-
In the regulations of the new Criminal Code, the legislator has not opted for a limited criminal liability of the legal entity, but for a general liability which may result because of the commitment of any criminal offence. Except the state, the public authorities and the public institutions which carry on any activities not representing the subject matter of the private field, the other legal entities may hold the capacity of active subject, no matter the nature and the seriousness of the committed criminal offence. The criminal liability shall be laid upon the legal entity only when the respective entity having a position of management, provision, decision etc. commits the deed set forth by the criminal law in carrying out the business line or in the interest or on behalf of the legal entity. In case of committing a deed set forth by the criminal law, both the criminal liability of the legal entity and of the natural person who contributed to its commitment or only of one of these two categories of persons. -
The provisions of art.1538 para. (1) of the new Civil Code define the criminal clause as being that according to which the parties set forth that the debtor undertakes to pay a certain allowance in case of the non-performance of the main obligation, and para. (4) of the same article sets forth: “the creditor may request the performance of the criminal clause without the obligation to prove any prejudice.” In order to grant the criminal clause, it is necessary to meet the following conditions: the existence of a criminal clause validly established, the non-performance, the inadequate performance or the delay performance of the contractual obligation, the debtor’s fault and his putting in default or being in default de jure. At the same time, the penalty cannot be requested if the performance of the obligation has become impossible for grounds which are not imputable to the debtor, such as the force majeure, the act of God, the deed of the victim or of a third party.
-
In this paper, the author reaches the conclusion according to which in the Romanian law, in principle, the parties’ inequality, in the mater of the transaction agreement, shall not be sanctioned, just as the cancellation of such injury agreement is not admissible. Despite all these, a transaction agreement concluded as a result of an economic constraint may be cancelled if the existing necessity conditions are met, and the disproportion affecting the contractual performances is unjust, illegal; according to this last aspect, the extent to which one of the parties misuses the economic dependency of the other party for the purpose of getting an undue benefit, shall be relevant.
-
Audit services is based on two premises: (i) companies must be able to choose their auditors according to their needs and at a reasonable cost and (ii) investors must be able to rely on an independent audit opinion based on an audit of high quality before investing in a company. It is in the public interest to ensure a sustainable audit function and, consequently, a competitive market for audit firms. Usually, a person invests in a company only once, in advance, has analyzed an audit report relating to the financial condition of that company. If, then, there is a failure of the enterprise (such as eg bankruptcy) that has earlier cases and unidentified audited by the auditor in place its civil liability issue. The question is to set a limit on the civil liability of auditors so that, on the one hand, to ensure fair compensation to those injured (investors), and on the other hand, auditors to take such risks reasonably.
-
The crime committed with two forms of guilt, as a form of the legal unit of the crime, has given rise over the time to different controversial debates due to its mixed structure. A special place is held by the possibility of the secondary party’s existence, this possibility being accepted by most of the authors, as well as unanimously in the judicial practice. The authors of this paper developed for the first time three conditions of the secondary party’s existence to the crimes committed with two forms of guilt for retaining this form of participation easily in the future judicial practice. The non-fulfillment of any of the described conditions produces different legal consequences for the participants; however, the detention of the secondary party to the crime committed with two forms of guilt shall be excluded.
-
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 objectives of the research contained in the article consist in the examination of the immunity and of the criminal liability of the Romanian parliamentarians over the time according to the rules of the Romanian law, with a focus on the present provisions. The results of the research shall be summarized to the need for keeping the parliamentarians’ immunity also in the future provisions of the constitutional and criminal law, especially on the absolute immunity regarding the opinions and the votes expressed in exercising the mandate granted by the poll. Likewise, the author considers that a certain partial immunity has to be kept as well, as regards other actions of the criminal procedural law, such as: the inquisition, the detention, the attachment and the arraignment. The paper may be useful to the theoreticians, practitioners, as well as to the constituent legislator, considering the need for the amendment and supplement of the present fundamental law. The value of the article consists in the examination of the constitutional and criminal provisions regarding the criminal liability of the Romanian parliamentarians, as well as in the critical opinions and the filed de lege ferenda proposals.
