2. Neconstituționalitatea și neconvenționalitatea unor dispoziții legale privind restituirea proprietății: art. 4 și art. 7 din Legea nr. 165/2013
2. The unconstituitional and unconventional character of the legal provisions regarding the restitution of the properties: art. 4 and art. 7 of Law no. 165/2013

Summary/Abstract: Further to its coming into force, Law no. 165/2013 has surprised, many times in an unpleasant manner, by its enacted solutions and has caused controversies in the course of the enactment process, during the administrative stage, as well as during the judicial stage. Thus, by also including in its regulatory area those cases in the field of real estate abusively taken over, which are pending before the courts, such is contrary to the very intended purpose, that of rendering efficient the process of real estate restitution. The provisions of art. 4, 2nd thesis and of art. 7 para. (1) of the law breach not only the provisions of art. 6 para. 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights and of art. 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, but also those of art. 1 para. (4), art. 15 para. (2), art. 21 and art. 44 of the Constitution of Romania. The provisions of art. 7 para. (1) being construed in the sense that they would cause suspension of the legal actions which have as object farm fields and forests represents flagrant breach of the provisions of the European Convention and of the orders of the pilot decision in the case Maria Atanasiu and others versus Romania. Until such issue is solved in a legislative manner or by way of plea of noncompliance of these faults with the constitution, it is necessary that the courts of law previously vested with such cases removed, by way of plea of noncompliance with the Convention, any non-conventional legal provision, or interpreted it in full compliance with the text and the spirit of the European Convention of Human Rights.

• Details
• Contents