-
The author debates on the issue of ratione materiae jurisdiction in settling disputes on unemployment allowance assessment and payment regulated by Law no. 76/2002, given that the aforementioned law relates only generically to material jurisdiction of courts, i.e. cases as such are settled by “relevant” courts’ jurisdiction under the law. Undertaking a thorough analysis of purports of Law no. 76/2002, the Code of Civil Procedure, and Law no. 168/1999 on labor disputes, the author concludes that, in this particular case, the relevant jurisdiction lies with the tribunal the plaintiff’s residence / headquarters in registered with, and not the judicial court of law. -
The present paper makes a critical analysis of the legal norms regarding the validity of the mandates of the local elected counselors’, putting into evidence the way in which a procedure, that must be by excellence a juridical one, was changed into an instrument for the achievement of the political interests of some election competitors. The study demonstrates that the self – assessment procedure of the departmental counselors’ mandates and of the local ones, introduced by modifying the law of the local public administration authorities’ election, within several days before the general election in June 2008, is contrary to the constitutional principles and of the rules that must govern a state of law. The author does not make only simple critical remarks, but he also presents solutions for entering into legality, by settling validation competences of t6he departmental and local counselors, by the courts, according to the procedure applied to the other local elected persons.
-
Preliminarily, the above study states the classification of interest in the Romanian Civil Law, according to the criterion of interest cause or in relation to the interest rate function. Further, the author reviews in detail - by comparing one to the other, as well - the moratory interest and the compensatory interest in the Romanian Civil Law (both the current Civil Code and the new Romanian Civil Code, published on July 24th, 2007, yet unenforced).
-
In compliance with art. 24 para. 2 of Law no. 130/1996 regarding the collective bargaining agreement (republished on May 19th, 1998), the nullity of the collective bargaining agreement clauses “is ascertained by the relevant court at the instance of the interested party.” The issue reviewed by the author of the above-mentioned research is whether the active procedural legitimation under such circumstances enjoy only parties that, lawfully, conclude collective bargaining agreements (the labor union represented, where appropriate, by the union representative or employees’ representative and management, respectively) or active procedural legitimation (i.e., any employee may be qualified as plaintiff, acting, therefore, ut singuli). The author judges that judicious interpretation of purport of art. 24 para. 2 of Law no. 130/1996 bears negational value (why ut singuli employee is deprived of such right), enjoying none but requiring the representative trade union / employees’ representatives to take legal proceedings.
-
Starting from a finding of the relevant division within the European Commission (i.e., in present-day Europe, women earn on average 17.8% of men’s earnings for the same jobs), the author conducts an extensive and interesting analysis on legislation encompassing primary law (treaties) and secondary law (regulations, directives) of the European Union, as well as on the jurisprudence of the European Union Court of Justice regarding the prohibition of discrimination between men and women in terms of remuneration (salary) (income gender gap). In this context, the author reviews the Romanian legislation and the Romanian Constitutional Court’s resolutions on this issue, altogether.
-
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.
-
Considering, on the one hand, a number of projects for the unification of European law, adopted in last decades (Unidroit Principles, Principles of European Contract Law, European Code of Contracts, The Common Reference Framework etc.) and, on the other hand, a series of legal reasoning arguments, the author discusses at length some questionable terminology choices in the new Romanian Civil Code (Law no. 287/2009, published on July 24th, 2009, yet unenforced), for instance: invasion of right to privacy rather than breach of this right; no legal distinction sensed between duty and obligation, between damage and injury; between the object of the obligation and the contract’s subject matter; there are references to the object of the obligation instead of impossibility of provision etc.
