Search

The current article aims in presenting and analysing the notion of "academic imposture", with relevant aspects of the legislation incident to plagiarism and self-plagiarism, as well as the legality regarding the withdrawal of the Ph.D. title in the previous and current regulations. Is plagiarism a matter of pure legality, or should it have an ethical and moral dimension? By reviewing aspects of historical writings, contemporary examples of authors accused of plagiarism, and also national examples of Ph.D. thesis, this article intends to highlight the interpretations issued by Constitutional Court of Romania, and also emphasize the need to better understand the instruments accessible for issuing a decision of withdrawal/maintaining the Ph.D. title, through a legal, ethical and moral lens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlighting the importance and actuality of the elements of negotiated justice in the criminal trial, this study deals with the issue of the statement given by the defendant during the criminal investigation, as an expression of his consent in order to conclude a guilty plea agreement. The institution of the guilty plea agreement, as a form of negotiated justice, was introduced into the procedural-criminal legislation in Romania through the provisions of the current Criminal Procedure Code (entered into force on 1 February 2014). Starting from an aspect of non-unitary practice regarding the legal consequences of the defendant's withdrawal of consent regarding the admission of guilt, as well as from the finding, by the Constitutional Court of Romania, of the unconstitutionality of some provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the guilty plea agreement procedure (including in relation to the statement given by the defendant in order to conclude the agreement), the present work brings into discussion the difficulty of adapting the adversarial elements to the continental law system to which the Romanian law is also part. The research methods used for the elaboration of the study are: the documentation, the observation and the scientific analysis, including aspects of comparative analysis (between the Anglo-Saxon legal system and the continental one, between the procedural-criminal legislations of several European states, as well as between the special procedure of the guilty plea agreement and the simplified trial procedure in the case of admission of guilt in the regulation of the current Romanian Criminal Procedure Code). The paper presents the solution pronounced by the Romanian High Court of Cassation and Justice (in the Decision No 5/2017) for the unification of the judicial practice, in the sense of establishing the irrevocable character of the recognition of guilt made under the conditions of a validly expressed consent. Likewise, in the context of the legislative changes foreseen by the most recent draft law on the amendment and completion of the Criminal Procedure Code, approved by the Government of Romania on 28 December 2022, the paper formulates a concrete proposal, de lege ferenda, for the implementation of the Constitutional Court Decision No 490/2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Starting from the interpretation that the Constitutional Court of Romania (in the considerations of Decision no. 405/2016) gives to the principle of ultima ratio in criminal matters, this study addresses the issue of the application of this principle, by distinguishing between its application at the legislative level (by the legislator) and the application at the judicial level (by the criminal judicial bodies). We consider that, while, at the legislative level, the application of the principle of ultima ratio in criminal matters is manifested by the legislator exercising his power to legislate (in the sense of criminalizing an act as a crime only as a last resort to protect a social value), at the judicial level, the application of this principle, by the judicial bodies, is achieved through their possibility to order/pronounce a solution of non-engagement of criminal liability, even if the act is provided for by the criminal law, to the extent that all the conditions required by the law are met for ordering/pronouncing such a solution. In conclusion, we appreciate that the solution of closing the case or acquittal under art. 16 para. (1) lit. b) thesis I from the Romanian Criminal Procedure Code („the act is not provided for by the criminal law") cannot be argued by the judicial body by applying the ultima ratio principle in criminal matters; only a solution of waiving the criminal prosecution, respectively waiving the application of the penalty or postponing the application of the penalty can be justified by the application, at the judicial level, of this principle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accepting that the existence of an interval of time in which the perpetrator was aware at every moment of the risk of being detected and brought to justice, was sometimes equated to a real punishment, the period in which the perpetrator was forced to avoid the authorities, to live under the empire the fear that he will not escape liability, justifies the removal by law of the possibility of his conviction after the passage of a time interval related to the maximum duration of the punishment that the law provides for the committed act. Achieving the purpose of the criminal law requires that the criminal liability of the criminal intervene as close as possible to the moment of the crime, so that the process proceeds with speed. The passage of time leads to the dilution of the evidence, with the risk of convicting some