Search

In this article, the author analyzes the relationship between the real character of the sovereign national will expressed by the Constituent Assemblies and the legitimacy of the constitutions elaborated by them. The more the constituent power and its institutional expression -- the Constituent Assembly -- reflect more fully and faithfully the sovereign will of the people, its authentic aspirations and needs for development and progress, the more expressive the constitutional identity of the respective nation will be, and the constitution voted by it will be fully legitimate and will have, through its content, the valences of a country project. Seen through these parameters, a legitimate constitution strengthens the mutual relationship of belonging between the state and the citizen. A constitution is legitimate to the extent that it is perceived by citizens as their constitution, the mirror and expression of their real aspirations for personal development, as well as political and socio-economic or cultural one. From this perspective, the author analyzes the constitutional moments completed with the adoption of some constitutions in the Republic of Moldova in the period 1924--1978 and, respectively, in Romania, in the interval 1948--1965 and concludes that the respective fundamental laws had an illegitimate character, they were undemocratic constitutions, in the sense that this term has in the European constitutional doctrine, since they did not reflect the sovereign will of the respective peoples, these being, in fact, imposed constitutions, granted by an illegitimate ruler holding power. As for the two republics, they had a common constitutional path in certain stages of the evolution of their state existence. In this context, the author shows that at academic and scientific research level, the wise reconstitution and recovery of the true, real common history of the two states is required, in order to restore and affirm a single constitutional identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Româna de Dreptul Muncii 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 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 study analyses the manner in which the Parliament adopted the first organization law of the armed forces following the Great Union of 1918. This particular piece of legislation was very important for Romania, but it could be adopted only after the Constitution came into effect, promulgated on March 29, 1923. The legislative process began in February 1924, with the Senate being the first chamber to review it, voting on February 29, 1924. The Chamber of Deputies followed, giving its final vote on May 27 of the same year. The law was published in the "Official Gazette" No. 134 on June 24, 1934. It was effectively in force throughout the inter-war period, with minimal amendments in 1930 and 1932. Parliamentary debates were lively, with senators and deputies making various proposals that were ultimately not included in the law's content. It was approved in both chambers with only one vote against, reflecting the legislative body's care and responsibility for national defence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Româna de Dreptul Muncii 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 study analyses the justifications for bicameralism, as revealed by constitutional debates in 1866, 1923, 1991. The need for an upper house was initially predicated upon higher property qualifications as a form of surrogate aristocracy. With the onset of universal franchise 1918, attempts were made in 1923, partly in corporatist key, to distinguish in terms of composition the two houses. In practice, irrespective of differences in composition, bicameralism functioned under both constitutions in a fully streamlined modality. The Constitution of 1991 created a bicameral parliament that is both symmetric and highly congruent. In terms of justification, this choice was made without much introspection, leaning reflexively on path-dependency, under Decree No 92/1990, and a shallow reception of tradition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The supremacy of the Constitution would remain a mere theoretical matter if there were no adequate guarantees. Undeniably, constitutional justice and its particular form, the constitutionality control of laws, represent the main guarantee of the supremacy of the Constitution, as it is also expressly stipulated in the Fundamental Law of Romania. The obligation of the authorities, namely the parliament and the executive to have a constitutionally loyal behavior was stipulated for the first time in the jurisprudence of the French Constitutional Council, which is the constitutional court of France. This obligation is found in the powers that state authorities have to interpret and apply constitutional norms. It is