Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Iurisprudentia

Codified civil law: Context and meta-legal source

Paul Vasilescu — Wed, 20 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0000

The civil code has been in force since 2011. It was preceded by an official statement explaining the necessity of adopting a new code. Discursively, it is now a textual sandwich, with the code's text situated between this justificatory discourse and the doctrinal texts that followed the adoption of civil law. Our task is to uncover the legislator's thought process at the time of the code's adoption and to determine whether the code itself transforms into a source of principles and ideas in its own right.

The impact of the abrogation by Romanian Law no. 167/2020 of the special limitation period provided for by Romanian Government ordinance no. 137/2000 on combating discrimination, in the light of the relationship between the Romanian legal order and that of the European Union

Emanoil-Corneliu Mogîrzan — Mon, 25 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0000

The repeal – by Law no. 167/2020 – of the special limitation period for the sanctions of the regulatory offences provided for by Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 has the effect of applying the general limitation period in the field of the regulatory offences.

As a result, the National Council for Combating Discrimination no longer has a legal basis to apply fines to serious acts after 6 months from their commission. However, the institution continues to impose fines after the expiry of this deadline, misinterpreting the case law of the Court of Justice. We demonstrate why the anti-discrimination institution and the ordinary courts are unable to interpret the national law in conformity with EU law and to disapply the national rule which is contrary to EU directives.

In these circumstances, we are evaluating several possible remedies that should ensure both the protection of victims and compliance with the provisions of the anti-discrimination directives. The best and most uncontroversial solution is the introduction by the legislator of a new special limitation period. On the other hand, the admission of an exception of unconstitutionality of the abrogation provision would lead to the revival of the repealed rule.

Liability regime for defective products, under Directive (EU) 2024/2853: evidence disclosure, taxonomies of damages and defectiveness assessment

Juanita Goicovici — Wed, 20 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0000

The article approaches the salient traits of the liability regime covering the patrimonial and physiological damages caused by defective products, set under Directive (EU) 2024/2853. Firstly, accent is placed on the taxonomies of damages, while emphasizing the lacunary nature of the analyzed regulation in terms of classifying the categories of defectiveness encompassed by the liability regime. Secondly, in the perimeter of evidence disclosure and defectiveness assessment, the article focuses on the possibility recognized to national courts to pronounce an order of evidence disclosure balancing the difficulties registered by the litigating parties in establishing the connection between consumer’s interaction with the defective product and the physical harm, the psychological harm or the patrimonial damages occurred for the plaintiff. Thirdly, the article discusses the causes of exemption form liability, particularly insisting on the involvement of the risk of evolution between the reasons the invoking of which remains possible for the manufacturer.

Can contracts violate default rules?

Tudor Danciu — Wed, 20 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Default rules are often understood as norms that can be lawfully violated by contractual parties when they choose to manifest their will contrary to those established in the norm. In this context, we ask ourselves what is the value of a rule that can be circumvented. Can we qualify such rules as legal norms? The abundance of default rules in private law suggests that they have legal force and therefore are mandatory. Beggining with the meanings attributed to the default norms, through this study we aimed to identify the arguments that confirm the mandatory nature of these rules. Although the incidence of default is also possible in the case of unilateral acts, we limited our approach only to the relationship between these norms and contracts.

Constitutional relevance of the advisory opinion of the Legislative Council in the procedure of adopting emergency ordinances

Teodor-Radu Iancu — Wed, 20 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0000

The Constitutional Court of Romania has ruled, in a rich jurisprudence, that the failure to request the opinion of the Legislative Council in the procedure of adoption of an emergency ordinance by the Government entails the unconstitutionality of the normative act thus adopted. In order to reach this conclusion, the Court applied Art. 79 para. (1) of the Constitution, which enshrines the role of the Legislative Council, in relation to art. 1 para. (5) of the Constitution, which enshrines the obligation to comply with the law. In this study, we aim to nuance this opinion in relation to the particularities of the emergency ordinance as a normative act adopted in extraordinary situations by the Government, an authority against which the Legislative Council does not have a constitutional consecration as a consultative body, but only a legal consecration.