-
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.
-
As a rule, in the countries of the European Union, for example in France, Italy, Spain, England, the cancellation of the dismissal does not lead to the reintegration of the employees at work. However, they are entitled to compensation, to damages, etc. established by the judge within the limits provided by law. In our country the situation is different. Regardless of the reason for the dismissal, whether it is related or not to the employee’s person, the court, at his request, shall order, in case of cancellation of the employer’s measure, the reintegration at work, regardless of the fact that position exists or not, the position being abolished, or if the employee has committed serious disciplinary misconducts: he has systematically violated the work obligations, had an unexcused leave of absence for a long period of time, has purloined goods from the patrimony of the employer or caused important damages thereto, etc. There are considerations for which it is required the amendment of Article 80 (2) of the Labour Code, rendering it more flexible, in the sense of taking into account the present realities, the needs of the practice and the real and justified interests of the employers.
-
The legal liability is one of the main issues regarding the responsibility in administrative law. Therefore, the legal liability is able to exercise influence upon our society to some extent only by identifying the person responsible for ignoring the social values protected by law, in order to establish his/her liability. Let us stress upon the fact that the effectiveness of legal liability may determine, to a greater or a smaller extent, the establishment, re-establishment and even the survival of the rule of law. The society is more likely to take into consideration the legal liability, referring to the social and political background of these days, as well, if the liability is being applied to the civil servant or to an agent of public power, meaning a person who exercises a public function. What about the situation in which the person who is going to be held responsible for breaking the law and, therefore, being held liable for this fact is, directly or indirectly, even the creator of the law, being at the same time both part of the dominant fund and to the serviced/controlled fund? Does the above-mentioned situation supposes an antagonism in declaring responsible precisely the one who created the notion and, therefore, the premise of responsibility or, on the contrary, the antagonism would be precisely the irresponsibility of the entitled one, also, to create the right and to apply it, thus ensuring the protection of values, which establishes the base of its very existence?
-
Introducing Article 1282 (2) created a new dimension in the new Civil Code as regards the application of the groups of contracts, as well as the transmission of accessories with the main asset on the descending or even ascending line of the contract chain. At the same time, the text of the law is the legal basis for formulating a direct action in guarantee which, as we shall see in the present study, is in some cases complemented by other express texts of law referring to particular cases of transmission of a right to action within the group of contracts. In the present study, we attempted to make a comparative analysis between the assignment of contract and the assignment of ancillary contractual rights or obligations, since, although the two transactions are similar, it also presents many differences that need to be highlighted. At the same time, we made a brief leap in common law, as well as European law on the notion of assignment of contractual accessories. Though, the subject is far from being covered by the present study, we consider that we have reached the main points on what Article 1282 (2) in the new Civil Code establishes, as well as its practical effects, and the comparative perspective with English, Scottish, Spanish, German and, last but not least, European law clarifies or strengthens some aspects as regards the rationale for the introduction of the text.
-
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).