not limited only to the simple requirement of legality of the acts and dispositions of the rulers, that is, to the formal observance of the law. In our opinion, the preoccupation of the political class and the state authorities in the current period, in relation to the current content of the Fundamental Law, should also be oriented towards its correct interpretation and application and respect for the democratic purpose of the constitutional institutions. For the consolidation of the rule of law in Romania, even in the current normative form of the Constitution, it is necessary that the political formations, especially those that hold the power, all the state authorities act or exercise their powers within the limits of a loyal constitutional behavior that implies respect for the meaning and the democratic meanings of the Constitution, the Christian Orthodox traditions and values of the Romanian people, the rights and dignity of the person. In this study we analyze doctrinal and jurisprudential aspects of the issue of resolving conflicts of a constitutional nature by state authorities and the concept of loyal constitutional behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current Constitution of Romania enshrines a bicephalic or dualist executive, in which one of the heads is the President, and the other is the Government. The form of government in Romania, according to art. 1 paragraph (2) of the Constitution, is the republic, the constitutional provisions regarding the form of government being part of the category of those qualified by art. 152, as limits of the review. The President ensures the proper functioning of public authorities. In order to achieve this mission, he exercises the role of mediation. We are not dealing with two distinct functions, but with one, more precisely with two attributes of the same function. “The mediation carried out by the President of Romania does not stop at the state authorities, but must go further and resolve the eventual divergences that may appear between the public authorities and different segments of the social structure from a position of neutrality”. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An exhaustive investigation of the principle of assuming responsibility in public procurement law in general and of assuming responsibility by the contracting authority in particular involves a thorough study, considerations for which in this study we set out to analyze some of the aspects that drew our attention to this topic, from the perspective of the normative framework, of the doctrine and jurisprudence identified. We have researched the topic from the perspective of the provisions of Directive 2014/24/EU, but also of the joint public procurement aimed at strengthening the defence industry, regulated by Regulation (EU) 2023/2418. Assuming liability is one of the principles on which public procurement is based according to Law no. 98/2016, being analyzed by reference to the provisions of the Constitution and of the Administrative Code, taking into account doctrine and jurisprudence. We also considered the reflection of the principle of assuming responsibility by the contracting authority in the matter of ex ante control of the process of awarding public procurement contracts regulated by the Government Ordinance no. 98/2017, the conclusion being that some of the procedures it provides are questionable by reference to the principle of assuming responsibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

FROM TIME TO TIME, POLITICIANS, WHETHER WELL-KNOWN OR LESS KNOWN, DISCUSS THE NECESSITY OF CHANGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK. THE ULTRAMAJORITY COALITION CREATED DURING THE INVESTITURE OF THE NICOLAE CIUCĂ GOVERNMENT ON NOVEMBER 25, 2021, FORMED BY P.N.L., P.S.D., AND U.D.M.R., WAS JUSTIFIED PRECISELY ON THE GROUNDS OF THE NEED FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM. AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION IS A VERY DELICATE ENDEAVOR. THE FIRST DISCUSSION WOULD CONCERN THE SCOPE OF THE AMENDMENTS; IN OTHER WORDS, SHOULD THE CONSTITUTION BE PARTIALLY MODIFIED OR COMPLETELY OVERHAULED? TO WHAT EXTENT DOES IT STILL ALIGN WITH THE POLITICAL REALITIES OF ROMANIA? WAS ROMANIA'S CONSTITUTION, IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM, A HELP OR A HINDRANCE IN DEVELOPING A FUNCTIONAL DEMOCRACY? DID THE LAW ON THE REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ROMANIA HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT OR NOT? THE SECOND DISCUSSION FOCUSES ON THE ARTICLES AND PARAGRAPHS THAT SHOULD BE AMENDED, OR WHERE INTERVENTIONS SHOULD BE MADE IN THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION TO MAKE IT A CATALYST FOR ROMANIA'S DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

