Tom 20 (2017): Zeszyt 34 (December 2017)

Conventions to avoid double taxation are the panacea of tax law, lato sensu, and direct taxation, stricto sensu. Although the current network of double taxation conventions has over 2500 tax treaties concluded by the world’s states, there are still issues that need to be addressed in their application: the anti-abuse provisions to be found in conventions, the practices of the type treaty shopping, LOB clauses, use of arbitration in the application of double taxation avoidance conventions. The case of Romania is analyzed in this article, through the DSSs Râşnov cause vs. ANAF Brasov, in order to highlight the way in which the framework of the double taxation avoidance convention is applied in Romania, if there are differences and divergences between the de jure provisions of the double taxation avoidance conventions and the de facto application, in practice, a state like Romania, which is in the process of catching up with economies in developed countries. The case presented in this article suggests that there is still room for maneuver to improve the framework for double taxation avoidance conventions in Romania and how they are applied in practice, which their provisions are interpreted and respected.

Despite the large number of reservations registered by Member countries, making it one of the, if not the, most heavily reserved human rights treaties; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has managed to achieve a very high rate of states’ membership [1]. Currently, 187 countries out of the 193 United Nations Members are parties to CEDAW [2]. What is strange to digest, however, is the fact that the United States is one of the seven countries that are yet to ratify the Convention [3]. This article provides an insight into the position of the United States from the ratification of CEDAW. It examines the merits of arguments made for and against the ratification and their rationale to provide a better understanding that explains what is considered by many as a buzzling stand of the United States from the Convention.

The year 1991, the year when the current Romanian fundamental law came in to force, designed a constitutional moment built on profound political and societal emotions. These emotions pushed the Constituent Assembly in search of an answer, in the form of a solution, to the question „What do we not want?” The answer was: “An authoritarian president / chief of state!” Consequently, the position of the head of state in the political scaffolding received an increased attention. Unlike the Communist president, who exercised great powers, the new president was thought and designed antagonistic to his predecessor. He was reduced to a role of a simple mediator. However, more than 20 years after the fall of the communist regime, the “traditional” authoritarian personality of the president transcended - of course, not as pronounced as in the communist era - the finality of the presidential role and of the presidential attributions stated in the Constitution. As we shall see, the “player president” emerged and got confirmed by the Romanian Constitutional Court against the desideratum of the constitutional moment of 1991.

The author analyses in this paper S. Bărnuţiu’s contribution to the establishment of the legal education and to the development of the sciences of the Law in the Romanian area during the mid-19^th century. Adept of the natural law philosophy, ardent promotor of human and people’s rights, Bărnuţiu remains a personality of reference in the Romanians’ history not only for being the political leader and ideologist of the Transylvanian 1848 Revolution, but also for establishing the legal education at the University of Iasi by inspiring himself from the curriculum of the profile schools of law from the Western Europe. Having a unitary conception on the law and on the history of law, considering the law from a systemic perspective, Bărnuţiu contributed into the edification of a modern, constitutional, and democratic State in the united Romanian Principalities.

Ensuring access to justice for all litigants, whether individuals or legal persons, and the operation of the principle of equality for parties in a civil trial, involves, among other things, providing appropriate legal assistance, including by granting certain exemptions, reductions, or postponements in the payment of legal fees stipulated by law to those who do not have the financial resources to initiate and sustain a civil trial. Throughout the following we shall emphasise certain aspects of the right to legal assistance, as seen from the perspective of both domestic legislation, and certain European documents.

All throughout history the unborn, and implicitly its protection, have been subject for academics and practitioners of various areas. The problem of the origin of the soul and the exact determination of the moment when it is united with the body was crucial in enabling us to define the exact moment when the human life begins, and, consequently, for providing proper protection for the unborn child. In this context visions of the Greek philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, and of the Latin writer Tertullian, as well as Christian perspectives were analysed in order to identify the starting point of the human being to help determine the level of protection provided for the unborn in history. Finally, considering the fact that not even today has consensus been achieved concerning the beginning of human life, it was and still is difficult to provide proper legal protection for the unborn child, but in our opinion this is by far not impossible.

The Parliamentary control is exerted not only on the Government but also on some autonomous administrative authorities and on some special bodies under its subordination. The constitutional norms are extremely synthetic on this form of parliamentary control, as only the art. 116 par. 2 of the Constitution stipulates that specialised bodies may be established which to function under Government subordination or as autonomous administrative structures, by organic law.

The Ombudsman Institution is an autonomous administrative authority established according to the Constitutional provisions, the activity of which is under Parliament control.

For the first time, the Ombudsman has been established in Sweden as additional tool to the control exerted by the Parliament on the executive power. Additional guarantees were enforced by it, as being an institution with democratic character, for the defence of the rule of law and for the protection of the individual rights and freedoms.

On the Ombudsman’s appointment and role, the article 58 of the 1991 Romanian Constitution stipulates that the person in charge is to be appointed by the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate in joint meeting, its appointment being of five years and that the Ombudsman cannot have another civil or private service except for the teaching positions in higher education.

One of the evidentiary means used in medieval legal procedure was the so-called judgment of God, judicium dei, also known as ordeal, from the Latin term ordalium. Ordeals were characteristic of all peoples in their various stages of development. They were based on the belief that divinity could intervene and perform miracles, disregarding the laws of nature, in order to prove one’s innocence. In the Middle Ages ordeals were widespread on the territory of Transylvania, too, the ordeal of fire being one of the most commonly used means of proof. In this paper I will try to show the characteristics of this evidence in relation to others that were used at that time, looking at them through the lenses of the documents of the time and of personal research.