The controversial decision to increase the state-paid pensions was promulgated on Wednesday by president Basescu, not before calling the ministers who explained to the supplementary funds will be raised "incompetent" and "dilettantes". President Basescu says he promulgated the law due to the consensus in the Parliament on the subject.
In a press conference, Basescu pitiless criticized the Government. "I asked for an economic analysis on the way the pensions' growth will affect the budget and I got a letter full of electoral goals. The two ministers who signed it (Economy Minister Varujan Vosganian and Labor Minister Paul Pacuraru) are, from my point of view, incompetent.
I asked the prime minister to answer my query about the funding, but the prime minister didn't assume responsibility for the letter coming from his ministers... he didn't sign any document", said Traian Basescu.
According to the president's sources, namely the National Prognosis Institute, the pensions' growth will represent a budgetary effort of 30 billion euros between 2008 and 2013, exactly the amount the European Union offers Romania for development.
Finance Minister Varujan Vosganian replied immediately after the press conference, explaining that the Government has the money to support the pensions' growth, due to the general economic growth. "We can explain where the money comes from", said the minister a bit late, considering the weeks of scandals around the subject and the zero-information letter he offered as answer.
"The president didn't want this law because he didn't suggest it himself, in order to raise more electoral capital", said Vosganian.
HotNews.ro, Jul 18, 2007
Showing posts with label Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justice. Show all posts
Friday, July 27, 2007
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Democrats and Liberal Democrats sign collaboration protocol
Democrats (PD) and Liberal Democrats (PLD) signed a political and parliamentary protocol containing 10 points on Monday, news agencies report.
Representatives of the two parties announced their plans for such a collaboration two weeks ago but declared that it couldn't be approved until the DA Alliance, the former alliance between the Democrats and the Liberals made up for the 2004 elections, was dissolved.
The Democrats were a member of the DA governing coalition with the Liberals until they were removed from the government in a reshuffle at the height of a major political crisis this spring.
The Liberal Democrats is a political group formed of members of the Liberal Party (PNL) who were ousted over the past year over their close ties with the Democrats and President Traian Basescu, who's been at loggerheads with Liberal PM Calin Popescu Tariceanu for about two years.
The two parties have already collaborated in the parliamentary session that just ended. PD and PLD co-signed a simple motion debated in the last weeks' session and have similar options regarding the vote for normative acts.
Last months, the two decided to take part separately in European Parliamentary elections to be held later this year.
HotNews.ro, Jul 2, 2007
Representatives of the two parties announced their plans for such a collaboration two weeks ago but declared that it couldn't be approved until the DA Alliance, the former alliance between the Democrats and the Liberals made up for the 2004 elections, was dissolved.
The Democrats were a member of the DA governing coalition with the Liberals until they were removed from the government in a reshuffle at the height of a major political crisis this spring.
The Liberal Democrats is a political group formed of members of the Liberal Party (PNL) who were ousted over the past year over their close ties with the Democrats and President Traian Basescu, who's been at loggerheads with Liberal PM Calin Popescu Tariceanu for about two years.
The two parties have already collaborated in the parliamentary session that just ended. PD and PLD co-signed a simple motion debated in the last weeks' session and have similar options regarding the vote for normative acts.
Last months, the two decided to take part separately in European Parliamentary elections to be held later this year.
HotNews.ro, Jul 2, 2007
Pink sighted Justice minister blind to EC ash-colored report
The report presented on Wednesday by the European Commission on Romania's post-accession progress divides again the political class, both in Bucharest and in Brussels.
On one hand, representatives of the European Popular Party (EPP) informed Hotnews.ro in a press release that the formation acknowledges some progress in the anti-graft campaign and in Justice reforms, but sees that the report insists a lot more on still unsolved issues in these areas.
On the other hand, Romanian Justice Minister Tudor Chiuariu - who enjoys the support of Romanian Liberal MPs in Brussels - would rather adhere to the softer, gentler voice used by Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini.
"The report presented in Brussels confirms the priorities of my mandate: adopting the ANI Law (*see below) and fighting corruption at a local level. One of the measures we'll take shortly refers to the way some exceptions may be invoked in court, so that the trials referring to corruption cases will last much less", says Chiuariu.
