Suchergebnisse

Such famous jurists as H. Kelsen, J. Chevallier, Giorgio del Vecchio, A. Hauriou, Mircea Djuvara, François Rigaux, Ion Deleanu, Tudor Drăganu etc. expressed their views on the principles of the rule of law, which persisted for several centuries. The rule of law is never a perfect reality and no country can claim to have achieved perfection, because the rule of law is not obtained easily, it is the joint effort of the state authorities, civil society, and all the citizens. José Manuel Durão Barroso stated that "The rule of law is the cornerstone of the European Union, there is no true democracy without the rule of law and without democracy the rule of law is just an instrument in the hand of the rulers". While the European Commissioner for Justice, Viviane Reding stated that "In parallel to the economic and financial crisis, we also have been confronted on several occasions with a true "rule of law" crisis. At the beginning of April 2014, in Innsbruck (Austria), was held the academic conference entitled "Strengthening the rule of law in Europe - from a common concept to mechanisms of implementation". On April 21, 2014, the European Parliament noted, according to Article 49 of the EU Treaty, Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia, as any European country can apply to become a member of the European Union, given that they realize the principles of democracy, the fundamentals of freedom, human and minority rights and ensure the rule of law. Thus, achieving the rule of law in Moldova was and will be a permanent and current task in the coming years.

In Romania, the national provisions transposing EU Framework Decision 2008/909 / JHA
on the application of the principle of mutual recognition in the case of judgments
in criminal matters which impose punishments or custodial measures for the purpose
their execution in the European Union are found in Title VI of Law no. 302/2004, regarding the judicial cooperation
Those provisions must be interpreted in the light of the text and the purpose of the Framework Decision, according to the principle of conforming interpretation, and also taking into account the jurisprudence of the CJEU in interpreting the same Framework Decision. The article presents national case law regarding practical issues on different aspects of the application of Framework Decision 2008/909 /JHA and CJEU case law.

The study relies on a complex research project, financed by the European Union, which aimed at measuring, first of all, the training and managerial consultancy needs of entrepreneurs and of those who wish to start a business in the rural environment in the North-Eastern, Central and South-Eastern areas of Romania (18 counties). In order to understand these training and consultancy needs, the research also investigated the issue of values. By identifying the specificity of rural entrepreneurial culture, we can understand the current situation in the entrepreneurial environment of Romanian villages and draw up strategies for its development. The research shows that there is a great deal of interest to start a business among young persons, but the existent managerial culture is extremely poor.

Referral to the CJEU for the pronouncement of preliminary rulings regarding the interpretation of European Union law cannot have a purely theoretical purpose (e.g. the Court Ordinance of October 7, 2013 in case C-82/13) but a necessarily practical one, such as to allow the national court to resolve the specific dispute with which it is vested. Therefore, knowledge of the judicial decisions pronounced by the national courts after receiving the answer to the preliminary question from the CJEU is very important to evaluate the implications of the CJEU jurisprudence in the law of the member states and the effectiveness of the dialogue between it and the national courts. Next, the decisions of the courts in Romania are presented in some cases in which the CJEU was referred with preliminary questions, respectively those that were resolved in the cases registered on its roll with no. C-62/19, C 354/18 and C 644/19.

In this study, we analyse the manner of developing a particular system of coordination of European affairs at national level, as well as its efficiency, the aim being to provide suggestions for improving it. The introductory section highlights the need for such a study, given the current political and institutional context of Romania, and it states the objectives of the study. Special attention is given to presenting the theoretical approach (expressing, on the one hand, the authors' vision that European affairs - distinctly from foreign affairs - are part of the complex governance process specific for the European Union (EU) and, on the other hand, operationalizing the idea of efficiency within a national system for coordinating European affairs, etc.) and the research methodology (reasons for choosing a comparative research design to support the presented arguments, as well as the qualitative research performed). In the first part, the paper also provides information on the legislative and institutional configuration of the EU, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, because the novelties and reforms brought by this regulatory framework (supperior to the one of the Nice Treaty, but inferior to the proposals stipulated within the Constitutional Treaty) have a direct impact on designing the structure for coordinating European affairs in the Member States. Given that in Romania the European affairs coordination system was initially inspired by the French model, while later suffering a series of institutional changes (some inspired by models from other EU states), an important part of the study addresses the need to know, from a comparative perspective, the best practices in European affairs coordination and cooperation mechanisms in other EU Member States. [.]

The survey was conducted on a sample of 1087 selected subjects from 128 urban and rural localities in all counties of Romania. He measured the attitude towards issues such as: union with the Republic of Moldova, introduction of electronic voting, issues that should be promoted in the European Parliament, confidence in Romanian political leaders, voting intentions in the next elections, perception of the last 4 presidents.