-
Personality’s rights are non-patrimonial rights, inherent to the natural person, in the sense that they are directly attached to and inseparable from the real man, and they serve to the free development of his personality. The new Civil Code regulates the following rights of the personality: right to life, right to health, right to physical and mental integrity, right to dignity, right to respect for private life, right to his own image, identification attributes of the natural person, and the right to dispose of oneself. They can be grouped in two categories: rights that protect the human body and its biological functions, and rights that protect moral values. The first category of rights is governed by three principles: the principle of inviolability of the human body (which may suffer certain exceptions); the principle of non-patrimoniality of the human body, and the principle of the priority of interest and of the good of the human being. The rights which protect moral values have a content determined by their relation to a series of generic notions, incompatible with a precise definition, such as freedom, honor, private life, respect, for which reason the Romanian lawmaker strove to contour such notions; as well as by the regulation of some of the deeds which may impair such rights. Some of the personality’s rights may suffer limitations, which are imposed either by the necessity to protect some major public values, or by the exercise of other persons’ similar rights. -
Intellectual work originality is the essence of copyright. But in fact, the level of assessment for the condition of originality – in consideration of granting protection – is a sensitive, fluid, controversial, and interpretable issue, etc. In the light of international and Romanian copyright legislation, this study aims to clarify a number of difficult issues, controversies regarding the literary work’s originality.
-
Plea of breach of the contract which was unregulated in the previous Romanian Civil Code (of 1864) is expressly established in the new Romanian Civil Code (entered into force on 1 October 2011) in the two paragraphs of art. 1556 stating that, under the rule of the previous Civil Code, legal doctrine and jurisprudence have regained the role of developing the general theory concerning the plea referred to above. Given the above, the author of the study analyzes in detail: the definition, historical development and comparative law issues relating to the plea of breach of contract, the conditions for exercising this plea and its effects and, in the end, she also makes brief conclusions.
-
The author carries out a detailed analysis of the legal content of the offense to establish an organized criminal group, referred to in art. 367 of the new Criminal Code. After characterizing the concepts of criminalization and the aspects of novelty in the text of art. 367, under the rules in force, are examined in detail: object of criminal protection, subjects, objective and subjective side, forms, terms and punishments stipulated by law. Complementary explanations address the links of this criminal offense with other crimes, and certain procedural aspects. Then, this incrimination rule legislative precedents and the solutions to be followed in case of transitional circumstances are highlighted. Also, the author does not hesitate to express his point of view regarding the constituent content of this criminal offense, its systematization, its nature, and to frame some solutions and ideas of his own in this regard. The end of this analysis presents several conclusions and proposals concerning the law that is to come into force regarding the setting out of the appropriate protection of social values this incrimination concerns, a uniform application of the purport and thus better administration of criminal justice in Romania.
-
Comprised in the study presented hereafter, starting from the abbreviated provision of article no. 46 from Law no. 8/1996 concerning the ordering agreement, the author analyzes from a critical point of view these provisions in relation to other provisions comprised within the special law, and also to those by the Civil code (Law no. 287/2009). The legal provisions referred to herein are digested by means of exemplifying case studies from internal, and European jurisprudence. Therewith, the author emphasizes the controversial points of view from the professional community belonging to well-known writers, and subsequently states personal opinions regarding the approached subjects.
-
În peisajul jurisprudențial conturat după intrarea în vigoare a actualului Cod civil1, ne reține atenția o hotărâre2 pronunțată relativ recent de Secția a II-a civilă a Înaltei Curți de Casație și de Justiție a României în materia răspunderii civile delictuale a comitentului pentru fapta prepusului său, în funcțiile încredințate, care prin argumentele prezentate oferă o nouă perspectivă privind problematica atât de controversată din ultimele decenii privind natura juridică și fundamentul acestei ipoteze de răspundere. Deși datele speței se referă la o faptă ilicită săvârșită în anul 2005, fiind în discuție modul de interpretare a dispozițiilor art. 1000 alin. 3 din Codul civil din 1864, prin hotărârea pronunțată, Înalta Curte de Casație și de Justiție își însușește noua orientare propusă în doctrina noastră privind necesitatea recunoașterii caracterului direct, autonom și independent al răspunderii comitentului, în raport cu răspunderea prepusului său, precum și fundamentarea obiectivă a acestei răspunderi pe ideea de garanție, ideea de risc și ideea de echitate.