innocent people, and the social resonance of the crime diminishes until it disappears. The prescription of criminal liability appears as a legal institution having effects both on the level of substantive criminal law, failure to meet the deadline being a condition to be punishable, and on the level of criminal procedural law, being a condition of procedure, the fulfillment of the limitation period preventing the exercise of criminal action. If a national regulation, specific to another legal system, considers that the prescription of criminal liability belongs to procedural law, not to substantive law, it will be possible to modify that rule in order to extend the limitation period in respect of crimes for which it has not already been fulfilled this term at the time of modification. In an attempt to emphasize the differences between a criminal procedural legislative regulation and a regulation specific to the substantive law, we considered it necessary to make a short foray into the modern criminal legislation of Romania in order to highlight the contextual orientation of the national legislator in this field of regulation. It becomes extremely important for any internal legislative process, an approach to the regulation of the prescription of criminal liability in the legal order of other states, the experience of these states being able to be considered and capitalized by the national legislator, respecting the constitutional requirements. An essential purpose of this endeavor is to provide a perspective on how to regulate the prescription of criminal liability in other legal systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Romanian Case Law Review / Revista Română de Jurisprudenţă is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The institution of recourse in cassation, an extraordinary remedy introduced in our criminal procedural legislation by the provisions of the current Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 135/2010, entered into force on February 1, 2014), has been analyzed, several times, by to the court of constitutional contention, including regarding the provisions governing its object, respectively the decisions that may be subject to this way of attack. Noting a reconsideration, in recent years, of the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Romania regarding the provisions of art. 434 para. (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, referring to the decisions that cannot be recourse in cassation, the present study treats the effects of Decision no. 651/2017, Decision no. 573/2018 and of the Decision pronounced on April 7, 2022, in the context of the legislative amendments expected by the most recent draft law amending and supplementing the Code of Criminal Procedure, a project launched in public debate by the Ministry of Justice in September 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Romanian Case Law Review / Revista Română de Jurisprudenţă is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Pandectele Române is the property of Wolters Kluwer Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The analysis in the present article tries to underline the similarities between the way government regulates in the exceptional states of emergency in Romania and the United States, drawing the conclusion that the two legal systems though very different by structure react in similar ways and are consistently backed by the judiciary in their undergoing. Starting as circumspect as the aristocrat jurist Alexis de Tocqueville1 while his first contact with the American democracy, we see that history is cyclic and crisis --related human behavior alike. Starting from the surprising derogation from the European Convention of Human Rights with the consequence of a much easier breaching of fundamental freedoms and liberties in the territory of Romania, the breach of freedom of movement and economic liberty are analyzed in respect of their encroachment in both legislations. Drawing from the most famous American cases in the constitutional history of the USA, the author starts to analyze the American case-law in emergency situation from the Second World War, the American Civil War and the Great Depression in relation to the first time Romanian law and jurisprudence. In the field of curfew laws both the American government and the Romanian one have instilled laws that were upheld by the judiciary in both legislations, mainly without judging on the merits. Nevertheless, in this regard, the american exemples described stress the need of checks and bances between the three branches of state powers, expressing the need to delegate power to the Executive but with the prior factual consent of the legislative and the mandatory judicial control of the judiciary. The constitutional judicial review of delegate powers to the executive under scrutiny of the Romanian Constitutional Court is commented as we l as the temporary relief provided to debtors by way of economic emergency that stirred the issuance of laws that protect them from their creditors meanwhile breaching the contractual liberties embedded in both legislations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Considering the case-law of the Romanian Constitutional Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union, in this study we analyze the Government Emergency Order no. 52/2017, regarding the mechanism of restitution of taxes to the creditors mentioned by Art. 3 para. (1) who applied for a refund before 1 September 20181. The article is interesting to the society, given that the Romanian state is required to repay taxes levied in breach of European Union law and, according to the explanatory memorandum of Law no. 258/2018 for the approval of the Order, there are over 180000 national applications for refund and judgments, not paid or partially paid. [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 intrusions1. 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 law2, and the right to private life is defined by the authors as the right to be left alone or the right to loneliness3. 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 overprotection 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]