-
In the interpretation and unitary application of the provisions of art.251 of the Law no. 32/2000 regarding the insurance activity and insurance supervision, as subsequently amended and supplemented, corroborated with those of art.24 of the Code of criminal procedure, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, in the judgment in the interest of the Law no. 3/2010, decided that “in the criminal trial, The street victims’ protection fund has the capacity of a liable party from the civil point of view and may be obliged solely, but not collectively with the defendant, to pay the civil indemnifications to the persons injured in non-insured car accidents”. In the attempt to answer the question whether, in a criminal trial, the defendant could be obliged to pay the civil indemnifications or whether the amounts paid as such shall be determined in the exclusive charge of The street victims’ protection fund, the author of the article promotes the idea according to which the main obligation to repair the damages shall belong, further, to the defendant, in his capacity as the offender of the illegal deed generating prejudices, and the existence of a special regulation set up for the purpose of protecting the victims of the car accidents, could not operate as a reason for holding harmless from the civil point of view. Considering that in the light of the present Civil Code the obligations of the defendant and of the above-mentioned fund keep their nature of in solidum obligations, the author considers that from the operative part and the considerations of the judgment in the interest of the Law no. 3/2010 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, it does not result that The street victims’ protection fund shall be exclusively obliged to pay indemnifications in the criminal trial, as the law-related questions which have generated a non-unitary practice pertain only to the capacity of a party in a lawsuit of this fund and to the possibility to oblige him, collectively with the defendant, to pay indemnifications.
-
When the court of judicial review is vested with the settlement of the recourse against the court order under which the legal and the solid nature of the preventive arrest has been reviewed ex officio according to the procedure set forth by art.3001 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the recourse should be settled before the expiry of the preventive arrest period, taken or extended by the judge subsequently. This review deadline is a bar period, not a recommendation one. In practice, it is found that the court decides in relation to the review of the legal and the solid nature of the preventive arrest upon the receipt of the file, many times on the last or penultimate day of the 30-day deadline of the preventive arrest. This situation occurs either due to the non-observance of the 5-day deadline by the prosecutor, or by the court itself, and consequently the court of appeal decides within a period of a few days following the expiry of the 30-day period.
-
The aim of this paper is to identify how and if cultural diversity, as a fundamental and moral value of the EU, is effectively protected by EU law. I will start from the EU competences on cultural matters and try to find out if, while dealing with cultural issues, the EU is actually protecting its “unity without uniformity” and its “diversity without fragmentation”. The recent and stronger intervention of the EU in cultural matters, after Lisbon, raises questions as to its real aims, be it the building of a stronger and stronger “small common denominator” in cultural issues as well, by means of uniformity or the real protection of cultural diversity of its Member States.
-
The author, comparatively examining the provisions set forth under Articles 1402-1404 of the former Civil Code (1864), Article 45 of the former Commercial Code (from 1887), both currently repealed, with those set forth under Article 124 of Law No. 71/2011 relating to the implementation of the new Civil Code, concludes that, despite an explicit intervention, under the rule of the new Civil Code (Law No. 287/2009) disputed revocation is forbidden at present for all contentious rights, irrespective of their nature. Currently, disputed revocation is allowed only for assignment of rights concluded prior to October 1st, 2011 (when the new Civil Code was enacted) -
The study deals with the analysis of innovative legal solutions related to the divorce proceedings covered by Law No. 134/2010 on the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, it was envisaged the establishment of territorial jurisdiction of the Court in relation to the residence of the spouses or of one of them, filing of the action for divorce by the husband who, legally incapacitated, has discernment and the prosecution of the action for divorce by the plaintiff husband’s heirs deceased during the trial.