-
Potrivit art. 226 alin. (5) C.pen., plasarea, fără drept, de mijloace tehnice de înregistrare audio sau video, în scopul săvârșirii faptelor prevăzute în alin. (1) și alin. (2), se pedepsește cu închisoarea de la unu la 5 ani. Conform art. 207 alin. (1) C.pen., constrângerea unei persoane să dea, să facă, să nu facă sau să sufere ceva, în scopul de a dobândi în mod injust un folos nepatrimonial, pentru sine ori pentru altul, se pedepsește cu închisoarea de la unu la 5 ani. Potrivit art. 291 alin. (1) C.pen., pretinderea, primirea ori acceptarea promisiunii de bani sau alte foloase, direct sau indirect, pentru sine sau pentru altul, săvârșită de către o persoană care are influență sau lasă să se creadă că are influență asupra unui funcționar public și care promite că îl va determina pe acesta să îndeplinească, să nu îndeplinească, să urgenteze ori să întârzie îndeplinirea unui act ce intră în îndatoririle sale de serviciu sau să îndeplinească un act contrar acestor îndatoriri, se pedepsește cu închisoarea de la 2 la 7 ani (cu notă parțial aprobativă).
-
The promotion and protection of the rights of the child has always been one of the main objectives of the European Union, but it is also a result of international commitments. All Member States of the European Union have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the rules and principles of this Convention guide the policies and the actions of the Union that impact on the rights of the child. The Lisbon Treaty has conferred greater importance to the objectives of the European Union, and by Article 3 (3) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child it was explicitly established the imperative obligation to promote the protection of the rights of the child. In addition, the rights of the children are enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which by Article 24 recognizes children as independent and autonomous holders of rights, also considering the best interest of the child as paramount in relations with the public authorities and the private institutions. The transposition of the European and international objectives, as well as of the fundamental principles referring to the protection of the rights of the child took place naturally through the adoption of new national regulations reflecting the acquiescence of Romania to the European objectives and its constant concern for the protection of the rights of the child. However, in many cases there are encountered in practice situations where, although there are both the legal basis and the mechanisms necessary for its implementation, the rights of the children are not respected and/or are not given due importance. This paper aims to draw attention once again to the essential rights of children and to emphasize the fundamental principles referring to the promotion and protection of rights of the children, with particular regard to the principle of the best interest of the child, as regulated at European level.
-
The article presents theoretical and practical aspects regarding the exclusion of evidence in the preliminary chamber, taking into account the Decision of the Constitutional Court No 22 of 18 January 2018 regarding the plea of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 102 (3), Article 345 (3) and Article 346 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, by which the plea of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 102 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code was admitted and it was found that they are constitutional insofar as the phrase „exclusion of evidence”, therein, means also the elimination of the means of evidence from the case file.
-
The problem of the capacity of exercise of the minor patient, deprived of liberty, has relevance for all types of penitentiary police units, which can keep minors in their custody, but also for the public health network, because all these institutions can face the problem of obtaining the consent for the execution of a medical intervention on the minor deprived of liberty. The minor patient in the custody of the penitentiary police enjoys the same autonomy, in relation to the expression of informed consent, as the free minor patient, according to the principle of equivalence, his right to health care being guaranteed, without any discrimination in relation to his legal situation. In reference to the problems regarding the capacity of exercise of the minor deprived of liberty, required for the consent to the medical act, there are applicable both legal norms of civil law, as well as norms of medical law and criminal executional law.
-
The present article aims to analyse the antinomy contravention – offence by studying the incrimination of the deed of disturbance of public order and peace. Thus, the legislator, within Article 2 point 1 of the Law No 61/1991 for sanctioning the acts of violation of certain norms of social coexistence, of the public order and peace, incriminates the contravention consisting in committing in public of obscene deeds, acts or gestures, addressing of insults, offensive or vulgar expressions, threats with acts of violence against persons or their property, which may disturb public order and peace or provoke the indignation of citizens or harm the dignity and honour thereof or public institutions. On the other hand, according to Article 371 of the Criminal Code, the act of the person who, in public, by violence committed against persons or property or by serious threats or injuries to the dignity of the persons, disturbs the public order and peace is punished by imprisonment from 3 months to 2 years or with fine. It is easy to find, comparatively analysing, that there is a parallelism of the incriminations, which extract their vigour from spheres of different legal liability, thus the judicial interpreter having the difficult mission to distinguish the conditions in which the two forms of liability are employed, respectively if both can be retained simultaneously, successively or the application of one of them brings about ipso facto the removal of the other.
