-
In the present study, the authors analyze extensively the situations of non-unitary practice that appeared both at the level of the Bureau of the judge of surveillance of deprivation of liberty and at the level of the courts, due to the different ways in which the magistrates understood to deal with the problem of the transfers of the persons deprived of liberty and the legal nature of the transfer decisions issued by the National Administration of Penitentiaries. The purpose of the present analysis is to clarify the regime applicable to requests made by the persons deprived of liberty to cancel the transfer decisions, because the lack of regulation in the Law No 254/2013 regarding the possibility of appeal, as well as of the competent court to resolve the appeals, led to the outline of divergent currents of opinion reflected in the non-unitary solutions given in complaints or appeals. -
The hierarchy of legal values and fundamental rights can be achieved with the help of applicable law, interpretation of principles of law and using relevant case law at national level (especially in this case, from Romania), as well as at European level, through the judgments given by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) respects all fundamental rights and freedoms and principles recognized in the Charter as enshrined in the Treaties, in particular respect for private and family life, residence and communications, protection of personal data, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and information, freedom to conduct business, the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial, as well as cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. A long list of rights appreciated even by the European legislator in the preamble to the Regulation that could interfere with the right to data protection. The critical analysis is based on the recent jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as of the Romanian courts, each of them being involved in the decision-making process regarding the prevalence of fundamental values regarding freedom of expression and protection of data.
-
The elaboration of the notarial acts takes place in compliance with some requirements strictly provided in the normative acts. These requirements for the preparation of notarial acts are called rules for drawing up and affect to all notarial acts and actions. The topic covered in this paper is of interest to theorists and law practitioners from the Republic of Moldova and from Romania. In the Republic of Moldova there is a long process of formation and consolidation of notarial legislation. In the absence of a well-elaborated normative framework, the notaries public from the Republic of Moldova apply, here and there, the rules for drawing up the notarial acts inherited ever since the period of the Soviet Union. Another situation exists in Romania, whereas the legislator, by the Law No 36/1995, has established a stable normative framework for regulating notarial law relations. The main objective pursued by the author in the elaboration of the paper consists in the comparative analysis of the common rules for the drawing up the notarial acts through the Romanian and Moldavian legislation. The results of the research are manifested by formulating some conclusions and recommendations for amending the legislation. The theoretical implications of the study are relevant due to the diversity of the doctrinal sources used by the author. An increased attention was paid to Moldavian and Romanian researchers. In addition, the doctrine of the notarial law in the Russian Federation has been considered, which, over many decades, has become traditional in the Republic of Moldova.
-
The above study constitutes a theoretical synthesis of the jurisprudence of the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania from the last years in the field of legislation regarding the restitution of the immovable assets abusively taken over by the State in the period comprised between 1945 and 1989; of the interpretation of contracts in consideration of the real will of the parties; of the proxy’s fault in the mandate contract and of certain civil procedure issues, taking into account also the provisions of the new Romanian Civil Code (Law No. 287/ 2009, as amended by Law No. 71/2011), which has recently come into force (as of October 1, 2011).
-
Lately, within the penal lawsuit – in the stage of its prosecution and judgment – due to the impasse of producing evidence facing the prosecution, since the prosecutor issues solutions for not initiating the penal prosecution without factual or legal grounds, with regard to the delator that perpetrated deeds provided by the penal law and closely connected with the crimes for which they ordered the judgment of others, they heard and then obtained that such delators be heard as witnesses and grounded its accusation on their testimonies. The clarification of the capacity in which a delator may be heard within a penal lawsuit appears, therefore, necessary both from a theoretical point of view, and from a practical point of view, and the authors’ approach is trying to respond to this necessity.
-
The system of penalties, although it marked a progress in the evolution of the Romanian penal law, however, if it is critically examined, it evidences the small number of major penalties and, especially, their emphatically repressive character. In this study, the author makes an analysis by comparison of the system of penal sanctions in the new Penal Code as compared to the current regulation, as well as in comparative law. Another issue relates to the impact of normative provisions on the judiciary individualization of penalties with reference to the individualization criteria and the appreciation margin acknowledged to the judge. The author also states that it is useful that the relevant penal regulations should provide the criterion of proportionality for the judiciary individualization of penalties.
-
According to Art. 244 para. (1) of the current (Romanian) Civil Procedure Code, the court may suspend trial if: – the settlement of the case depends, in full or in part, on the existence or inexistence of a right that forms the object of another trial; – criminal prosecution was initiated for a crime which would have a decisive influence on the decision to be issued. The author examines this text by correlation to Art. 248 et seq. of the same Code regulating superannuation. In this context, the author believes that the request to reopen the suspended case according to Art. 244 of the Civil Procedure Code for the re-initiation of trial is not a procedural act which must be fulfilled by the court ex officio. Moreover, the court of law may only re-place the case on the dockets to ascertain superannuation, on which occasion it shall have to grant trial expenses to the defendant or respondent in appeal (as applicable), which requests or produces proof of such expenses.
-
The above study makes a detailed analysis on the precise meaning of Art. 821 para. (1) of Law No. 161/2003, according to which “The deputy or senator who, during the exercise of term of office of a member of Parliament, desires to exert the profession of attorney at law may not plead in the cases judged by the courts of law or tribunals, nor may they provide legal services to the prosecutors’ offices attached to such courts of law.” In this context, the author concludes that the legal limitation of the interdiction mentioned only under the “pleading” in front of the courts of law and tribunals (or granting the legal assistance to the prosecutor’s offices attached to such courts of law), since the reasons which imposed the regulation under discussion are identical also in the situation of the cases which are judged by higher courts of law (Courts of Appeal, High Court of Cassation and Justice).
-
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.
-
This study analyzes the situation – which is not expressly regulated by the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – in which, after the claimant notified the European Court of Human Rights (and until 1998 the Commission within such Court), the respective claimant demises. The study takes into account a rich history of relevant cases, resulting from the case law of the Court/Commission. In the end, after examining the mentioned cases, a series of conclusions may be briefly deducted.
-
Starting from the case of Vergu vs. Romania, recently settled (January 11, 2011) by the European Court of Human Rights, the author, in light of Art. 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, discusses the issue related to the right to a prior effective recourse with the internal (national) court of law, a sine qua non prior condition for notifying the Strasbourg Court, concluding that the European court of law (must make the severe application of the subsidiary nature principle. Only under entirely exceptional cases, with grounded motivations, in a circumspect and entirely isolated manner, may the Strasbourg Court release the claimant from its obligation to exhaust the internal means (of effective recourse with the national court).
-
In this study, the author examines Law No. 133/2011 for the amendment of several provisions of Law No. 360/2002 regarding the policeman’s status. The author has also certain positive appreciations on these amendments, but she primarily retains a series of negative sides on Law No. 133/2011, especially by the fact that the mentioned law provides that “the procedure and cases for modifying and/or suspending the policeman’s business relations shall be established under an order issued by the minister of administration and internal affairs”, which is, in the author’s opinion, contrary to the principles of the Romanian Constitution.
