-
The presentation of the new civil law regulations in our country provides us with the opportunity for introspection in the legislations, case law and doctrine of other countries from which our lawmaker inspired. An example in this respect is the « administration of the property of others » which is an institution taken over from the Civil Code of the Quebec Province, Canada. From this perspective, the authors considered necessary and useful to make a presentation of the evolution and content of the institution in the « Québécois » Civil Code, in the current stage of reform in our country. They mention the civillaw nature of the legal system in this Canadian province and the work of its civil code re-codification, which was completed in 1994. The central subject of the article is the administration of the property of others, with the presentation of the administrator, the beneficiary, the forms of administration, as well as its termination. The authors briefly mention legislative provisions in this field in other countries as well. Moreover, under the analysis regarding the general nature of the regulation regarding the administration of the property of others, the authors also emphasized other provisions of the new Civil Code referring to this institution, such as the investments considered safe, the trust, the guardianship of a minor child, the taking-over of mortgaged property. The authors emphasize the importance of relating to the doctrine and case law belonging to the legislative system from which the new regulations in our Civil Code come and their adjustment to the social-legal life in Romania, taking into consideration its particularities. -
Soluția legislativă cuprinsă în art. 345 alin. (1) din Codul de procedură penală, care nu permite judecătorului de cameră preliminară, în soluționarea cererilor și excepțiilor formulate ori excepțiilor ridicate din oficiu, să administreze alte mijloace de probă în afara „oricăror înscrisuri noi prezentate”, este neconstituțională. (Curtea Constituțională a României, Decizia nr. 802/2017 – cu notă aprobativă) -
The new Civil Procedure Code brings some amendments in the procedure of administration of evidence by lawyers, introduced in the Civil Procedure Code of 1865 by the Government Emergency Ordinance No 138/2000. This study details this procedure trying to anticipate a few of the problems that may arise in the judicial practice at the time of using this modality of administration of evidence in the civil lawsuit. -
In Romania, the former Code of Civil Procedure (of 1865, republished in 1948 and amended and supplemented many times since then) with effect from February 1st, 2013 will be repealed and replaced by the current Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 134/2010, republished on August 3rd, 2012). The topic of producing evidence in the new Code of Civil Procedure is being approached in this study; its authors believe that the new Code has not made essential amendments to the provisions relating to producing evidence, but only a number of additions in some areas such as: trial investigation; selection of the producing evidence procedure; the place of the trial investigation (in closed session and not in open court); producing evidence etc. -
Faptul că procurorul nu și-a manifestat opțiunea de a menține dispoziția de trimitere în judecată sau de a solicita restituirea cauzei într-un termen de 5 zile, în condițiile art. 345 alin. (3) C.pr.pen., nu îl decade din dreptul de a formula contestație în condițiile art. 347 alin. (1) C.pr.pen., în lipsa unor dispoziții legale exprese, și solicita începerea judecății în contextul constatării legalității sesizării instanței, a administrării probelor și a efectuării actelor de urmărire penală (cu notă aprobativă).
-
Calea de atac a contestației poate fi exercitată, în condițiile art. 347 C.pr.pen., inclusiv atunci când niciun participant la procesul penal nu a formulat cereri sau ridicat excepții în procedura camerei preliminare. În acest scop, încheierea prin care judecătorul finalizează procedura de cameră preliminară trebuie comunicată participanților, eventuala omisiune putând fi revelată inclusiv în calea de atac a apelului, cu consecința regresării procedurii din faza judecății în faza camerei preliminare (cu notă aprobativă). -
Appeal for annulment – extraordinary remedy at law under the current Criminal Procedure Code and the new Code of Criminal Procedure – may be exercised against final judgments pronounced by the last instance of judicial control provided there are certain cases expressly mentioned and that it is filed in a given period. Final judgments may also concern other aspects adjacent to criminal proceedings, for example, taking, retention or reversal of preventive measures or enforcement of a European arrest warrant. In such cases, taking into account that the law of criminal procedure does not provide other terms of admissibility, under the dictum “Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus”, the author considers that the appeal for annulment extraordinary remedy at law may be exercised in such cases as well; the case law solution stating that the appeal for annulment is admissible only against final judgments resolving the case merits is therefore illegal.
-
The application of ancillary intervention submitted in favour of the authority that has issued the individual administrative act is admissible in the actions in administrative disputes having as object the suspension of this type of acts, to the extent to which the third party intervening in a trial between the original parties is able to prove the practical benefit which he obtains as a consequence of pronouncing a solution favourable to the party in whose favour it intervenes. The necessity to prove that the condition of imminent damage is fulfilled by the applicant who considers himself injured, by the individual administrative act whose suspension is requested, does not confer this action a personal nature, in such a way as to be incompatible with the institution of ancillary intervention.
-
Instanța de control judiciar a decis că sesizarea formulată de judecătorul delegat cu executarea, întemeiată pe dispozițiile art. 583–585 C.pr.pen., este admisibilă și, în consecință, se va proceda mai întâi la anularea suspendării sub supraveghere a executării pedepselor aplicate pentru fapte aflate în concurs și, în continuare, în mod logico-juridic, se va proceda la contopirea acestor pedepse (cu notă aprobativă). -
In principle, the confession is admissible as means of evidence in all the matters for which the civil processual law represents the common law of the procedure and for which there is no separate procedure. Exceptionally, the confession is not admissible: when it is expressly prohibited by law; whether, by admitting it, the imperative provisions of the law would be eluded; if the law requires that certain facts be proved only by certain means of evidence; if, by admitting it, one could reach to total or partial loss of a right which may not be waived or may not be subject to a transaction. The judicial confession shall be given by means of cross-examination, as reflected by Articles 351–358 of the Civil Procedure Code. Obviously, it is a question of provoked judicial confession, whereas the spontaneous judicial confession does not require any prior preparation and, as such, it does not require an express regulation. Instead, the written extrajudicial confession is subject to the regime of proof of evidence through written documents, and the extrajudicial verbal confession may be attested by witnesses, if the law allows the testimonial evidence. The legislator of the new Civil Procedure Code expressly establishes the principle of indivisibility of the judicial confession and, at the same time, he provides an exception from this principle, namely the situation in which the judicial confession contains separate facts not connected between them. In this study there are elaborated the ideas presented above -
The regulation (Article 226) of the new Criminal Procedure Code has a corresponding regulation in the provisions of Article 1371 paragraph 1 and Article 1491 paragraphs 9–11 of the previous Criminal Procedure Code (1968), with an exception: the duration of the remand on custody will no longer be deducted from the duration of the preventive detention. The authors analyze the institution of admission of the proposal of preventive detention of the defendant during the criminal prosecution, by presenting some critical aspects and by proposing some improvements to the new regulation. -
Article 42 (3) of the Annex to the Order of the Minister of National Defence No M.110/2009 is a true legal innovation because it extends the scope of the liability for medical malpractice to hotel obligations (specific to the tenancy contract) within the content of the medical contract, but, at the same time, reduces the sphere of liable persons down to the military physician (treating physician and section chief), by exceeding the express legal limits of the liability of the physician and actually taking over not only the entire medical liability of the military hospital, but also of the medical equipment producers and of the suppliers of utilities of the military hospital.
