Suchergebnisse

In the context of internationalisation the national issues regarding the restitution of nationalised immovable goods in different stages of history, the subject at hand, represents a pioneering analysis of a complex national reality. Recent practice of Romanian courts has revealed a delicate problem that is apparently the object of debate and resolve of the national and international academic environment. Through the analysis the author tackles the problem of discrimination that is committed by the national law that regulates the matter of restitution of goods that were abusively taken over by the state, from the point of view of the theoretician, as well as the practitioner, pointing out the necessity of direct cooperation with the European courts. The negative discrimination, resulting from the art. 36 of 18/1991 law, can be analysed as an objective and rational justification that would allow the direct practice of the European convention of human rights concerning the litigations about "Land Act" (Law no. 18/1991)

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.