-
Located within Chapter VI of the Criminal Code that criminalizes criminal offences against the person’s freedom, the criminal offence of threat provided by Article 206 appears on the background of the protection of the mental freedom of persons. The thorough analysis of the crime will reveal some aspects regarding different theories of interpretation of the law that can be objectified also in practical situations. Also, the interpretation of the criminal offence highlights certain aspects regarding the fear of the person, the manner of committing the crime, the threat of a harmful act, the correlation with the crime of outrage and judicial outrage, as well as some differences from the crime of blackmail. Therefore, in the framework of highlighting some opinions or observations on them, it can be delimited the offence of threat much easier compared to other offences, but it can also constitute a useful legal instrument during the stages of criminal liability of the offender, as well as for the improvement of the text of law by the legislator. -
The offence of favouring of the perpetrator has evolved along the successive regulations in terms of area of incrimination, both with reference to the criminal activities incriminated, but also with reference to the favoured persons. According to the new provisions of criminal law, it is incriminated under this name the favouring of any person who has committed a deed provided by the criminal law, which does not necessarily have to meet the requirements in order to be considered an offence, and it is also incriminated only personal favouring, not the real one, consisting of the aid given in order to ensure the product of the offence for the perpetrator. The offence of favouring the perpetrator has an autonomous nature in relation to the offence committed by the favoured person and has a subsidiary nature in relation to other offences, the aid given to a perpetrator receiving the qualification of favouring only when other legal provisions do not incriminate special assumptions of favouring. -
The new Criminal Code of Romania brings numerous novelties within the scope of incrimination in the Romanian criminal law and, as compared to the previous regulation, it provides, in the text of Article 276, the sanctioning of the deed of a person who, during ongoing judicial proceedings, makes false public statements concerning the commission, by the judge or by the criminal prosecution authorities, of an offence or a serious disciplinary misconduct related to the processing of that case, in order to influence or intimidate such authorities. -
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.
