-
In Romania, the Civil Procedure Code in force shall be repealed and replaced by the new Civil Procedure Code, which was published on July 15, 2010, but has not come into force yet (the time when it comes into force has not been legally established yet). Until such time, Law No. 202/2010 regarding certain measures to accelerate disputes resolution (The “Small Reform” Law) was enacted and came into force in October 2010. In this study, the author makes a comparative examination of the following issues: the exception of the lack of competence, competence conflicts and the transposition to the current Civil Procedure Code, by taking into consideration Law No. 202/2010 and, respectively, the new Civil Procedure Code. The author reaches the conclusion that, sometimes, in law, the regulations of the current Code are better than the regulations of Law No. 202/2010 or of the new Civil Procedure Code; also, there are contradictions between the new laws (Law No. 202/2010 and the new Civil Procedure Code). Given these facts, certain de lege ferenda proposals are laid down. -
This paper is a review of the provisions set forth in Art. 216 of the Criminal Code, which focuses on questionable theoretical and practical aspects, especially on the question of criteria for distinguishing between the offences of found property appropriation and theft offences. Likewise, the author makes a comparative analysis of the provisions of Art. 216 of the Criminal Code, reported to Art. 243 of the new Criminal Code. -
The institution of conditional release under judicial control regulated in Title IV, Chapter I, Section V of the Criminal Procedure Code, has been analyzed succinctly in the Romanian specialized legal literature. The problems arising in the context of erroneous interpretations given in practice to the legal texts regulating this institution by the courts of law derive, according to the author’s opinion, from the insufficient approach at doctrinal level of the way in which the conditions under which this measure can be ordered should be interpreted. Of course, the situation should also be analyzed in the light of the particular situation of each case. Thus, the article written by the author intends to analyze the conditions under which conditional release can be ordered after addressing an actual situation submitted to judgment by the courts. -
While the matter of the restoration of real estate abusively seized by the communist state has raised a special interest, both from individuals and from authorities, the subject of the restoration of movable cultural property remained relatively marginalized until the coming into force of Law no. 182/2000, which provides the persons entitled with the possibility of an action for special recovery of movable property, for the purpose of recovering ownership over the movable cultural property illegally seized by the State. This study intends to examine this matter, focusing on the essential aspects of the action for special recovery of movable property put into operation by the lawmaker.
-
Over time, the abuse of right has been interpreted in various ways: while the advocates of absolute rights have interpreted it literally, namely as the almightiness of individual rights, the advocates of relative rights claim that the rights of one person end where the rights of another person start, so that the person excessively using its own right commits an abuse of right. As regards the explanation of its punishment, the classical theory assimilates it to tort liability, based on the moral censorship of conduct. Meanwhile, more and more of its hypotheses have become detached from fault. The new Romanian Civil Code accepts these trends partially, still remaining the prisoner of fault, as a basis for civil liability. The above-mentioned study intends to examine in a critical manner the legal solutions provided by the new regulation, trying to explain the punishment of the abuse of right on other ideas than the requirement to punish the guilty conduct of the holder.
-
Entrusting personal property to view and verify its operation does not constitute a waiver of its possession or detention, and the appropriation of someone else’s stuff touch-and-go in his grip stands for a fraudulent possession, which, without the consent of the victim, with strict reference to the stuff’s acquisition and not otherwise, shall be construed as crime of theft and not crime of fraud. -
The article hereby reviews the arguments on the need for detention of the presumption of innocence in contravention and, therefore, the proper application of the provisions of art. 6 of the (European) Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Arguments are the result of uniform and consistent theories and practices of the European Court of Human Rights and the provisions of the Constitution of Romania, republished. Given these arguments, the author considers that the presumption of innocence in contravention is mandatory for the Romanian courts when a complaint of contravention is submitted for trial against a sanctioning act. In conclusion, it urges that the High Court of Cassation and Justice order by an appeal, in the interest of the law, guidance for uniform practice in contravention and / or the legislator to amend laws on this issue, to that effect.
-
In this article, the author critically examines matters of criminal procedural guarantees for the injured person, the injured party or civil party, stressing their importance in the administration of criminal justice. In this context, topics on the rights of victims are depicted inspired from the principle of equality of arms, inferred from the (European) Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the author making some suggestions on repairing the damage caused as a result of the offense. -
Court Judgments for complaints against prosecutor’s not to indict resolutions and ordinances under par. (10) of art. 2781 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are final upon the delivery date thereof. Remaining final upon the date of pronouncing thereof, judgments may not be appealed through ordinary remedies at law. In this article the author analyzes the situation where, if the party was improperly or legally summoned, unable to appear before or to warn the court about such circumstances, it may file an appeal for annulment, extraordinary remedy at law, but which is directed only against judgments pronounced under appeal according to art. 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
-
The study examines the issue of autonomy of labor law in relation to civil law while considering the recent assertions in legal literature. Taking into account the classical criteria for delimiting the legal branches within the law – the subject, the specific principles and regulatory method - it is concluded that labor law is a mixed law branch which belongs mainly to private law, applies by way of common law to all labor legal relationships unfounded on individual employment agreement, is self-contained and it capitalizes, where appropriate and possible, the rules of civil law as common law rules. Labor law is not a branch (part) of civil law, but independent component of private law along with common law (civil law).
-
Following the entry into force of the new Romanian Civil Code (on October 1, 2011) and the new Romanian Code of Civil Procedure (which will take place on February 1, 2013), in the Romanian civil law doctrine a controversy arose in the sense that divorce exclusive fault of the defendant State (that if the respondent spouse doesn’t file a counterclaim) is admissible only by way of exception, where the reason for divorce consists of a minimum 2-year de facto separation of spouses or, on the contrary in other situations as well. After a thorough analysis, the author opts for restrictive solution, i.e. divorce for applicant spouse’s exclusive fault (if the respondent spouse doesn’t file a counterclaim) is admissible only by way of exception, where the reason for divorce consists of a minimum 2-year de facto separation of spouses.
-
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.
