Search

This paper aims to analyse the implications of „Law no. 140/2022 on some protection measures for people with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities and the amendment and completion of some legal acts" in Romania, by reviewing the aspects pointed out by the CCR in its unconstitutionality dec. no. 601/2020. This paper will also analyse legislative regulations on the protection of the adult in different legal systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a result of the revision of the Constitution in 2003, art. 147 of the Basic Law strengthened the binding legal effect of decisions declaring the unconstitutionality of laws and ordinances, an aspect that was required to strengthen the role of the Constitutional Court. Thus, according to art. 147 para. (4) of the Constitution, the decisions of the Constitutional Court are published in the Official Gazette of Romania. From the date of publication, decisions are generally binding and have force only for the future. From the moment the decisions of the Constitutional Court are published in the Official Gazette of Romania, the legal norms declared as unconstitutional cease to have legal effects for the future. As the Constitutional Court ruled, regarding the general binding effect of its decisions, jurisprudence must be taken into account by all authorities involved in the process of applying laws and Government ordinances. The constitutional consecration of the general binding character of the decisions of the Constitutional Court determines that they are imposed on all legal subjects, just like a normative act, unlike the decisions of the courts, which produce effects inter partes litigantes. But, as I will highlight in this study, the effectiveness of unconstitutionality decisions depends on the behavior of public authorities after the moment Constitutional Court states a non-compliance with the provisions of the Basic Law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the Preliminary The unconstitutional nature of the provisions of art. 126 para. (4) and (5) CPP has not yet been ascertained by the Constitutional Court, however, its way of drafting involves extensive discussions at the level of judicial practice. Specifically, the power of the judicial body to establish the status of threatened witness and to establish the protection measures referred to in art. 125 CPP in conjunction with art. 126 para. (1) CPP covers situations that call into question firm, coherent and adequate interventions to ensure the safety of the persons involved, which may also involve restrictions on the exercise of fundamental rights of defendants. However, in the latter hypothesis, the texts of law that exceed the generic regulatory framework and allow the execution of specific actions must also be subordinated to the principle of legality, as well as the constitutional conditions regarding the restriction of the exercise of certain rights provided by the provisions of art. 53 of the Romanian Constitution. Thus, it may be regarded that the legal provisions criticised are unconstitutional insofar as they do not recognise, during the preliminary chamber proceedings, the power of the preliminary chamber judge to rule on the protection measures, i.e., the manner in which his/her competence is exercised. In this way, the provisions of art. 1 para. (5) of the Fundamental Law on the clarity, precision and predictability of the law and the provisions of art. 124 para. (3) of the Romanian Constitution on the principles of judicial independence and separation of judicial functions are violated. This paper aims to present all these aspects and to provide the author's point of view on the reasons why the text of art. 126 para. (4) and (5) CPP is unconstitutional. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the current pandemic context, in which modern society is being challenged not only from a socio-medical point of view, but also from a moral and legal perspective, legislators across the world have been confronted with the fact of identifying a series legislative, concrete and coherent solutions, in order to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV virus 2. From this perspective, it is clear that legislative solutions have been both dissipated as an overview and insufficiently analyzed and publicly debated, arousing a wave of controversy and impugnment around the world, an issue that could cause serious concern in the legal world and to really question the citizens' trust in the judicial and constitutional litigation system, which are those designed to resolve legislative inconsistencies, with a direct transposition in the way of resolving various administrative cases before the courts. The situation is not at all special in Romania, which has adopted during the pandemic a series of normative acts that raised a multitude of legal interpretation issues. In this regard, we recall the fact that, on several occasions, the Romanian Constitutional Court has declared unconstitutional the legislative approach of the national authorities, just as the courts have invalidated a series of unilateral administrative acts, with normative character. The GEO no. 129/2021 on the implementation of the digital entry form in Romania also provided heated discussions in the legal field as well as an endless wave of criticism from the recipients of this normative act, which requires a detailed analysis of the issues related to the adoption of this normative act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Plagiarism in Romania became a controversial issue analyzed by the specialists. Also, the problem became not only a subject for the administrative authority (CNATDCU), but also for the courts of law who were empowered to analyze if doctoral theses were authentic or not, solving therefore plagiarism allegations. Historically speaking, we can discuss about legislation in this field starting with 2004. Could it be considered that doctoral theses defended before 2004 are subject to the application of the respective piece of law? The current study will try to analyze the legal provisions applicable to the withdrawal of the title of doctor and to argue that this text is clearly unconstitutional from our point of view. