-
The social reaction against low severity felonies ask for finding solutions alternative to criminal penalties. The legislator of the new Criminal Code, waiving the institution of absence of the felony’s social danger and replacement of criminal liability, has adopted, for the argument of criminal prosecution, on grounds of the principle of opportunity of exercising criminal action, the institution of waiver of criminal prosecution, and, in terms of substantive criminal law, waiver by the court law of the penalty enforcement. Both institutions, new as concepts in the Romanian criminal legislation, are practically instruments of non-penalization of the actual felony and replacement of criminal liability with an administrative liability, by enforcing administrative sanctions as alternatives for criminal penalties. The regulation of these new institutions, according to the author’s opinion, can however be criticized both in terms of preserving the rights of the injured persons and by the fact that the prosecutor’s assessment powers are far more extended than those of the court of law. -
The article includes some considerations regarding the procedural dispositions concerning the purpose of criminal lawsuit, as regulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The author analyzes the dispositions of the new Code of Criminal Procedure which establishes the purpose of the rules of criminal procedure, by reference to the dispositions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force where the purpose of criminal lawsuit is established.
-
The concept of complex offence is not defined by law, excepting a few European legal systems, such as, for instance, the Romanian and Italian legislation. In the majority of legislations, the term complex offence is approached only by the specialty literature, like the cases of German, Spanish or French law. Non-regulation of the institution of complex offence through a legal provision has however resulted in an uncertainty with respect to its content, as the authors have different opinions regarding this matter.
-
Cererea în despãgubire din valoarea cauțiunii este o cerere contencioasã, care presupune examinarea elementelor rãspunderii civile delictuale sub aspectul exercițiului abuziv al acțiunii, al prejudiciului produs și al legãturii de cauzalitate dintre paguba pricinuitã și conduita procesualã a pãrþii, competența de soluționare a unei astfel de acțiuni patrimoniale fiind reglementatã de dispozițiile generale cuprinse în cartea I din Codul de procedurã civilã (Înalta Curte de Casaþie și Justiție, Secția comercialã, decizia nr. 4170 din 30 noiembrie 2010).
-
In order to highlight the civil liability structure, as ensuing from the wordings of the new Civil Code, enacted on October 1st, 2011, the author makes the synthesis of the theories of French doctrine developed in this issue: the theory of civil liability unity, the theory of civil liability duality and the intermediate or eclectic theory. Likewise, there are paraphrased discussions taking place at present, in the French doctrine as well, on the existence and relevance of contractual liability. The author presents thereafter echoes that these theories and discussions had within the framework of Romanian doctrine and jurisprudence during the last century. Acting towards the analysis of the wordings under the new Civil Code regulating civil liability, it is concluded that their editors have adopted our contemporary doctrine theory, under which civil liability is unique in its essence, and dual under the legal regime applicable to it. Therefore, following the criterion of the legal system, the well-known dichotomy is preserved: tort liability and contractual liability. -
Hardship (as grounds for contractual amendment or termination thereof, even in default of contractual provisions in this respect) had not been legally regulated under the former Romanian Civil Code (dated 1864), but only under some special laws. However, during the past two decades, there was shaped in legal doctrine and the Romanian reference jurisprudence a theory of hardship (as shown), which substituted, in part and controversially, the legal deficiency in the matter. This deficiency wore away by the entry into force of the new Civil Code (Law no. 287/2009, republished on July 15th, 2011 and enforced on October 10th, 2011), which, by a single fundamental wording (Article 1271, entitled „Hardship”) regulates the conditions under which the Court may rule, where appropriate, upon the adoption of a contract or even termination thereof „should the performance of the contract become excessively burdensome due to an exceptional change of circumstances that would make manifestly unjust the binding of the debtor to the execution of its duty”. In the study above, the authors make an analysis of the configuration of hardship in the light of Article 1271 under the new Civil Code.
-
The new Criminal Code, bringing numerous novelties in the sphere of incrimination of the Romanian Criminal law, sets forth under Article 284 the sanctioning of an attorney’s act or of a person acting as representative in a legal business for failure to defend, in good faith and fairness, the rights and interests of the person represented, with the view to discriminate in favour of another person, with opposing interests.
-
This article deals with an offence substantially amended under the new Criminal Code – i.e. the failure to comply with judgments. After a brief comparative presentation of new and old regulations, the author describes and analyzes the normative versions of the new wording: opposition to the execution, by making a stand against the enforcement authority; refusal of the enforcement authority to implement a judgment, by which it is bound to perform a certain act; refusal to assist the enforcement authority in the implementation of the judgment by people who are liable in this matter under the law; non-enforcement of judgment ordering the reinstatement of an employee; default in enforcing the judgment on the payment of wages within 15 days from the date of its enforcement application submitted to the employer by the interested Party; non-compliance of judgments on the establishment, payment, updating and recalculation of pensions; prevention of a person to use, in whole or in part, a property owned under a Court ruling, by the one against whom the same is enforceable.
-
The author performs a detailed analysis of the characteristic traits of indictments under the new Criminal Code which are correlated with, related to or in interdependence relationship, as appropriate, with fraud, in view of similarities and disparities thereof, with frequent references to valid national legal practice and in relation to the new Criminal provisions. To that effect, there are dealt with, in particular in the light of their disparities, offences such as: fraud in the insurance field, encouragement of the perpetrator, concealment, omission of the referral, misleading the legal authorities, blackmail, theft, breach of trust, breach of trust by defrauding the creditors, unfair assistance and representation, influence peddling, issuance of counterfeit securities, forgery of foreign securities, counterfeiting of a technical record, perjury, false identity, but also the ones laid down in Article 84 of Law no. 59/1934 on cheques and in Article 271 points 1 and 2 of the Company’s Law no. 31/1990. Thereafter, in the case of the offences mentioned above, there are considered differentially, as appropriate, the subject of criminal care, the offence, the objective and the subjective side, forms, procedures and penalties provided for under the law. Also, the author does not hesitate to put forward his opinion on deciphering the legal wording of the offences under review or the sphere, in practical situations, of one or the other of the aforementioned rules of incrimination and to advance some of its own solutions and ideas.
-
Despite its frequent recall, in legislation, jurisprudence and doctrine, the concept of “public order” is not only a vague, poorly determined and content-variable one, but also among the most controversial ones. Hereinafter, the authors of this study are trying to submit to the attention some of its characteristic traits, and then to provide some guidelines with regard to the implementation ex officio of “reasons of public order” by the Court for judicial review in the lawsuit.
-
Law no. 85/2006 on the insolvency procedure, under Article 138, ties to rules the cases and the conditions under which managerial or supervisory staff of the debtor (legal entity), facing insolvency, is to answer patrimonially for having caused the state of insolvency of the relevant debtor (legal entity). In practice, in relation to this wording, it was raised in case law the question whether those by right can make such a request (on grounds of Article 138), subsequent to the occurrence of closure of the insolvency proceedings (under Articles 131-137 of the same Law). The author argues – bringing arguments to that effect, that it is required a positive response.
-
The study hereby was inspired by a recent Case where the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled upon a petition for a preliminary ruling covering the interpretation of the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of April 5th, 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts made under Article 234 EC (now Article 267 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union). Taking our stand upon the issues highlighted by the aforementioned case, namely the possibility of cancellation of an arbitration award by the Court of enforcement and implementation ex officio of the European Union Law by the national court, it should be laid down some clarifications relating, mainly, to the ECJ solution with reference to the principles of the European Union Law, as well as national issues regarding the subject of the enforcement act, the possibility to pursue an appeal against the arbitration award, the principle of availability governing the lawsuit, but also the res judicata of judgments. The authors critically analyze the judgment and bear in mind the relevant Romanian law (including the provisions of Law no. 134/2010 on the new Code of Civil Procedure), and the possible effects in national, arbitration or judicial jurisprudence.