-
This study tends to be a partly critical analysis of the provisions of Article 117 of the Civil Procedure Code, and also an approach to bring to the attention of „doctrinarians”, „judges” and, especially, of the „legislator” the existence of a legislative gap in respect of the exclusive territorial jurisdiction of the courts in the situation that „disputes referring to real rights concern two or more estates located in the territorial districts of different courts”.
-
As compared to the former civil enactment which established a special immovable property privilege of architects, entrepreneurs, stonemen and other workers employed to build, rebuild or repair edifices, canals or other works, the new Romanian Civil Code provides a legal real estate mortgage for architects and entrepreneurs who have agreed with the owner to build, rebuild or repair a building. Beyond a slight restriction of the scope of application, the Romanian legislator has opted for a simplification of the conditions of recognition of the legal guarantee, which is praiseworthy and useful for the practice. However, the lapidary drafting of the normative texts does not provide answers to all the questions that the practitioners may ask themselves. The author has attempted in this paper to provide an image as accurate as possible of these questions, with the mention that the most important is the need for a fast answer (from the legislator or from the doctrine) to the question whether this legal mortgage guarantees only the payment of some amounts of money or also of any other type of claim which could represent the price of works contract. The issue essentially and immediately affects the scope of application of the guarantee and, consequently, a solution is required in order to ensure the predictability necessary for the economic circuit.
-
Unlike the old Civil Code, in the system of the new Civil Code (NCC) the assignment of claim enjoys a superior regulation, including as regards the problems of the publicity formalities stricto sensu. In this regard, the publicity formalities towards third parties, separate from those necessary for informing the assigned debtor, provide the possibility of taking knowledge about the assignment by any person concerned (successive assignees, mortgage creditors, pursuing creditors etc.). In principle, the assignment becomes opposable against third parties only from the moment of registration in the Electronic Archive for Security Interests in Movable Property [Article 1583 (2) of NCC]. This is the general rule of common law, from which the law also provides exceptions when considering the nature or the source of the assigned claim. The main exceptions refer to the assignments of real estate incomes and to the seizure of a real estate mortgage claim, which are noted in the land register [Article 902 (2) points 6 and 15 of NCC]. From the date of registration of the assignment in the public register, the assignee’s rights, that is the claim right and all its ancillary rights, including movable property and real estate mortgages, become opposable to third parties. The sanction of non-registration is the non-opposability of the assignment against the third parties concerned.
-
Prin natura sa, omul reprezintă cea mai complexă și dinamică expresie a vieții. Știința și religia, încă și acum, în contemporaneitate, își dispută apartenența nașterii sau creației divine a acestuia. Credem că acum are loc cea mai mare schimbare a mentalității, prin acceptarea unei singure perspective asupra genezei noastre, ceea ce constituie revoluția în evoluția creației umanității. Justiția privită din perspectiva conceptului este abstractă, însă ceea ce îi conferă viață este judecătorul.
-
Based on art. 6 para. 1 of the (European) Convention of human rights and fundamental freedoms and art. 21 para. (3) of the Romanian Constitution (revised and republished), the author reviews numerous texts in the new (Romanian) Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 134/2010, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, No. 485 of July 15th, 2010, yet unenforced), which implements, specifically, the principle of the right to a fair trial within optimal and predictable delay.
-
The herein study strives to concentrate the main theses developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the right to paid annual leave. Starting from these premises, it aims to detect the interferences and the effects of European jurisprudence on Romanian national law, with a special view on the practical protection of the right to paid annual leave, in both of its components, the entitlement to annual leave and to a payment on that account. The underlying of the carry-over period’s function represents the basis of the conclusions regarding the necessity for a rigorous distinction between the causes of non-exercise of the right to annual leave by the employee, consequently, reflecting in the different judicial solutions. From the point of view of the Romanian procedural law, the study underlines the need to amend the law regarding the limitation period of the right to action in court for the protection of the non-material component of the right analysed, in order to meet the imperative of full harmonization with the European law.
