regulations introduced in the field of recourse in the interest of the law. The text comments concerning the referral of the case to another Prosecutor’ Office, the information of the next hearing date, the judgment in case of admittance of guilt, the limits of the recourse judgment, the procedure in case of review can be indicated as examples. For an easier understanding of the study, the sequence of the analyzed legal regulations complies with both the structure of the Criminal Procedure Code, and with the chronology of the texts of the amending laws. Otherwise, given the fact that the work is especially addressing practitioners in criminal law and in criminal procedural law and given the fact that, for reasons of economy of the publishing space, the amended or amending texts were only rarely and partially reproduced, authors believe that the latter should be concomitantly available for a complete understanding of the study. With special reference to the contents of the second part of the study, emphasis needs to be placed on the fact that the work tried to highlight both the progressive and positively innovating provisions in the criminal procedure, and certain errors, non-compliances or legislative omissions or potential lack of correlation with the constitutional provisions. CUMPĂRĂ ACUM -
The article presents the nullities in the Criminal Procedure Code and supports the necessity to regulate the virtual nullities through a common provision, allowing the appeal court to cancel the sentence of the court of first instance and to send the case back for re-examination to the court whose judgment has been cancelled, when the challenged sentence is annulled and the court examining the merits is required to give another sentence. -
Pentru motivele pe care le vom detalia în continuare, ne vom pronunța de la început în legătură cu problemele anunțate în titlu și vom afirma că este necesară revizuirea Constituției, dar, deocamdată, nu este oportună. Este necesară deoarece exercitarea puterii politico-etatice pe baza Constituției, pe parcursul a mai bine de 22 de ani, a întâmpinat dificultăți determinate de modul laconic sau deficitar de reglementare care, la rândul său, a condus la interpretarea diferită, uneori contrară, a unor reguli constituționale de către principalii actori politici, de contradicția dintre unele texte constituționale, de lipsa existenței unor principii clar formulate privind organizarea și exercitarea puterii politice, de căderea în desuetudine a unor reguli sau principii juridice înscrise în legea fundamentală, de caracterul confuz al unor reglementări, de integrarea României în Uniunea Europeană și consecințele acestui fapt pe planul exercitării puterii etc. -
Within this paper, the author makes a brief review of the background, respectively of the grounds of the Decision No 363/2015 of the Constitutional Court, and afterwards he stops to analyze the effects of this decision on the criminal trials ongoing at the date when the mentioned decision is pronounced. In relation to the exigences imposed by the principle of legality of incrimination and to the fact that the text declared unconstitutional has incriminated for the first time a certain conduct as an offence, the failure to reconcile, within the legal time limit, the incrimination text with the provisions of the Constitution of Romania, republished, has the value of a decriminalization. -
In this article the author expresses his opinion according to which the provisions of Article 10 of Law No 187/2012 and of Article 39 (1) b) and c) of the Criminal Code are contrary to the Constitution of Romania, republished, as well as to the European standard in the matter, namely the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. -
Following a critical study of the provisions of the Government Ordinance No 121/1998 on the material liability of the military, the author points out that this normative act is contrary to Article 73 (3) j), Article 118 (2), (3) of the Constitution. The juridical reasoning is based on the standard imposed by the case law of the Constitutional Court in respect of the status of the public officers and of the military staff, the author emphasising the necessity to adopt an organic law/several organic laws to regulate the material liability of the military staff and of the public officers within the Ministry of National Defence, Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Romanian Intelligence Service, the Protection and Guard Service, the Foreign Intelligence Service, the Special Telecommunications Service and the Ministry of Justice. -
The article’s author attempts to identify and customize various approaches on the groundlessness or illegality of the procedure to request and issue audio and video interception and recording releases, both within the criminal procedure field and within the national security field, suggesting a fortiori customized penalties or remedies - where appropriate –. The purpose of the analysis is to eliminate any mistakes or even abuses that may occur during the approval of hidden research means mentioned above, as well as to guarantee everyone’s right to respect for private and family life.