THE PERIOD BETWEEN 1918 AND 1948 IS ONE OF THE MOST COMPLEX AND DRAMATIC OF THE LAST TWO CENTURIES IN ROMANIAN HISTORY. IN THIRTY YEARS, ALL THE EFFORTS OF WESTERNIZATION AND MODERNIZATION THAT ROMANIAN SOCIETY HAD ACHIEVED SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE 19TH CENTURY WERE UNDONE. THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF ROMANIA BEGAN WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE 1866 CONSTITUTION, WHICH REMAINED IN FORCE UNTIL 1923 WHEN A NEW FUNDAMENTAL LAW WAS PASSED, WITH ONLY SLIGHT CHANGES FROM ITS PREDECESSOR. THE SECOND CONSTITUTION WOULD HAVE A MUCH SHORTER LIFESPAN, BEING REPEALED AT THE BEGINNING OF 1938 WITH THE ADOPTION OF A NEW CONSTITUTION THAT MARKED THE START OF KING CAROL II'S PERSONAL REGIME. THIS CONSTITUTION REMAINED IN FORCE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 5, 1940, WHEN KING CAROL II SIGNED ROYAL DECREE NO. 3052 SUSPENDING THE 1938 CONSTITUTION. THEN, ON AUGUST 31, 1944, ROYAL DECREE NO. 1626 REINSTATED PROVISIONS FROM BOTH THE 1866 AND 1923 CONSTITUTIONS (THE RIGHTS OF ROMANIANS WERE RECOGNIZED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1866 ACT, WHILE THE POWERS OF THE STATE WERE EXERCISED ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL NORMS OF 1923). THIS SITUATION LASTED UNTIL DECEMBER 30, 1947, WHEN KING MICHAEL I ABDICATED UNDER DURESS, AND LAW NO. 363 WAS ADOPTED, ESTABLISHING THE ROMANIAN STATE AS THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF ROMANIA. THE NEW CONSTITUTIONAL VOID WAS MUCH SHORTER, AS THE FIRST CONSTITUTION OF COMMUNIST ROMANIA WAS VOTED ON BY THE GREAT NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ON APRIL 13, 1948. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a broad sense, the constitution brings together norms that regulate the political manifestations of state-power and gives legal expression to the essential values that define a human collectivity; This last characteristic explains why constitutions tend to enjoy greater stability than other regulations. Social experience shows that the legal requirements applicable to the process of revising the Romanian Constitution make a formal revision difficult and leave room for informal revisions. The rigidity of a Constitution cannot fully explain the success or failure of a revision, but it can play a significant role in protecting the stability of certain values, in particular those encapsulated in legal rules declared intangible and thus protectedfrom the vagaries ofan intemperate political life. Equally, the stability of the Constitution is and must be compatible with the adequacy and synchrony between social life and the Basic Law. Ultimately, the aim of any constitutional revision should be to (re)gain citizens' confidence in the institutions and authority of the state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The premise of this paper is that the constitutional values and traditions of a nation constitute the basic vein of its constitutional development. This process is evolutionary and creative by nature, which means that, in addition to the existing value substrate, society receives new elements and values. The combination of tradition and innovation takes place in a sequence of stages, leading to an emerging evolution. Thus, the paper identifies these constitutional values and traditions as those contained in the acts with constitutional value adopted in the period 1858-1938. The interrelationship between these constitutional traditions and innovative ideas from the European constitutional space can be found in the Constitution of 1991, which perfectly illustrates the emerging evolution of Romanian constitutionalism. The Constitution of 1991 organically combines the elements of constitutional tradition that mainly relate to the institutional construction of the state with the innovative ones aimed at a resettlement and adaptation of the axiological content offundamental rights and freedoms, but also the relationship between the national and European legal order. Of course, the valorization of the constitutional tradition cannot be mimetic, but must be appropriate to the new requirements of the science of law. Under these conditions, the valorization, interrelation and recombination of constitutional values over time reflects an emerging evolution, which proves the continuity of the development movement of Romanian law and its permanent connection to European values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to provide for a new, fresh look into the 1866 Romanian constitution: drawing on a long tradition of legal and political studies this rereading aims at uncovering the background responsible for its shaping, as well as the main challenges related to its enforcement, for almost half a century. The 1866 constitution thus becomes a pivotal point in the long conversation about law, liberty and individual