Suchergebnisse

Ombudsman, unlike the court, cannot make binding decisions, but usually public authorities follow its recommendations, otherwise he may bring the case to the attention of politicians and the public by informing Parliament. The link between the two fundamental European institutions, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Ombudsman, may be defined as a strong direct link between the problems of EU citizens. Requests to each institution represent an interest of each petitioner, which is intended to be solved by matching laws with moral rules and general principles of law.

The preliminary ruling procedure is a useful tool that, over time, allowed the national courts to participate to the application of European Union law and contributed to this law system evolution. Our study reveals that the procedure is useful for both the national court and the litigant parties, as it clarifies both categories of participants on how should be applied the law of the European Union. However, the preliminary ruling procedure is subject to specific rules, very well systematized in the Recommendations to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings, a document issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union itself. Ignoring these recommendations led to the rejection, as inadmissible, of certain requests for a preliminary ruling, and this is a situation that should be avoided in the future.

Transitional Justice in the Arab World and its Effects in the Light of the "Arab Spring" Launched in 2011 The events that took place in early 2011, known as the "Arab Spring", sparked several discussions in relation to regions that were considered closed to the democratic values promoted by Western states. Chain revolutions have primarily addressed a key issue, that of transitional justice, thus trying to bring truth and reconciliation to societies where for decades terror, totalitarianism, serious human rights violations, political repression have reigned, including those committed by police and security organs. Unfortunately, we must note that the lack of traditions in this regard has not allowed the realizations of tasks put before the transitional judiciary in these countries, although, we must admit, some successes have been achieved. Evenimentele ce au avut loc la începutul anului 2011, cunoscute sub termenul de "primăvara arabă" au trezit mai multe discuţii în raport cu regiuni care erau considerate închise pentru valorile democratice promovate de statele occidentale. Revoluţii în lanţ au abordat în primul rând un subiect cheie, cel al justiţiei tranziţionale, astfel încercând să aducă adevărul și reconcilierea în societăţile în care timp de decenii au domnit teroarea, totalitarismul, încălcări grave ale drepturilor omului, represiuni politice și din partea organelor de poliţie și de securitate. Cu regret, trebuie să constatăm faptul, că lipsa unor tradiţii în acest sens, nu a permis realizarea sarcinilor puse în faţa justiţiei tranziţionale în aceste ţări, deși, totuși, trebuie să recunoaștem, anumite succese au fost atinse.

Since justice is carried out through the judiciary, composed of judges, this means that the judicial power is exercised only by the court în the person of the judge, the sole bearer of that power. The judge is the one empowered to investigate a case în order to clarify it, thus proceeding to a trial and then pronouncing a judgment, thus making an act of justice. But we can speak of a power (a system of organs that have the power to do justice, including by constraint) and not just authority, unless organically the independence of the members of the judiciary is guaranteed and the exercise of the power to judge is sovereign. Therefore, not only justice per se, as a branch of government must be independent of the executive and the Parliament, but also individual judges have the right to enjoy independence în the performance of their professional duties.

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.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an essential reference to human rights and freedoms. Both the Declaration and the Constitution obliges authorities, especially justice and therefore constitutional justice to respect fundamental rights and freedoms, including those through which is ensured protection of personality's spiritual side. The right to a fair trial has a special place among the fundamental rights in a democratic society, whose level should be inherent in any system of law. The right to a fair trial in an independent and impartial court is recognised in customary international law so that those states that have not yet ratified the international instruments are also bound by law and the judicial system to adapt their legislation appropriately. The right to a fair trial has several components such as access to justice, a fair and public case in a reasonable time, examination of the case by an independent and impartial court, established by law, advertising delivery decisions. The right to be tried by an independent and impartial court is so elemental, exciting Human Rights Committee status as an "absolute right not bear any exception". The right to a fair trial also means a reasonable opportunity to expose any part of his case to the court in a manner that does not disadvantage the opposing party, which is achieved by ensuring its rights of defense. Parties have the right to be assisted by an attorney, elected or appointed by office. Realisation of the right to defense is ensured by the organisation and functioning of the judiciary, which is based on the principles of legality, equality of parties, gratuity, collegiality, publicity, immutability and the active role of the court. To enact a law the court as part of a fair trial takes into account the competence to hear the case, both materially and territorially. In this context, statutory legislation provisions are clear and precise, clearly delineating the powers of courts, the costs involved in the administration of justice. To understand and respect the provisions is of paramount importance in realisng the right - a prerequisite to the existence of balanced and harmonious society.

The legal architecture of the EU is considered to be sui generis and like any other hybrid system, the process of integration and interaction with the older instruments of the member-states can sometimes become difficult. This article investigates the interventionist tendencies of the Bundesverfassungsgericht in EU development and the reactions of the EU Court of Justice. The main finding is that the German Court often acts as a balance setter in the process of EU integration. The research introduces the debate of the national states' legal resistance to integration and highlights the changes brought in this respect by the Treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon.