Former Justice Minister Monica Macovei accused in a live TV intervention that the optimistic tone isn't justified. Macovei shows that the report appreciates the activity of the anti-corruption prosecutors, but the optimism about the National Integrity is far from justified, given the fact that the current shape renders the institution inefficient, as it is subordinated to the Parliament.
The head of the Popular group in the European Parliament, Joseph Daul, greeted the EC decision to quit activating the safeguarding clauses for Romania.
Still, Daul commented that "It's a shame for such a potential in agriculture as it is in Romania to be unexploited because the authorities failed to implement the right payment mechanism for farmers".
Transparency International Romania considers that the delay in activating the safeguarding clauses in Justice, despite the hard tone used in the report, justifies the continuing pressure put on Romania to fulfill its engagements.
(ANI Law: the law to create the National Integrity Agency, an independent body enabled to check on dignitaries' wealth)
HotNews.ro, Jun 27, 2007
On one hand, representatives of the European Popular Party (EPP) informed Hotnews.ro in a press release that the formation acknowledges some progress in the anti-graft campaign and in Justice reforms, but sees that the report insists a lot more on still unsolved issues in these areas.
On the other hand, Romanian Justice Minister Tudor Chiuariu - who enjoys the support of Romanian Liberal MPs in Brussels - would rather adhere to the softer, gentler voice used by Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini.
"The report presented in Brussels confirms the priorities of my mandate: adopting the ANI Law (*see below) and fighting corruption at a local level. One of the measures we'll take shortly refers to the way some exceptions may be invoked in court, so that the trials referring to corruption cases will last much less", says Chiuariu.
Former Justice Minister Monica Macovei accused in a live TV intervention that the optimistic tone isn't justified. Macovei shows that the report appreciates the activity of the anti-corruption prosecutors, but the optimism about the National Integrity is far from justified, given the fact that the current shape renders the institution inefficient, as it is subordinated to the Parliament.
The head of the Popular group in the European Parliament, Joseph Daul, greeted the EC decision to quit activating the safeguarding clauses for Romania.
Still, Daul commented that "It's a shame for such a potential in agriculture as it is in Romania to be unexploited because the authorities failed to implement the right payment mechanism for farmers".
Transparency International Romania considers that the delay in activating the safeguarding clauses in Justice, despite the hard tone used in the report, justifies the continuing pressure put on Romania to fulfill its engagements.
(ANI Law: the law to create the National Integrity Agency, an independent body enabled to check on dignitaries' wealth)
HotNews.ro, Jun 27, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Justice Minister demands Reuters to apologize
Justice Minister Tudor Chiuariu publicly demanded apologies from the Reuters news agency, as well as the rectification of an article published today about the anti-corruption campaign lacking results in Romania.
The examples of poor management of the anti-graft campaign were counted the activity of Chiuariu, the stalling of the criminal file against former PM Adrian Nastase and the limited attribution of the National Integrity Agency (set to check the dignitaries' wealth).
The press release of the Justice Ministry claims that the information in the Reuters article was based on false data. The Ministry emphasizes that during the past few weeks a former prime minister, a former president and a minister in office were officially charged or sent to court.
Chiuariu also accuses the journalist of breaking the professional deontology by not demanding an official point of view of the Ministry. For the affected image of the institution and the country, Chiuariu demanded Reuters to apologize.
HotNews.ro, Jun 22, 2007
The examples of poor management of the anti-graft campaign were counted the activity of Chiuariu, the stalling of the criminal file against former PM Adrian Nastase and the limited attribution of the National Integrity Agency (set to check the dignitaries' wealth).
The press release of the Justice Ministry claims that the information in the Reuters article was based on false data. The Ministry emphasizes that during the past few weeks a former prime minister, a former president and a minister in office were officially charged or sent to court.
Chiuariu also accuses the journalist of breaking the professional deontology by not demanding an official point of view of the Ministry. For the affected image of the institution and the country, Chiuariu demanded Reuters to apologize.
HotNews.ro, Jun 22, 2007
No progress in Romanian, Bulgarian Justice
The lack of results in the anti-corruption and anti-organized crime campaign in Romania and Bulgaria worries the Brussels officials.
" Six months after joining the European Union, Romania and Bulgaria have failed to demonstrate credible progress in fighting systemic corruption and organized crime, despite broad legislative reforms", Reuters comments.