rights, pointing to the future of the 20th century, with its terrible legacy of authoritarianism and democratic backsliding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the author, benefiting from an extensive documentation, analyzes in detail the content of the Constitution of 27 February 1938, a constitutional act that represented the legal basis for the establishment and functioning of the active monarchy regime of King Carol II. The author brings arguments to the effect that the authoritarian monarchy regime patronized by King Carol II was, at the time of its establishment, a solution that the sovereign had to resort to in order to save the country’s statehood, threatened by so many internal factors, among which we mention the danger presented by the growing influence of the Legionary Movement and the inability of the interwar democratic parties to give real functionality and consistency to the values and principles of the constitutional democracy, as well as external ones, namely the dissolution of Romania’s system of alliances and the disinterest of democratic European powers in guaranteeing Romania’s territorial integrity. In this international context, in which the European order forged by the treaties of 1919 no longer constituted a guarantee for the maintenance of parliamentary democracy, the new order of the Berlin–Rome Axis proved to be more and more threatening for the states in the centre and the south-eastern part of Europe. Carol II resorted to a policy of saving the statehood based on the Latin maxim salus rei publicae suprema lex. Under the sign of this Latin maxim, the Constitution adopted by plebiscite and promulgated under the signature of the sovereign and of the members of the Government of Patriarch Miron Cristea was thought and realized by the enlightened minds of the Romanian legal elite. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the first part of this article documented the positions taken by important Romanian scholars on solidarism (I) and especially on the issue of property conceived as social function following the theory of Leon Duguit but also the relevant provisions of the German Weimar Constitution (II.1), this second and last part will try to demonstrate the relevance of Otto von Gierke's social law paradigm for the Romanian Constitution from 1923. [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.)

The achievement of state independence was the main objective of Romanian foreign policy in the 19th century, but this direction only became irreversible after the enthronement of Prince Carol on May 10/22, 1866, and the adoption of the 1866 Constitution, seen as Romania's first "truly modern" fundamental law. Dubbed by some authors as the "constitutional transplant of 1866", as it was roughly a translation of Belgium's 1831 constitution, which was considered the most liberal in Europe at that time, the adoption of the 1866 Constitution created the necessary legal framework for the development of the Romanian Principalities. The 1866 Constitution was suitable for the historical stage our country was in at the time, but, after more than half a century, the evolution of Romanian society, especially the transformations following the Unification War, naturally necessitated a modification of the constitutional framework, institutions, and constitutional mechanisms. The draft of the 1923 Constitution was adopted by the Chamber of Deputies in the session of March 26 of the same year and by the Senate in the session of March 27. In this article, we aim to review some of the defining characteristics of the two fundamental laws regarding the military institution, the similarities and differences with regards to the military body, and especially the innovative elements brought by the 1923 Constitution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to analyse the legal regime of one of the most sensitive and profound fundamental freedoms, the freedom of religious belief. We say this because it influences not only the life of each individual, but also the life of communities, of the peoples of the world and, without any exaggeration, over time it has influenced the life of an important part of the world, of more extensive or more restricted regions. The Constitution regulates this in Article 29, and the constituent rules are further developed by the Law No 489/2006 on freedom of religion and the general system of religions. We will analyse the legal regime of this freedom in the light of the constitutional and legal provisions, highlighting the elements that make it different from other freedoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Strategic Universe Journal / Univers Strategic is the property of Dimitrie Cantemir Christian University, Institute for Security Studies 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.)