Mediation is first and foremost an alternative to the justice that solves amicably a conflict between the parties to the conflict. Mediation has its origin in antiquity. It is found in the Justinian Codification. Our ancestors have preserved the institution of mediation in feudalism, and in modern times only in rural areas. At the present stage, the mediation procedure has grown in most European countries. The advantages of out-of-court mediation are: shorter duration, flexibility of the mediation procedure, parties can identify and adopt their own solutions. Among the disadvantages we mention: the non-binding character of the decisions, the inaccurate decisions, there is no guarantee of a successful solution. Specifically, the disadvantages of mediation have served as grounds for some states, including Moldova, to regulate the mandatory mediation for some categories of cases. This is how Italy and Romania went.

The 2000 Romanian General Elections marked the disappearance of the Romanian Democratic Convention (CDR), until then a remarkable fixture within the party system. The Convention's dissolution enabled other parties to emerge and fill in the void. This article explores these replacements at their geographical level. The historical region of Transylvania, once a stronghold for the Convention, became a favorable place for the Justice and Truth Alliance (DA) in 2004 and for the National Liberal Party (PNL) and the Democratic Liberal Party (PDL) in 2008. Using Exploratory Spatial Data Analysis (ESDA), we examine the geography of party replacement in six Transylvanian counties. ESDA indicates that the party replacement process within the Romanian context has a definite and clear geographical dimension. Our study shows the need to place electoral changes in a geographic framework for a better understanding of Romanian party politics.

Created by the Hungarian Minister of Instruction and Religion in an attempt to depopulate the Universities of Hungary from the big number of auditors, the Romanian Era of the Law Academy of Oradea began with two academic years, 1919-1920 and 1920-1921, of transition from the Hungarian authorities to the Romanian ones. Due to the efficiency of the Dirigent Council of managing the issues of the Transylvanian education, during 1919 and the first half of 1920, the Academy's activity was not interrupted. The students could continue the studies in similar conditions as those existing before 1918, fact that helped many of them sustain both, the main exams, the final state ones and those of Justice. At the end of the three transitions years, the education institution of Oradea was able to begin the academic year 1921-1922 in normal conditions.

The Judge plays a decisive role in promoting respect for human rights. His activity is governed by the fundamental principles of the "rule of law" concept. The principle of separation of powers is a principle that any democracy, that wants to be real, must necessarily take it into consideration and implement it. Delimitation of powers is, broadly speaking, a different jurisdiction to establish institutional authority, and to exclude other forms of mutual intrusion than those permitted by law. At European level, the criteria and conditions of the judicial domain, and the judges, receive a broader notion, more complex. The structure of today's European Union is based solely on the rules of law. Rule of law is ensured through creation of Community law that is independent and uniform for all Member States. To ensure judicial protection of individual rights conferred by Community law, transparency is indispensable to national procedural law. Therefore, the national legislation must be put in harmony with European law and the national legislator is obliged to respect the decisions of the EUCJ, which decided that, in principle, the conditions imposed by national law will not have to render virtually the rights conferred by Community law. Any judge, seized within its jurisdiction, is required to apply the provisions of Community law and protect rights which are conferred to individuals, leaving all provisions inapplicable, possibly contrary, the national law, either before or after the Community rule. European law clearly reinforces cultural and legal national judge. Community law isn't a foreign law, it is an outside law. This law is proper to each of our States as its national law, but it also has this feature to be at the same time a common value for all.

The structural-functional features of the European political system are analyzed. The author correlates the structure and the functions of the national political system with the functionality of the European supra-national structures. The efficiency of the decision making process and the functionality of any type of political system is influenced by the level of political culture and the degree of maturity of the political actors. The need to correlate interests of different states: EU members, candidates or those in process to adhere to the EU, determines the supra-national structures: European Council, European Union Council, European Parliament, EU Court of Justice, EU Court of Accounts, European Central Bank to honor honestly and responsibly their functions, respecting democratic principles of political communication, of cooperation and co-work. In conclusion, the author states that the European political system is functional, efficient, viable due to the capacity of institutions to ensure a dynamic stability both at community level and national one. The fact that at the moment the European Union is an international political actor with legal status and its components (Member States) that share the same rights and obligations represents a unique experience, interesting for the contemporary political theory.

The treaties and the regulations of the Council of Europe offered greater protection to minors against the attacks on their lives and health. However, the effective implementation of this is carried out through national criminal laws. In the European countries, the criminal laws set certain infringements against the minor's life and health including aggravating offenses, which are committed by a certain person against minors. Some of them are similar, others, though, differ from one state to another, which consequently requires their unification to ensure a minimum of protection.

The article presents the judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights of 5 March 2020 in GROBELNY v. Poland, by which the Court found that Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights had been infringed following the rejection by national courts of the applicant's claim for compensation equal to the invalidity pension which he was unlawfully deprived of by applying the res judicata principle, despite the existence of relevant and sufficient grounds for departing from that principle, namely the fact that the applicant's deprivation of pension rights was the consequence of a manifest error attributable to the public authority, found as such by the court in the second dispute. The Court held that, in this way, the national authorities had failed to ensure compliance with the principles of social justice and fairness or good governance and that the burden to which the applicant was subject was disproportionate, since he was required to bear the consequences of the errors attributable to the public authorities on his own, even though he did not have any other legal means to compensate for the damage. The article also contains an analysis by the author of the ECtHR ruling.