The negative examples are the activity of the Romanian Justice Minister, Tudor Chiuariu, the stalling of the criminal files against former PM Adrian Nastase and the limits imposed for the National Integrity Agency, an institution that should verify the way dignitaries gain their wealth.
Some EU member states consider that Romania and Bulgaria, as poor Balkans' countries, were accepted too early in the community. The countries are still monitored by the EU officials and risk sanctions after the June 27 report, in case the Justice criteria are not met.
"We haven't seen any evidence of results, any impact on society," said one EU diplomat in Bucharest, quoted by Reuters.
HotNews.ro, Jun 22, 2007
" Six months after joining the European Union, Romania and Bulgaria have failed to demonstrate credible progress in fighting systemic corruption and organized crime, despite broad legislative reforms", Reuters comments.
The negative examples are the activity of the Romanian Justice Minister, Tudor Chiuariu, the stalling of the criminal files against former PM Adrian Nastase and the limits imposed for the National Integrity Agency, an institution that should verify the way dignitaries gain their wealth.
Some EU member states consider that Romania and Bulgaria, as poor Balkans' countries, were accepted too early in the community. The countries are still monitored by the EU officials and risk sanctions after the June 27 report, in case the Justice criteria are not met.
"We haven't seen any evidence of results, any impact on society," said one EU diplomat in Bucharest, quoted by Reuters.
HotNews.ro, Jun 22, 2007
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Bucharest court rules against religious symbols in Romanian schools
A Bucharest court decided on Monday that a decision made by the main anti-discrimination body in Romania on removing religious symbols from schools was well grounded, thus giving green light to moves that would see such symbols gone from Romanian schools. The Education ministry announced it would challenge the decision at the High Court of Justice.
The whole dispute started in August last year when a teacher urged the head of the National Council for Combating Discrimination (CNCD) to establish that the presence of religious symbols in school as well as teaching a certain religion was an act of discrimination towards atheists or people of other denominations and was limiting the chances and equality and freedom of option against students.
The most active civic associations in Romania stood behind the teacher from Buzau county. CNCD thus opted to promote a recommendation in this regard, which was challenged in court by the Education Ministry.
In response to this initiative, the Patriarchy of the Romanian Orthodox Church launched a counter-offensive based on the argument that the Romanians were a Christian people and that the absence of religious symbols from public areas would discriminate the Orthodox majority in the country.
HotNews.ro, Jun 19, 2007
The whole dispute started in August last year when a teacher urged the head of the National Council for Combating Discrimination (CNCD) to establish that the presence of religious symbols in school as well as teaching a certain religion was an act of discrimination towards atheists or people of other denominations and was limiting the chances and equality and freedom of option against students.
The most active civic associations in Romania stood behind the teacher from Buzau county. CNCD thus opted to promote a recommendation in this regard, which was challenged in court by the Education Ministry.
In response to this initiative, the Patriarchy of the Romanian Orthodox Church launched a counter-offensive based on the argument that the Romanians were a Christian people and that the absence of religious symbols from public areas would discriminate the Orthodox majority in the country.
HotNews.ro, Jun 19, 2007
Thursday, June 14, 2007
After EU Accession: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Romania
Introduction
Since Romania’s accession to the European Union on January 1, 2007, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments are attained based on whether they have been rendered in the EU or outside the EU.
The former such judgments fall under the directly applicable relevant EU regulations: Regulation no 44/2001 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (herein bellow referred to as “Regulation 44”) and Regulation no.
805/2004 creating an European enforcement order for uncontested claims (herein bellow referred to as “Regulation 805”). And the latter fall under Law no.
105/1992 regarding Private International Law (herein bellow referred to as “Law 105”). The herein article purports to create an overview of the changes brought by the newly applicable EU legislation with regard to the system previously enforced upon all foreign judgments by Law 105.
The regulations implement a simpler procedure for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments within the EU, eliminating the obstacles arising from having to contend with different legal systems at the EU level.
Indeed, the free movement of judgments is already considered “the fifth freedom” within the EU, alongside the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital, and is essential to the development of the European Communities’ internal market.
All of the relevant legislation, at the national and the EU level make the proper distinction between the recognition of a judgment that is considered final and binding by Romanian courts, and its enforcement, i.e., the ability to actually implement it under Romanian jurisdiction along with the writ upon which such enforcement can take place.
