No.134/1995; Audiovisual Law No.48/1992; Telecommunication Law No.74/1996; Governmental Ordinance No.42/1997 regarding civil navigation; Banking Law No.58/1998; Insurance Law No.32/2000, etc. 29. The Romanian institution corresponding to the Internal Revenue Service. 30. RomanianSupremeCourt
/2006, Decision No. 860 of 29 June 2006; State Prosecutor v. D.C. Patriciu, Bucharest Court of Appeals, Criminal Section I , File 10352/3/2006, Decision of 10 April 2006.
S.R.I. v. D.C. Patriciu , RomanianSupremeCourt, File 12770/3/2006, Decision No. 1475 of 18 February 2011.
. The Court delivered a series of decisions in which it held that the quashing by the RomanianSupremeCourt of Justice of nal decisions involving property res- titution was a denial of the right to a fair trial. In most cases it ordered the property returned or monetary damages in lieu plus non
tends to allocate longer paragraphs to foreign law and international treaties. Most of the references concern the national law of other European states, especially France, Belgium and Germany, with some rare references to US and Canada law. 2 Structure and Functions of the RomanianSupremeCourts 2
-Coburg-Gotha’s cabinet. In comparison, the Romaniansupremecourt experienced continuous executive interference, in particular from former president Iliescu. In 2005
24 M. Ciobanu / Comparative Sociology 8 (2009) 1–38 the court was still dominated by the former ruling PSD party: no less than ﬁ ve of its nine judges
(RT) had been subjected to preven- tive detention between December 1999 and February 2000 (after having been accused of abuse of office). 63 In early 2002, the prosecutor (attached to the RomanianSupremeCourt of Justice) terminated the prosecution against RT on the grounds that the legal
RomanianSupremeCourt (now the High Court) held that the decision of the Romanian Committee on Adoptions to suspend the receipt of applications for inter-country adoptions cannot suspend the application of legal instruments with superior legal status – including Law 18/1990 for the ratification of the
SupremeCourt “lacked independence and impartiality in contravention of” art. 6(1) of the echr . 366 He also argued that “he has been prevented from having the tax litigation solved, since his challenge was suspended,” which allegedly violated art. 6 of the echr and art. 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECtHR