-
Once the Labor Code (Law no. 53/2003, republished on 18 May 2011) was supplemented with art.248 para.(3) regulating the deletion by law of the disciplinary sanction imposed (obviously under certain conditions), a controversy arose in the Romanian labor law doctrine in the sense whether the said legal norm is incident or not and whether the sanction imposed resulted in the disciplinary termination (dismissal) of the individual employment contract. In this study, after an extensive reasoning, a positive conclusion related to the raised controversy is reached also analyzing a number of this conclusion’s legal implications. -
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).
-
Starting on October 1, 2011, the new Romanian Civil Code (Law no. 287/ 2009, republished on July 15, 2011) entered into force and, as of February 1, 2013 the new Romanian Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 134/2010, republished on 3 August 2012) shall come into force. Both the above mentioned codes are being developed by Law no. 71/2011 for the implementation of the new Civil Code, and respectively by Law.76/2012 for the implementation of the new Code of Civil Procedure. The new regulations introduced in the Romanian legislation the concept of guardianship court but until the entry into force of such court its powers which are set out in the new Civil Code shall be exerted by the courts, sections or, where appropriate, the existing specialized juvenile and family panels. Unfortunately, during 2011-2012, the regulations in the new Civil Code, the new Code of Civil Procedure and the two laws for application thereof, as being amended and supplemented several times, the guardianship court relevant legislation is confusing at the present time, thus its transposition in practice is difficult. That being the case, the author attempts in this study to solve a number of problems arising from the situation described and to make some proposals with a view to the future law.
-
In terms of Romanian Tax legislation, extinctive prescription rules are contained in both the Code of Fiscal Procedure (Government Ordinance no. 92/ 2003, republished on July 31, 2007) and in the new Civil Code (Law no. 287/ 2009, republished on July 15, 2011) as well as in the new Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 134/2010, republished on August 3, 2012 and which shall enter into force on February 1, 2013). In relation to this, the author specifically examines how these rules – in fiscal matters - should be correlated and interpreted whilst being distributed in three acts (different codes).
-
As expected, sanctions and solutions covered by the Code of Civil Procedure of 1865 were taken over by Law no. 134/2010 regarding the Code of Civil Procedure (republished) entering into force on February 1, 2013. In this regard, fines, voidness, decay, obsolescence, application rejection or accept are regulated. The latest law also establishes new sanctions and solutions, some of them unusual: closing the case, out of trial, trial settlement, ignoring, remaining ineffective.
-
The new Romanian Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 134/2010, as republished on 3 August 2012 and coming into force on the 1st of February 2013) supersedes the previous Code of Civil Procedure (of the year 1865) regulating (in articles 303-320) the witness-based evidence. In this study the author makes a wide-ranging analysis of this regulation, from the triple perspective of the admissibility, of the administration, of the appreciation of this mean of evidence, comparing the new provisions in this matter by those set forth in the previous Code of Civil Procedure.
-
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.
-
Through its varied meanings, “loyalty” is perhaps the noblest moral value. It is, in terms of law, a factor and a marker of legal relationships “moralization”, procedural relations including. Although unanimously accredited in the field legal relationships as well, including procedural relations, the loyalty principle is enshrined in terminis as a fundamental principle of civil proceedings. However, it is an implicit result of numerous provisions in the law of civil procedure, which finds appropriate forms of legal and judicial sanction. In our procedural civil regulatory climate, certain peremptory procedural exceptions having permanent effect make unnecessary the application of the praetorian “estoppel” rule established in common law and subsequently in other legal systems. Fundamental right of access to justice is not incompatible with assuming „duty of loyalty”.
-
One of the major problems with direct implications in the effective implementation of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the European Union is related to the need for coherent legal norms regarding the establishment of the territorial jurisdiction in the event of positive or negative conflicts of jurisdiction between the competent legal bodies of two or more Member States. In the study, the author examined the provisions of the European regulatory document framework which set out a series of legal norms on preventing and settling conflicts of jurisdiction between the Member States, making some critical remarks designed to help the improvement of the legal system. This paper is aimed at all those interested in this field and can be useful to academics and to practitioners as well. The innovations consist of the general examination of the European regulatory document provisions, of the Romanian special law, with some critical comments, and of proposals for rewording legal rules, aiming at improving the complex system of judicial cooperation in criminal matters between the Member States. -
This article seeks to clarify whether the scope of the revision cases also includes the one based on a case dismissal solution given by the prosecutor and that was deemed by a part of the legal practice as documentary evidence for the purposes of Section 5 of the Art. 322 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The author shows that the analysis of the meaning of “documentary evidence” has determined that the prosecutor’s acts lack this character, as the case dismissal solution is not decisive for the fate of the trial and has no probative value in itself. Examination of these admissibility aspects, and exclusion of the prosecutor’s case dismissal resolution / ordinance from the documentary evidence category are reasons for supporting the conclusion that this solution adopted by the prosecutor shall not be imposed upon the civil court and can not substantiate a revision which is based on the provisions of Section 5 of the Article 322 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
-
Presumption of innocence is one of the basic rules of criminal proceedings being expressly regulated in art. 52 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. First recognized as a fundamental human right [the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the (European) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms], the presumption of innocence is enshrined in the national legislation, first in the republished Romanian Constitution, having specific influence on the development of the entire Romanian criminal proceedings since 2003. In this study, the author sought to identify some of the situations that affect this fundamental principle of criminal proceedings, its analysis covering several procedural institutions. Equally, he outlined several proposals to ensure the compliance with the presumption of innocence both during the trial and in the stages prior to the prosecution, referring both to the current criminal procedural rules and to those provided for in the new Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 135/2010).
-
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.