Legislation applicable to EU judgments
Because of the unfortunate consequences to the economic stability of the EU that would be caused by an inability to enforce a judgment rendered in one Member State in another Member State, the EU created a common system regarding the recognition and enforcement of such judgments. It is known as Regulation 44 and it is directly applicable in all EU Member States, except for Denmark.
What’s Covered
Due to the fact that civil and commercial relations represent the core of a highly functional market, Regulation 44 covers judgments rendered in civil and commercial matters, except for matters relating to the status or legal capacity of natural persons; property rights arising out of a matrimonial relationship; wills and succession; bankruptcy; proceedings relating to the winding-up of
insolvent companies or other legal persons; judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings; social security; and arbitration.
The Regulation applies to any judgment rendered by a court or a tribunal in civil or commercial matters which may include a decree, order, decision or writ of execution, as well as the determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the court, and also applies to authentic acts and settlements, which must be enforceable according to the laws applicable in the Member State where they have been rendered.
The Romanian court that has jurisdiction to either recognize or enforce a foreign judgment is any municipal court that is competent within the site of the domicile of the person against whom enforcement is sought or within the place of enforcement. Also, the application regarding the enforcement of an authentic act may be submitted to notaries, as competent authorities.
According to Romanian law, the issue of recognition may be sought by way of a separate claim, as well as raised as an incidental question within another trial, and the court competent to solve the principal claim will have jurisdiction over that particular question.
Procedure
The person seeking the recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgment must submit a copy of it to the Romanian competent court or authority, together with a certificate, which must be completed by the competent court or authority that has issued the judgment, authentic act or settlement.
In order to provide a unitary procedure in all EU Member States, the Regulation settles in its annexes the model for such certificate. However, the Romanian courts have the power to decide on more flexible rules regarding the provision of such certificate, and to either postpone the date of its submission, or to not require it at all, as the case may be.
They also have the power to decide on whether or not to request legalized translations for such documents.
The Romanian competent courts or authorities have the power to decline an application for recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgment, but only for specific reasons set forth in the Regulation, such as: if the recognition would be manifestly contrary to public policy in Romania; if there are procedural faults regarding the position of the defendant within the trial pursued in the Member
State where the judgment has been rendered; and if the judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another Member State or in a third state involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in Romania.
As far as authentic acts are concerned, a refusal of enforcement may be granted only if the execution of that specific act is manifestly contrary to public policy.
If the formal conditions for enforcement are fulfilled, the Romanian court must enforce the judgment, with no need for further verification and, in any case, under no circumstances may a foreign judgment be reviewed as to its substance.
According to Regulation 44, a judgment may be partially enforced if it is not fully enforceable in all the matters covered by it, and also at the applicant’s request to do so.
Judgments on enforceability may be appealed to the appropriate Romanian appellate courts by any interested party, and the details regarding terms, further measures on appeal or on communication procedures are governed by the provisions of Regulation 44.
No guarantee is required from the applicant solely based upon the fact that such person is a foreign citizen or has his domicile or headquarters abroad. Also, there are no fees or taxes charged based upon the amount of the judgment.
Regulation 805 represents one of the great innovations of recent years, as it ensures the free movement of judgments, court settlements and authentic instruments in civil and commercial matters, throughout all Member States, with no need to use the exequatur procedure.
In order to enforce a judgment under Regulation 805, no declaration of enforceability is required; on the contrary, the Romanian competent courts or authorities are legally bound by the enforcement order rendered in any EU Member State - referred to as the European Enforcement Order - according to the model set forth in the annexes to the Regulation 805 and in the language in which
the judgment has been rendered. In the same manner, the simplified procedure of enforcement certainly avoids delays and unnecessary costs, especially because the Romanian competent courts or authorities do not have any power of approval over such situations of refusal of the declaration of enforceability, such as control over public policy.
The object of Regulation 805 is represented by the “uncontested claims”, i.e., requests for payment of a specific sum of money that has fallen due or for which the due date is indicated in the judgment, court settlement or authentic instrument.