Although the concept of legislative omissionis recognised in the legal system of many European states and many constitutional jurisdictions examine the constitutionality of legislative omissions, given the rigidity that characterises modern constitutions, the constitutional review of legislative omissions is not expressly recognised in mostEuropean states. Thus, the question no warises as to whether the development of constitutional review of legislative omissions through jurisprudence is sufficient, or whether it is necessary to reform the texts of the fundamental laws by regulating this type of constitutional review. In order to better understand this issue, it is necessary, firstly, to look at the way in which the stability of the fundamental laws is maintained through the development of constitutional review of legislative omissions through jurisprudence and, secondly, to analyse the appropriateness of reforming the fundamental laws by expressly regulating the constitutional review of legislative omissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study approaches an aspect of the adoption process of the Constitution of 1923, in order to shed a new light on the alternative visions with regard to the democratic construction of interwar Romania. At that time, the new Constitution was contested as an exercise in liberal authoritarianism. The leaders of the main opposition parties, Iuliu Maniu and Ion Mihalache, protested, including by boycotting the debates and by refusing to participate in the Coronation from Alba Iulia. However, as I will show in the following, the Constitution of 1923 did not create, but was itself tributary to the inherent imperfections of a peripheral state, unevenly modernized and late unified. Under ideal conditions, taking over some instruments proposed by the other preliminary drafts published at the time would have been desirable in itself. The alternative visions could not be though integrated, but only accepted and substituted for the PNL draft. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study aims to analyze the regime of incompatibilities in the exercise of a public function or dignity. He starts from a practical case, where the fundamental legal issue is whether the state of incompatibility also exists in the situation where the holder of a public office has suspended himself from the basic office before taking over and effectively and exclusively exercising the second office, public or contractual. Unfortunately, the High Court validated the practice that the National Integrity Agency validated, in the sense that the suspension from office only suspends the exercise, not the holding of the office. Moreover, the formula has been established, unsupported by any normative act or doctrine, that we should make a difference between suspension by right and that ordered by request. Such approaches affect the regime of incompatibilities and the reason why they were instituted and affect the fundamental right, the right to work, guaranteed by art. 41 of the Constitution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Română de Drept European 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 dialogue of the Courts in the European Union could be a veritable centripetal force of integration around the shared values that govern the European constitutional order. This dialogue must be supported by appropriate instruments, as the power regarding the constitutional review of international treaties is regulated by the Romanian Constitution and by other Constitutions of the Member States. However, in Romania, the legislative framework and the actors involved as possible referral subjects determine a purely decorative nature of the power to review international treaties before ratification. In this study, we will analyze the constitutional developments in the matter, outlining regulatory insights for the effectiveness of this power of the CCR and for the strengthening of the judicial dialogue in the EU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Freedom of expression, a fundamental pillar of democratic society, is today a fundamental right, protected at the Constitutional level, but which, over time, has been the subject of fierce struggles to enjoy legal protection and recognition. In this paper, we will analyze how this right has evolved, especially in the Romanian Constitutions after 1923, but also how it has experienced an alteration, being subjected to significant tests in recent years due to the emerging phenomenon of cancel culture. We will deepen the understanding of this phenomenon, evaluating its evolution, characteristics and impact on public discourse, respectively on freedom of expression. We will also explore the notable similarities between cancel culture and the policies of creating the „new man" from the communist era in Romania. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Constitution of 1923 is the one that definitively fixed the patterns of Romanian constitutionalism, in the application of democratic and national ideals, succeeding in tracing the landmarks of its development and ensuring its own course, including in the returns after the authoritarian wanderings - first in the exceptional conditions of the period August 23, 1944 - December 30, 1947 and then after 1989 through the Constitution of December 8, 1991. It represents the model equally in terms of the preparation and elaboration of the text, its content and the consequences produced for Romanian society, in general, and the development of constitutional democracy, in particular. Unlike a century ago, the focus of the reflection is moving from quickly building the ideological premises of a new constitutional settlement, to deeply meditating on the constants affirmed then and the evolutions recorded, later deaned in what could constitute the data of a Romanian constitutionalism found in full affirmation and in confrontation with the new data of national and international realities. One that would currently offer us the theoretical-actional levers to be able to claim our own, specific positioning in the juridical-jurisdictional interconnections and the dialogue of ideas related to European integration and facing the manifestations of globalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The adoption of the Complete Romanian Constitution of 29 March 1923 represented a reference moment for the organization of public administration on the basis of modern principles, in the context of