-
Pursuant to Article 914 of the new (Romanian) Civil Code „The owner of the estate recorded in the land register may request at any time the amendment of the mentions in the land register concerning the description, the destination or its surface, according to the law.” In reference to this text, in the case-law there is a controversy, whether, in the first instance, the jurisdiction ratione materiae lies with the court of first instance or with the tribunal. After examining this issue, the author comes to the conclusion that, de lege lata, presently the jurisdiction lies with the tribunal, according to the rule included in this Article 95 point 1 of the new Civil Procedure Code. Likewise, de lege ferenda, the author proposes that such cases fall within the jurisdiction of the court of first instance, having regard to their nature and their reduced complexity. -
In this study, the author, solving a controversy (generated by the imperfection of the relevant regulatory acts) reaches the conclusion (based on a rational interpretation) that the prefect has the legal competence to exert the administrative guardianship control also on the decisions issued by the president of the county council, whether or not the latter is considered as an authority of the local public administration. -
A special normative act [the Government Emergency Ordinance No 109/2011 on the corporate governance of public undertakings (the autonomous regies established by the State or by an administrative-territorial unit, the national firms and companies, the companies in which the State or an administrative-territorial unit is a sole or majority shareholder etc.)] shall also regulate, as an exception, the situation where such a public undertaking is organized as a joint-stock companies with a sole shareholder. Whereas the legal regulation on such companies is incomplete, the author examines, in this study, a series of legal problems generated by the existence and functioning of such companies. -
The present article focuses on the legal liability, having as main character the company administrator and presenting an overview of the the sanction specific to the administrator non-patrimonial liability:the administrator revoking. Concomitantly, the problems occurring in the legal practice are also taken into consideration: decision-making competence and the juridical control of the revoking decision. Due to the intuitu personae character of the mandate, the revoking of the company administrator, even when abusive, is final. So, in practice it was stated that the mandate, even arbitrary withdraw, can not be held in justice against the principle‘s will, the only right the proxy has is the claim damages, but not reintegration, as the trust representing the graunds for the mandate can not be imposed. Also, an administrator can not reguest reintegration but, if abuses were committed, by withdrawing the mandate, the administrator has damage claim. In the situation in which the administrators have been appointed by the article of incorporation, their dismissal presupposes its amendament. That is why, the court can not order the administrator‘revoking, as it would mean the modification of the articles of incorporation. In the condition in which the administrator acquired this quality by the company‘s articles of incorporation, his dismissal does not only have the character of an revokingl but it also represents an amendament of the articles of incorporation. The article also includes a detailed analysis of the opinions expressed in the speciality literature and the solutions in the legal practice for the administrator revoking problem. -
Introducere. La nivel constituțional, principiul referitor la activitatea legii penale a fost consacrat odată cu adoptarea Constituției României din 1991, iar, după revizuirea din anul 2003, principiul a fost extins și cu privire la legea contravențională. Potrivit art. 15 alin. (2) din Constituție, „Legea dispune numai pentru viitor, cu excepția legii penale sau contravenționale mai favorabile.” Transformarea unui principiu legal într-unul constituțional are și importante semnificații juridice, pentru că „neretroactivitatea legii, ca principiu constituțional, este obligatorie pentru toate ramurile de drept, fără excepție, nu numai pentru acelea care îl prevăd explicit. Apoi, în afara excepției stabilite prin Constituție, nicio altă excepție nu poate aduce limitări acestui principiu constituțional, orice alte prevederi legale contrarii trebuind a fi considerate neconstituționale și putând fi atacate pe căile controlului de constituționalitate”1. -
In the practice of the courts there is a controversy on the problem of determining the litigants in the cases regarding the contestation against execution in relation to the sanction of performing a community service activity, whereas the prescription of execution of that sanction has occurred. This study, after stating all the facts, gives a solution therefor. -
The various methods and means used by the offenders committing murder for the purpose of getting away of the victim’s body subsequent to its commitment, provide the authors the occasion to issue certain comments related to the constituent content of the grave violation offence set forth in art 319 of the Criminal Code, in the manner of a body profanation, based upon a non-unitary judicial practice despite the advance of a solution within a recourse in the interest of the law. -