One should not be misled, though, by this simplified procedure and consider that the EU disregards the fundamental rights ensured by the Chart of Fundamental Rights in the EU, like the right of access to an impartial tribunal, as the creditor always has the option to choose between the two types of proceedings, either the simplified one set forth in Regulation 805 or the one incorporated into
Regulation 44. The enforcement of the foreign judgment will be performed according to Romanian law as if it was for the enforcement of a judgment rendered under the Romanian jurisdiction.
Similar to Regulation 44, Regulation 805 also emphasizes the interdiction imposed on the Romanian competent courts or authorities to review the foreign judgment, for which enforcement is sought, as to its substance.
Legislation applicable to non-EU judgments
As previously noted, Law 105 applies to the recognition and enforcement of judgments in Romania rendered in non-EU countries.
This is possible only under certain conditions, which include the following: the judgment must be final and enforceable in the country in which it has been rendered; it must have been issued by a court that had the jurisdictional competence to do so; there must be reciprocity regarding recognition and enforcement between Romania and the country where the judgment has been rendered; the judgment
must not have been obtained fraudulently; it must not violate the principles of public order applicable in accordance with Romanian law; a Romanian court has not rendered a decision in the matter prior to the date of the foreign judgment; and, the three-year term regarding enforcement has been upheld, unless otherwise provided.
Law 105 is applicable only if the international conventions to which Romania is party do not provide otherwise. Finally, Law 105 provides that under no circumstances may Romanian courts or competent authorities review a foreign judgment as to its substance.
For a more detailed look into the provisions of Law 105 please see in The Romanian Digest Archive ( http://www.hr.ro/digest_archive.htm ), articles “Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards” from May 2005 and “Enforcement of Foreign Money Judgments in Romania” from March 2004.
Conclusion
The simplified and uniform procedure set forth in Regulation 44 or, even better, the almost costless procedure set forth in Regulation 805 demonstrate the resolve of the EU to develop internal mechanisms within the community market that are accessible to all EU citizens and residents and efficient for the achievement of the goals established by the EU constitutive treaties.
As noted, the procedure set forth by Regulation 805 avoids or even eliminates the arbitrariness brought by courts or authorities in appreciating if a judgment may be enforced or not under the jurisdiction of a Member State, as provided by Regulation 44. That means that the courts and competent authorities are truly “serving” the needs of EU member State citizens.
Therefore, someone seeking recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment in Romania will make use of the provisions of Law 105 only for non-EU judgments and of the provisions of one of the two regulations - 44 or 805 - as the case may be, for EU-judgments, benefiting from the simplified procedures introduced by them.
The article was published based upon approval of:
Rubin Meyer Doru & Trandafir
SOCIETATE CIVILA DE AVOCATI / LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
IN ASOCIERE CU / AFFILIATED WITH HERZFELD & RUBIN, P.C.
http://www.hr.ro
The Romanian Digest, Jun 14, 2007
Since Romania’s accession to the European Union on January 1, 2007, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments are attained based on whether they have been rendered in the EU or outside the EU.
The former such judgments fall under the directly applicable relevant EU regulations: Regulation no 44/2001 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (herein bellow referred to as “Regulation 44”) and Regulation no.
805/2004 creating an European enforcement order for uncontested claims (herein bellow referred to as “Regulation 805”). And the latter fall under Law no.
105/1992 regarding Private International Law (herein bellow referred to as “Law 105”). The herein article purports to create an overview of the changes brought by the newly applicable EU legislation with regard to the system previously enforced upon all foreign judgments by Law 105.
The regulations implement a simpler procedure for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments within the EU, eliminating the obstacles arising from having to contend with different legal systems at the EU level.
Indeed, the free movement of judgments is already considered “the fifth freedom” within the EU, alongside the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital, and is essential to the development of the European Communities’ internal market.
All of the relevant legislation, at the national and the EU level make the proper distinction between the recognition of a judgment that is considered final and binding by Romanian courts, and its enforcement, i.e., the ability to actually implement it under Romanian jurisdiction along with the writ upon which such enforcement can take place.
Legislation applicable to EU judgments
Because of the unfortunate consequences to the economic stability of the EU that would be caused by an inability to enforce a judgment rendered in one Member State in another Member State, the EU created a common system regarding the recognition and enforcement of such judgments. It is known as Regulation 44 and it is directly applicable in all EU Member States, except for Denmark.