deep social-political changes and the commitments assumed through the treaties concluded in the immediate post-war period. Although the principles and general architecture of the public administration were not essentially different from those provided for in the Constitution from 1866, it was hoped that through the adoption of the new Basic Law, the foundations of a different reality of Romanian administrative life would be laid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 1923 Constitution was considered one of the most important milestones in the development of the Romanian constitutionalism. It represented the fundamental political-legal act that allowed the legislative and administrative unification of the Romanian State after the Great Union of 1918. For us, the contemporaries of the Centenary of the 1923 Constitution, it is a noble honor and a high responsibility to bring, today, to the attention of our peers, in summary of course, the ideas, appreciations and conclusions of great personalities of the time, who contributed to the completion of the project of organizing the modern Romanian State, such as: Dimitrie Gusti, Nicolae Iorga, Vintilă I. Brătianu, Constantin G. Dissescu, Calypso C Botez, Mircea Djuvara, Virgil Madgearu, D. Undoubtedly, the ideas, conceptions, discussions sparked and promoted during the support - in the hall and on the stage of the Romanian Athenaeum - of the public lectures of these luminaries of Romanian culture, ensured the imposition of a certain vision that had its say in the success of the great national project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The anniversary of a century since adopting a fundamental law, a landmark of Romanian constitutionalism, offers a generous space to analyze the permanence of some values that constitute the „essential core" of the Romanian Constitution, qualified by the Constitutional Court as the „fundamental identity core". After brief clarifications concerning the concepts used, the study approaches constitutional identity from a historical perspective, with the Constitution of 1923 as the main benchmark and the relationship between national constitutional identity and European constitutional identity. Based on the analyzed aspects, common elements, and differences are highlighted, likely to foreshadow milestones for the constitutional evolution of the European Union. The purpose of the research approach concerns the outline of the concept of national constitutional identity, a key to the development of the European Union, as well as the identification of the competence limits and the margin of interpretation of the constitutional values subsumed by this notion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The provisions of Article 53 of the Constitution allow the restriction of the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms, but only conditionally. The rules established by these regulations have the value of a constitutional principle, because they are applicable to all the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens. The Constitutional Court and the courts are the main state institutions that have the competence to guarantee the observance of the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens, to verify the conformity of normative acts with the Fundamental Law and to the constitutionality of limits, conditions and restrictions of exercise of rights power of the Parliament and the Government when adopting restrictive measures. During the health crisis, the government restricted the exercise of essential fundamental rights, which severely affect people's private and social lives. In this study we analyze, based on the jurisprudence of the Romanian Constitutional Court, some international courts and some courts, the legitimacy and constitutionality of these restrictive measures as well as their current impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Româna de Dreptul Muncii 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 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.)

In this study the author analyzes, from a double theoretical perspective - legal and politological -, the option of the constituent legislators from 1990-1991 for the semi-presidential republic, as a form of separation and balancing of the three powers in the state. Based on a relevant bibliography and on the parliamentary debates within the Constitutional Commission for the drafting of the Constitution and of the Constituent Assembly, the author submits to scientific reflection not only the points of view and arguments raised for discussion in the Constituent Assembly, but also the spirit of the constituent legislator referring to the type of political regime to be enshrined and defended by constitutional norm. There are presented, from the perspective of the constituent legislators, the positive and negative valences of the semi-presidential political regime. After many debates, the Constituent Assembly opted for the semi-presidential republic as a form of government after the overthrow of the old regime in December 1989. The author states that the legislators opted for a semi-presidential model of functioning and balancing powers which should preserve the role and the equal weight of the governing public authorities and which was, in its distinctive features, „very close to the classical parliamentary regime". What the fathers of the 1991 Constitution wished to avoid - and this is clear from the parliamentary debates in the Constituent Assembly - was the institutionalization of some mechanisms and tools for exercising and balancing powers, which would allow in the future the President of the Republic to prevail in the actual political game, by subjecting the other public authorities. Therefore, the Constituent Assembly of 1990-1991 enshrined the institution of the President of Romania as a mediating factor in the governing mechanism, as well as in the conflicts existing in society, and not as a decision-making authority for governing the country. The author points out that, in the three decades of semi-presidentialism, the powers assumed in the governing process by the President of the Republic have exceeded sometimes the constitutional framework prescribed by the Basic Law, which has fuelled and is still fuelling various proposals to correct the current constitutional framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Română de Drept European 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.)