The legislation on the matter of stamp duties, although it should be free of problems of interpretation, is no exception to the fact that the interpretation is the one that generates problems in the application of legal norms. The related controversies reveal that the current regulation inclusive is far from the desideratum to maintain a fair balance between the public interest to collect these budgetary resources in the quantum envisaged by the legislator and the interest of the litigant not to have the relevant legislation interpreted to his detriment. There are difficulties concerning the determination in practice of the actions which the legislator regulates generically by formulating „cash assessable actions and claims”, a phrase used in Article 3 (1) of the Government Emergency Ordinance No 80/2013. The same situation we encounter in the case of applications determined by the phrase „applications not assessable in cash”, phrase used in Article 27 of the Government Emergency Ordinance No 80/2013, with which the legislator intends to cover all the categories of applications not regulated in the previous texts. Other difficulties, revealed inclusively by the decisions of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, concern the interpretation of the phrase „different finality”, used in Article 34 (1) of the Government Emergency Ordinance No 80/2013, for the situation of the actions with multiple claims. Since these three phrases evoke genuine principles underlying the manner of regulation used by the legislator in the matter, by the controversies reviewed, the study argues either the necessity of the minimum approach of defining the terms contained therein by the author of the normative act, or that of rewriting it pursuant to an inventory of the objects of the claims encountered in the judicial practice. This inventory is easy to obtain by the legislator from the courts, with the necessity to update it, after taking over in the normative act of domain, either by the regulations that generate new categories of applications addressed to the justice, or by amending accordingly the normative act having as object exclusively the stamp duty fees. However, this regulatory manner is used by the legislator in the legislation by which it establishes tax obligations, duties and taxes respectively. It is easy to imagine the implications of some norms susceptible to interpretation in this latter matter, which, in essence, has the same nature as the one in question. -
Arbitration is an alternative private jurisdiction to the State jurisdiction, in order to settle civil litigations. The private character of this jurisdiction is marked by the decisive role of the autonomy of will of the parties in the organization and conduct of arbitration, in the establishment of the arbitral tribunal, in which the arbitrators nominated by the parties are not designated by a public authority or by a public institution. The arbitrary source of the arbitration merges with the judicial nature conferred by the judgment pronounced, which enjoys the authority of res judicata and is executed in exactly the same way as any judgment pronounced by a state court. As a result, arbitration has a dual, contractual nature, through its source, and jurisdictional, through the judgment pronounced. In the present study several objectives have been pursued on the subject discussed, namely establishing the legal nature of the arbitral jurisdiction, the types of arbitration convention and its role, the elements of convergence between the arbitration clause and compromise, the formal requirements of the arbitration convention, its limits and the consequences and the exceptions from these limits in terms of trial, the conditions of validity of the arbitration convention, its effects and its effectiveness, the causes of cessation of the arbitration convention. -
The Civil Code expressly introduces the porte-fort convention or the promise of another’s deed in Article 1283, regulation which takes over the institution which was created in the doctrine of the Civil Code of 1865. The current codification places the institution in the section regarding the effects of the contract, but in a subsection distinct from the one devoted to the consecration of the principle of relativity of the effects of the contract. Although the systematic treatment of the principle inevitably implies the exploration of the controversies on the real or apparent exceptions, the incorporation of the analysis of the porte-fort convention in this framework has made the novelty of this legal figure somehow obscured. This article intends to make a critical analysis of the porte-fort convention in the regulation of Article 1283 of the Civil Code also from the perspective of the comparative law, by pursuing in detail the legal regime in terms of notion, forms, nature, legal characters, conditions of validity and effects, as well as the applications of this institution.
-
The Civil Code expressly introduces the porte-fort convention or the promise of another’s deed in Article 1283, regulation which takes over the institution which was created in the doctrine of the Civil Code of 1865. The current codification places the institution in the section regarding the effects of the contract, but in a subsection distinct from the one devoted to the consecration of the principle of relativity of the effects of the contract. Although the systematic treatment of the principle inevitably implies the exploration of the controversies on the real or apparent exceptions, the incorporation of the analysis of the porte-fort convention in this framework has made the novelty of this legal figure somehow obscured. This article intends to make a critical analysis of the porte-fort convention in the regulation of Article 1283 of the Civil Code also from the perspective of the comparative law, by pursuing in detail the legal regime in terms of notion, forms, nature, legal characters, conditions of validity and effects, as well as the applications of this institution.
-
The 1995 UNIDROIT Convention in Rome established a minimum body of common legal rules for the protection of cultural heritage. The essential rules of the Convention are: 1) the possessor of a cultural object which has been stolen shall return it; 2) access to justice by filing a request with the court or other competent authorities of the Contracting State where the cultural property is located, for its restitution; the possibility for the parties to submit their dispute either to a court or other competent authority or to arbitration (Article 8); 3) the right of the bona fides holder of the stolen cultural property to be paid, at the time of restitution, a fair compensation; the correlative right of the paying claimant to request reimbursement from another person (Article 4).