What’s Covered
Due to the fact that civil and commercial relations represent the core of a highly functional market, Regulation 44 covers judgments rendered in civil and commercial matters, except for matters relating to the status or legal capacity of natural persons; property rights arising out of a matrimonial relationship; wills and succession; bankruptcy; proceedings relating to the winding-up of
insolvent companies or other legal persons; judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings; social security; and arbitration.
The Regulation applies to any judgment rendered by a court or a tribunal in civil or commercial matters which may include a decree, order, decision or writ of execution, as well as the determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the court, and also applies to authentic acts and settlements, which must be enforceable according to the laws applicable in the Member State where they have been rendered.
The Romanian court that has jurisdiction to either recognize or enforce a foreign judgment is any municipal court that is competent within the site of the domicile of the person against whom enforcement is sought or within the place of enforcement. Also, the application regarding the enforcement of an authentic act may be submitted to notaries, as competent authorities.
According to Romanian law, the issue of recognition may be sought by way of a separate claim, as well as raised as an incidental question within another trial, and the court competent to solve the principal claim will have jurisdiction over that particular question.
Procedure
The person seeking the recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgment must submit a copy of it to the Romanian competent court or authority, together with a certificate, which must be completed by the competent court or authority that has issued the judgment, authentic act or settlement.
In order to provide a unitary procedure in all EU Member States, the Regulation settles in its annexes the model for such certificate. However, the Romanian courts have the power to decide on more flexible rules regarding the provision of such certificate, and to either postpone the date of its submission, or to not require it at all, as the case may be.
They also have the power to decide on whether or not to request legalized translations for such documents.
The Romanian competent courts or authorities have the power to decline an application for recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgment, but only for specific reasons set forth in the Regulation, such as: if the recognition would be manifestly contrary to public policy in Romania; if there are procedural faults regarding the position of the defendant within the trial pursued in the Member
State where the judgment has been rendered; and if the judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another Member State or in a third state involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in Romania.
As far as authentic acts are concerned, a refusal of enforcement may be granted only if the execution of that specific act is manifestly contrary to public policy.
If the formal conditions for enforcement are fulfilled, the Romanian court must enforce the judgment, with no need for further verification and, in any case, under no circumstances may a foreign judgment be reviewed as to its substance.
According to Regulation 44, a judgment may be partially enforced if it is not fully enforceable in all the matters covered by it, and also at the applicant’s request to do so.
Judgments on enforceability may be appealed to the appropriate Romanian appellate courts by any interested party, and the details regarding terms, further measures on appeal or on communication procedures are governed by the provisions of Regulation 44.
No guarantee is required from the applicant solely based upon the fact that such person is a foreign citizen or has his domicile or headquarters abroad. Also, there are no fees or taxes charged based upon the amount of the judgment.
Regulation 805 represents one of the great innovations of recent years, as it ensures the free movement of judgments, court settlements and authentic instruments in civil and commercial matters, throughout all Member States, with no need to use the exequatur procedure.
In order to enforce a judgment under Regulation 805, no declaration of enforceability is required; on the contrary, the Romanian competent courts or authorities are legally bound by the enforcement order rendered in any EU Member State - referred to as the European Enforcement Order - according to the model set forth in the annexes to the Regulation 805 and in the language in which
the judgment has been rendered. In the same manner, the simplified procedure of enforcement certainly avoids delays and unnecessary costs, especially because the Romanian competent courts or authorities do not have any power of approval over such situations of refusal of the declaration of enforceability, such as control over public policy.
The object of Regulation 805 is represented by the “uncontested claims”, i.e., requests for payment of a specific sum of money that has fallen due or for which the due date is indicated in the judgment, court settlement or authentic instrument.
One should not be misled, though, by this simplified procedure and consider that the EU disregards the fundamental rights ensured by the Chart of Fundamental Rights in the EU, like the right of access to an impartial tribunal, as the creditor always has the option to choose between the two types of proceedings, either the simplified one set forth in Regulation 805 or the one incorporated into
Regulation 44. The enforcement of the foreign judgment will be performed according to Romanian law as if it was for the enforcement of a judgment rendered under the Romanian jurisdiction.
Similar to Regulation 44, Regulation 805 also emphasizes the interdiction imposed on the Romanian competent courts or authorities to review the foreign judgment, for which enforcement is sought, as to its substance.