In this article, the author aims to analyze the theoretical foundations of two essential principles for the state of law and how to balance the relations between the three powers: the principle of constitutional loyalty and the principle of loyal institutional collaboration between the public authorities vested with the governing powers. The two principles are not formally provided in the text of the Constitution, but can be deduced by way of interpretation from other constitutional principles. As for the first principle, the author shows that it has its source in the obligation freely assumed by each member of a community of individuals organized according to the principles of social hierarchy, or imposed by the public authority with supreme force in the community, to respect a summum of legal norms, whose purpose consists in the regulation and harmonization of the social relations. The origin of the second principle is found in the principle of separation of the three powers in the state, which in the governing process are obliged to collaborate loyally with each other, within the institutional framework prescribed by the constitutional norm. In the end, the author concludes that the substance of the principle of constitutional loyalty includes not only the general obligation of citizens and of both public authorities and institutions to respect the will of the Constituent Legislator formally expressed in the text of the Constitution, but also the obligation of the STATE and of each public authority provided in the Constitution, to be loyal to the CITIZEN. Otherwise, the relations between the state and the citizen are compromised, or will take the form and content of totalitarian-type relations, in which the individual is deprived of rights and absorbed by the state as a dehumanized form of life. The author considers that the loyalty of the state towards the citizen is an obligation of constitutional rank and, on this basis, he proposes, de lege ferenda, its express inclusion in the text of the Constitution at a future revision thereof. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Generally invoking fundamental human rights, and especially those related to the environment, is becoming a major instrument for promoting protection against pollution, preserving biodiversity, and an instrument of the international, regional, and national recognition and legal guarantee of a sane and ecologically balanced environment, and its climatic aspects. Amongst the most recent efforts of this kind, we can name two resolutions of the UN Human Rights Council of October 8th, 2021, one related to the right to a safe, clean, sane, and sustainable environment, the other to install a special rapporteur on the impact of climate change on human rights, the draft project of a protocol related to the right to environment additional to the European Convention on Human Rights, and a project for ecological and societal justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From the study of the national legislation, a possible theoretical but also practical situation of legislative gap was identified, regarding the head of state. The current Constitution does not detail what happens or how to proceed in case of non-taking the oath by the newly elected President, this being the factual situation found as a result of reading the Basic Law. The question that serves as a pretext in the documentation and analysis of the present study is: "What happens if, at the final moment of the procedure by which a person reaches the position of President of the country, that of the investiture, according to Article 82 of the revised Constitution, the official moment no longer takes place, for any reason, objective or subjective?" Going through and interpreting the constitutional provisions as well as other normative acts may provide a possible theoretical answer, but the jurisprudence is non-existent at this moment. The conclusions we reached after the documentation are found at the end of the study, on which occasion the lines of future research on the subject of the oath will be drawn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.)

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 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 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 Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai, Iurisprudentia is the property of Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, 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 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 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 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 Romanian Constitution enshrines the range of fundamental rights and freedoms that the person enjoys, but without achieving a classification of them. The purpose of this article is to determine whether fundamental rights can be classified into several categories and what are the criteria against which this classification can be made. In relation to the content and purpose of the rights, two categories of fundamental rights can be distinguished – the fundamental rights themselves and the guaranteerights. The difference between these two categories of fundamental rights also requires a differentiation in terms of the mechanisms for restricting the exercise of fundamental rights, depending on the category in which they fall. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai, Iurisprudentia is the property of Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, 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 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.)

Starting from the French model, based on the Constitution of 1923, on March 13, 1924, the „Law on the organization of the Homeland Defence Superior Council" was adopted. It was created in order to establish from peacetime the politico-military line of the country defence, by unifying the efforts of the military and civilian institutions. Although its activity was not in accordance with the normative acts that regulate its organization and functioning, as well as with the expectations of the society, the institution had an important role in preparing the country to participate in a new world conflagration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]