Declaring the unconstitutionality of the Act regarding the Administrative Code of Romania was a good opportunity for the Government of Romania to resume the discussion on the bill for the Administrative Code. Unfortunately, the Government did not opt for the introduction of a bill regarding the Administrative Code, but has adopted an emergency ordinance, which raises many questions about the constitutionality of this normative act. This article aims at underlining the aspects of unconstitutionality of the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 57/2019 regarding the Administrative Code from the point of view of the way in which it was adopted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The complexity and dynamics of political life leads to developments and reconsiderations in terms of classical theories of constitutional law. Such a process occurs also in the case of separation of powers. Many factors have a bearing on how this theory is currently translated into practice, which requires additional perspectives of analysis in order to develop improved models of cooperation and balance of powers, according to new political realities. This study aims at examining the principle of separation and balance of powers in terms of mutual respect and loyal cooperation between institutions, or, in a broader sense, of constitutional loyalty, an intrinsic value-principle of all constitutions, without which no fundamental law, no matter of how democratic it might be, could function properly. Based on examination of concrete cases drawn from the case-law of the Constitutional Court of Romania, the study demonstrates that, in lack of constitutional loyalty, the objective pursued by enshrining the principle of separation of powers cannot be achieved effectively, i.e. compliance of public authorities and political actors with constitutional provisions is purely formal and the alleged collaboration between them is a "dialogue of the deaf" at the expense of democracy. The seriousness of the consequences of this type of behaviour requires identification of remedies. What are the limits and what solutions can be identified in this regard are questions that also we aim to answer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Pandectele Române is the property of Wolters Kluwer Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Romanian Review of Private Law / Revista Română de Drept Privat is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Within the study hereunder, the legal regime of joint ownership, in both its forms (common and temporary, respectively forced and perpetual) is analyzed, from a critical point of view, with special regard on the second type. The author analyzes the differences between the legal regime of these types of ownership established under the Civil Code (Law no. 287/2009, as republished) by comparison with the regulation of the Civil Code of 1864. The inconsistencies instituted under the new regulation, the illegitimate and unconstitutional nature of some of them, as well as the recent legislative amendments intervening in this respect are analyzed, all these being accompanied by examples extracted from the Romanian and foreign jurisprudence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author considers that article 288 paragraph (1) of the National Education Law no. 1/20 11 (text according to which the didactic activities exceeding a didactic workload are remunerated for each hour worked, and for the tenured didactic staff - in the higher education system - the maximum number of paid hours in the regime of payment per hour, no matter the educational establishment where the respective hours are worked, cannot exceed the minimum didactic workload) breaches the provisions of the Constitution of Romania, even though the Constitutional Court adjudicated otherwise under the decision no. 1090/2011. The basic argument forwarded by the author is that, in case of certain similar regulations contained in the contents of certain previous similar legislative instruments (Law no. 88/1993 and Law no. 128/1997), the same Constitutional Court, according to two decisions (no. 114/1994 and no. 30/1998) ruled otherwise than it had ruled in 2011 (that is, it stated that those decisions were unconstitutional). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Law no. 202/2010 regarding some measures to accelerate justice introduces in the Criminal Code through art. 74 Criminal Code, a series of provisions in the favor defendant who has committed certain economic crimes and has covered all the damage before the case has been solved in the first instance. We believe that the provisions could be interpreted as some legal and real mitigating circumstances, but with a special regime, this often creating difficulties in the interpretation and practice of the courts. Although declared unconstitutional in May 2011, the provisions of this Article should continue to apply regarding crimes committed before the article to be declared unconstitutional in virtue of the mitior lex principle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]