Legislation applicable to non-EU judgments
As previously noted, Law 105 applies to the recognition and enforcement of judgments in Romania rendered in non-EU countries.
This is possible only under certain conditions, which include the following: the judgment must be final and enforceable in the country in which it has been rendered; it must have been issued by a court that had the jurisdictional competence to do so; there must be reciprocity regarding recognition and enforcement between Romania and the country where the judgment has been rendered; the judgment
must not have been obtained fraudulently; it must not violate the principles of public order applicable in accordance with Romanian law; a Romanian court has not rendered a decision in the matter prior to the date of the foreign judgment; and, the three-year term regarding enforcement has been upheld, unless otherwise provided.
Law 105 is applicable only if the international conventions to which Romania is party do not provide otherwise. Finally, Law 105 provides that under no circumstances may Romanian courts or competent authorities review a foreign judgment as to its substance.
For a more detailed look into the provisions of Law 105 please see in The Romanian Digest Archive ( http://www.hr.ro/digest_archive.htm ), articles “Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards” from May 2005 and “Enforcement of Foreign Money Judgments in Romania” from March 2004.
Conclusion
The simplified and uniform procedure set forth in Regulation 44 or, even better, the almost costless procedure set forth in Regulation 805 demonstrate the resolve of the EU to develop internal mechanisms within the community market that are accessible to all EU citizens and residents and efficient for the achievement of the goals established by the EU constitutive treaties.
As noted, the procedure set forth by Regulation 805 avoids or even eliminates the arbitrariness brought by courts or authorities in appreciating if a judgment may be enforced or not under the jurisdiction of a Member State, as provided by Regulation 44. That means that the courts and competent authorities are truly “serving” the needs of EU member State citizens.
Therefore, someone seeking recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment in Romania will make use of the provisions of Law 105 only for non-EU judgments and of the provisions of one of the two regulations - 44 or 805 - as the case may be, for EU-judgments, benefiting from the simplified procedures introduced by them.
The article was published based upon approval of:
Rubin Meyer Doru & Trandafir
SOCIETATE CIVILA DE AVOCATI / LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
IN ASOCIERE CU / AFFILIATED WITH HERZFELD & RUBIN, P.C.
http://www.hr.ro
The Romanian Digest, Jun 14, 2007
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Romanian Justice has too little focus on corruption prevention
The Romanian Justice system is more interested in sanctioning rather than preventing and controlling the acts of corruption. Still, few cases of high level corruption get to receive serious sentences, according to the data on Romania of the latest Transparency International report on worldwide corruption, published on Thursday.
TI Romania also published a “National Report on Corruption-2007” today, which says small-time corruption and the influence of politics on the justice system are eroding social cohesion in the country. There are two systems applied: one for the rich and another for the poor, which lead to fractures within the community, the TI report says.
“People need renewed campaigns of education on graft, campaigns that should focus strictly on the type of mentality specific to Romanians”, TI Romania director Victor Alistar said today.
The report says corruption within the Justice system comes in two forms - political meddling with judicial procedures and graft.
But the report also depicts positive aspects over the past year, including a law on the access to information of public interest, which was changed twice in one day, part of the changes to the Criminal Code and others.
While not happened during the period covered by the report (April 2006-March 2007), the recent adoption of a law establishing the National Agency for Integrity, aimed at keeping the wealth of dignitaries in check, was hailed by TI Romania.
HotNews.ro, May 24, 2007
TI Romania also published a “National Report on Corruption-2007” today, which says small-time corruption and the influence of politics on the justice system are eroding social cohesion in the country. There are two systems applied: one for the rich and another for the poor, which lead to fractures within the community, the TI report says.
“People need renewed campaigns of education on graft, campaigns that should focus strictly on the type of mentality specific to Romanians”, TI Romania director Victor Alistar said today.
The report says corruption within the Justice system comes in two forms - political meddling with judicial procedures and graft.
But the report also depicts positive aspects over the past year, including a law on the access to information of public interest, which was changed twice in one day, part of the changes to the Criminal Code and others.
While not happened during the period covered by the report (April 2006-March 2007), the recent adoption of a law establishing the National Agency for Integrity, aimed at keeping the wealth of dignitaries in check, was hailed by TI Romania.
HotNews.ro, May 24, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)