Suchergebnisse

The study undertakes to clarify some basic issues that have been erroneously recorded in the public consciousness, to make a kind of confrontation in order to take the initial steps of improving the Romanian−Hungarian relationship. In order to achieve the above goal and basic thesis, it is a primary task to illuminate and banish the mistakes and myths recorded in the public consciousness from both sides. In this context, it is revealed that neither the topos of the "millennial Hungarian oppression" simplified to the extreme nor the thesis of the "slow − anti-Hungarian − Romanian national occupation" can be held. In the interest of constructive dialogue, it is worth returning to the position that prevailed in the Hungarian reform era, and even at the time of the unification of the Romanian states, according to which the interdependence and commonality of destiny of the two peoples is a real and common path. To this end, the study uses legal history to present the original meaning of nationalism, the majority and minority arguments made during the drafting of the Hungarian Nationality Act of 1868, the models that can be interpreted in the majority−minority relationship, and the relationship of the two states to these models then and in the present day. In this context, the constitutional conceptions of Hungary and Romania are analysed in connection with the minority issue with the intention to prove the legitimacy of the needs of the Hungarian minority. The basic premise of the study in this area is that if a minority demand was legitimate from the Hungarian side within the Hungarian state, then the argumentum a simile from the Hungarian side is necessarily legitimate within the Romanian state.

The purpose of the study is to explain the evolution of regulations that resulted in minority rights for Romanians living in Transylvania in the pre-1918 period. The study analyses in detail the advancement of the idea of " nationalities" (in the meaning of national minorities) in the legislation from the last decade of the 18th century and presents the legal claims of the Transylvanian Romanians against the Habsburg Empire and the Hungarian Parliament. The authors present the Nationalities Act adopted in the 1848 revolution, but left without consequences, and examine the development of laws on minority rights during the legislative period following the Austrian-Hungarian settlement. The article discusses the grand debate on the act on nationalities, which took place in the Hungarian Parliament in 1868, and describes the later assimilation efforts by the majority lawmakers. The authors draw attention to the fact that non-Hungarian nationalities acquired a minority status only after the adoption of the Nationalities Act by the Hungarian state, which became a so-called majority state.

The new Romanian Civil Code (adopted in 2009, in effect since 2011) comprises a section dedicated to personality rights, as a novelty element compared to the previous Code. Their incorporation into the form of juridical norm follows both naturally from the historic evolution of some fundamental rights, both from the intention of the Romanian lawmaker to offer a comprehensive legal framework in the field of civil law.

The aim of the discussion paper is to assess the current state of Romanian−Hungarian relations in Transylvania, the causes of the problems and possible ways to improve interethnic links. The proposals include legal and non-legal solutions. From a Hungarian point of view, is not possible to circumvent the redesign of the dialogue; it is necessary to be able to explain why the goal is to achieve consociational democracy. In this context, it is also necessary to write a short programe document in Romanian outlining the ideal model of coexistence. The legal instrument for moving forward still seems to be the Minority Act provided for in the Constitution but never adopted. In this regard, Romania is in a situation of anti-constitutionality due to omission. Resolving the problem of language use in the judiciary is also a key issue. The establishment of training centres in Cluj-Napoca and Iași within the framework of the National Institute of Magistracy in the short term may be a step forward to tackle the under-representation in the judiciary, while consociational democracy is the solution in the long term for this issue as well. The topic of cultural autonomy, which already exists in certain elements, is also open and may lead to progress, and this must be resolved within the framework of the Minority Act.

Pursuant to the First World War, Romania's territory increased, and thus it inherited a complex social, economic, and legal environment different from that of the predecessor states. The Romanian state's response to these challenges is to be found in the political goal of building a homogeneous nation-state. This political agenda has had an impact on all areas of law, not only on legislation but also on the application of the law. The use of essentially ethnically neutral legal instruments of criminal law for state policy purposes can also be seen as an element of exclusionary nationality policy. The Romanian state's actions have thus not only failed to resolve existing internal tensions but have also made the relations between the majority and minorities, as well as the possibility of consolidation impossible for the past century.

"Following the coming into force of the new Social Dialogue Act in 2011, the Romanian collective bargaining system has fundamentally changed due to the restructuring of the levels of collective bargaining and the definition of the representativeness criteria. The collective agreement is the central institution of the collective labour law, the existence or non-existence of it, the content of the agreement being of a real interest for the enforcement of employees' interest. The new regulation significantly weakened the bargaining power of the social partners, which very soon led to a drastic reduction in the number of the concluded collective agreements.
In our study, we try to point out the problematic issues of the Romanian regulation related to the collective agreement, anticipating at the same time the possible new perspectives opened up by the attempt to amend the law."

The future of the Romanian−Hungarian relationship is particularly topical in the light of the last hundred years. The importance of language skills, the factual presentation of autonomy, our openness to other minority groups, and our own community activism, regardless of election cycles, cannot be overemphasized.

The author of the following study presents the institution of surety as it is regulated in Romanian civil law. The notion of surety (in the sense of the person offering the guarantee) is presented, as well as the legal nature of the surety contract, and its defining characteristic of an accessory guarantee as well as the conclusion of the contract and the formal and material requirements for its validity. In the following, the author presents the various types of surety regulated in Romanian civil law. Regarding the effects of the surety contract the study presents the legal consequences specifically regulated in Romania, which arise when the debtor fails to respect his obligations. In the final part of the study, the reasons for the cessation of the effects of the surety contract, are presented, with special emphasis on the death of the surety (natural person), which, contrary to the apparent meaning of the legal text, does not result in the cancellation of any debt owed by the deceased surety in virtue of the surety contract. This debt shall remain due as part of the surety's estate.

At the end of 1918, the Romanian Army overran Transylvania in the context of the Hungarian state crisis. Before the peace treaty conclusion, in 1919, it took over the judiciary in the occupied territories: the courts and the bar of attorneys. This article examines the course and legal context of this takeover: the problem of legality and the actual course of the takeover.