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The need to protect has deep roots in the history of law. Paradoxically, the more humanity has endeavored to legislate, the abuse and the lack of real support from those responsible for ensuring security and peace have increased. That is how society felt that, besides the internal regulation of privacy, it had to appeal to international organisations whose purpose was to persuade states that they alone could be able to resist any abusive interference in the individual's privacy. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights established in 1948 that no man would be the object of arbitrary interference in his private life, as long as there is legal protection against these intrusions. Article The Right to Privacy written by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis, appeared in the Harvard Law Review, volume IV, issue 5 of December 15, 1890, is considered to be one of the most influential essays in the history of American law, and the right to private life is defined by the authors as the right to be left alone or the right to loneliness. The social evolution and the transformations of law have gradually led to an increasing distance between the initial desideratum - that of loneliness - and the real need to ensure a safety and protection environment for each individual. Even if at the theoretical level any individual has the right to be left alone, in reality this right is not necessarily illusory, but rather impossible to be respected in the way we would probably want each one of us. Complex threats, from wars, civil movements, terrorism, to cyber attacks, and the need for strong nations to dominate, have transformed the right to private life into a promising slogan whenever interest calls for it, or, worse, have reduced to noticeable dimensions invoking the need for over-protection of the individual by the state. But what are governments doing in the name of protecting their own citizens? They violate private life, but they do it under the protection of the law, they do not respect fundamental rights, but their action appears justified, they restrict liberties and even suppress any intimacy in the name of the protection of the general good. What does ultimately mean private life and how much should the state be interested in protecting it? Of course, the notion itself is all-encompassing, with unspeakable valences and hidden ramifications throughout our existence. We have a private life from the moment we are born, but others are responsible for it, private is the home with all its dependencies, private information about the state of health, or personal data, at work we have the right to intimacy, even a detainee has the right to ensure and respect his private life in designated spaces and the list can continue. By making a parallel between private life in the American model and the way it is protected in European law, a fundamental difference emerges. If in American law individual autonomy is the expression of absolutism, being the core of the existence of social rights, Europeans did not think this notion as an independent, stand alone, supreme relation to the other rights recognized by the individual but as an important, but not exclusive component or outside any limitations or restrictions. In European law, the balance between the protection of the general interest and the need to guarantee, within reasonable limits, respect for the right to privacy was maintained. Although Romania signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the constitutional right to privacy did not find a distinct regulation either in the 1848 constitution or in 1952 or in 1965. At present, the Romanian Constitution protects and regulates the right to private life and the authorities have the obligation to respect it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through Law no. 63/ 2012 for the change and completion of the Criminal code of Romania and of Law no. 286/2009 regarding the Criminal code, in the Romanian criminal law, it has been introduced a new safety measure, that is the extended confiscation. Within the current article, we will analyze the conditions regarding the enforcement of this safety measure. We will also examine if the juridical norms that regulate the extended confiscation, as well as their concordance with the fundamental law - the Constitution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2010, Law no. 47/1992 regarding the organization and the functioning of the Constitutional Court has suffered some amendments, some of which we believe indirectly affect the provisions of the Constitution of Romania of 1991, revised and republished in 2003. This survey aims at expounding these modifications and at presenting their implications on the constitutional text, raising some legitimate questions for law professionals. Therefore, we will approach the question of suspension from office of the President of Romania, a procedure stipulated in article 95 of the Constitution, as well as the ways in which the stages of the suspension procedure provided therein suffer an alteration because of the amendments to Law no. 47/1992. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]