Unification of the Case-law within the Civil Procedure System of Romania

The present article contains the main legal practice unification mechanisms, as regulated by the Romanian legislator in accordance with the current Civil Procedure Code, as well as those partaking to the Supreme Court jurisprudence in conjuncture with the lower courts by granting a uniform settlement on the legal issues comprised by the litigations referred to. The presentation starts off with the referral in the interest of the law, a traditional instrument within the national civil procedure legal sphere of activity, it continues with the notification of the Supreme Court for settling certain legal matters, a novelty at national level and of whose practical utility has already been recognised, and it ends by making reference to the second appeal, as an extraordinary means of challenge, with a relatively reduced efficiency, at present, in settling the different interpretations of the legal norms.

Ordinary and Extraordinary

A theological and historical background is needed for understanding the terms ordinary and extraordinary regarding the care required for one seriously ill. This background is theological, since one’s care is directed to our life on earth and our ultimate happiness that comes from God. So, one needs the knowledge given by God in revelation and in natural law written in our hearts. Besides our own powers of acting, we need the help of others as well as of God, through his grace and sacraments. The historical view is given because situations change, and so our judgment must change. In God’s law, one must eat to live but not if it becomes a torture. Domingo de Soto gave the name ordinary for the former and extraordinary for the latter. With the arrival of anesthesia and antiseptics, the pain and terrible outcomes, which made amputation an extraordinary means, no longer did so.

Die Wiedereinführung von Grenzkontrollen im Schengen Raum: ein unverhältnismäßiges, unwirksames und unzulässiges Mittel der Pandemiebekämpfung

In March 2020, during the first wave of the COVID-19 (Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2) pandemic in Europe, several Member States, including the Federal Republic of Germany, saw fit to resort to the reintroduction of border controls with some of their neighbours, including the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. This reintroduction was then justified by the urgency and the need to contain the spread of the virus. So that there is no misunderstanding: these were exclusively identity checks and checks on documents authorizing their holders to cross borders and not health checks to detect carriers of the virus. This contribution aims to establish, using the example of the German-Luxemburg border controls, that the use of this extraordinary means does not stand the test of its effectiveness, proportionality and even less of its legality. To the extent that the perpetrator was himself a victim of this extraordinary measure, he may be forgiven for the somewhat militant character of the following lines. The German Minister of the Interior, Mr Horst Seehofer, who took this decision on behalf of Germany, may have invoked the European Union (EU) Border Code as the legal basis for his decision to reintroduce internal border controls in the Schengen area, but it must be questioned whether he has complied with the letter and spirit of this regulation. An in-depth analysis of the provisions of this Borders Code (I.) shows indeed that the unilateral decision taken by Minister Seehofer was taken arbitrarily (II.) and does not stand the test of its validity under Union law (III.)

Reviewing, as an Extraordinary Mean of Appeal

One of the fundamental rights that a subject in criminal proceedings owns, is the right to appellate a court decision, which besides the usual means of appeal in Albanian system of justice, are guaranteed also by extraordinary means of appeal as it’s reviewing a decision despites any deadline of appeal. The review is the means of appeal, which aims to strike court decisions, which have become final, with positive expectations in each case, to improve the status of the offender. In the constitutional of Albania of 1998 this institute, was not regulated explicitly, but there was foreseen as part of jurisdiction of the High Court, where clearly was put that the high court had preliminary and reviewing jurisdiction. In the framework of the Justice Reforming in 2016, the HC Was stripped of its reviewing jurisdiction. The competence to re-examine a final court decision was given to the first instance court, which can judge in these cases any type of decision that fulfils the criteria to be reviewed, despite the fact if this decision has been taken by an Appeal Court or the High Court. Undertaking legal changes in constitute and Code of Criminal Procedure for this institute came as response/regarding to the legal vacuum found in Albanian system of justice as well as the contractual practice with the ECHR, established by the Albanian court. The Albanian system did not have the effective means to guarantee the right to a fair legal process, the implementation of which has been ascertained by the ECHR in some of the decisions given against Albania as (Xheraj vs Albania; Lika vs Albania etc.). Because of that, in the CPC, become larger the number of cases, when the re-examining of this type of court decision could be done. The purpose of this article is to present in a comparative form the institute of reviewing court decisions; it aims to prescribe how this mean of appeal was and how it is now after the reform, to continue further with the findings of problems that have arisen from the practice of implementing this means of appeal from its latest changes. Justice reform is still in its infancy and therefore the practice of elaborating this tool has been insufficient.

Threat Framing

What is “threat framing”? It concerns how something or someone is perceived, labeled, and communicated as a threat to something or someone. The designation “threat,” notably, belongs to the wider family of negative concerns such as danger, risk, or hazard. Research on threat framing is not anchored in a single or specific field but rather is scattered across three separate and largely disconnected bodies of literature: framing theory, security studies, and crisis studies. It is noteworthy that whereas these literatures have contributed observations on how and under what consequences something is framed as a threat, none of them have sufficiently problematized the concept of threat. Crisis analysis considers the existence or perception of threat essential for a crisis to emerge, along with a perception of urgency and uncertainty, yet crisis studies focus on the meaning of “crisis” without problematizing the concept of threat. Likewise, security studies have spent a lot of ink defining “security,” typically understood as the “absence of threat,” but leave the notion of “threat” undefined. Further, framing theory is concerned with “problem definition” as a main or first function of framing but generally pays little or no attention to the meaning of “threat.” Moreover, cutting across these bodies of literature is the distinction between constructivist and rationalist approaches, both of which have contributed to the understanding of threat framing. Constructivist analyses have emphasized how threat framing can be embedded in a process of socialization and acculturation, making some frames appear normal and others highly contested. Rationalist approaches, on the other hand, have shown how threat framing can be a conscious strategic choice, intended to accomplish certain political effects such as the legitimization of extraordinary means, allocation of resources, or putting issues high on the political agenda. Although there are only a handful of studies explicitly combining insights across these fields, they have made some noteworthy observations. These studies have shown for example how different types of framing may fuel amity or enmity, cooperation, or conflict. These studies have also found that antagonistic threat frames are more likely to result in a securitizing or militarizing logic than do structural threat frames. Institutionalized threat frames are more likely to gain and maintain saliency, particularly if they are associated with policy monopolies. In the post-truth era, however, the link between evidence and saliency of frames is weakened, leaving room for a much more unpredictable politics of framing.

Social Shutdowns as an Extraordinary Means of Saving Human Life

The effects of the novel coronavirus have raised questions about the extent to which social shutdowns are appropriate. We have a responsibility to protect the lives of others and an obligation to maintain our lives and health when possible, but there are circumstances when it is just to decline certain measures that are considered extraordinary to the situation. Measures taken to protect life must be proportionate. That is, they must offer a reasonable hope of benefit and not impose excessive burdens on individuals, families, or the community. The measures enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic are not proportionate. Restrictions on family and religious activities are disproportionate to the benefit they provide, particularly to the extent that they obstruct the Church in its duty to tend to the health of souls and salvation of its members

Social Shutdowns as an Extraordinary Means of Saving Human Lives

The effects of the novel coronavirus have raised questions about the extent to which social shutdowns are appropriate. We have a responsibility to protect the lives of others and an obligation to maintain our lives and health when possible, but there are circumstances when it is just to decline certain measures that are considered extraordinary to the situation. Measures taken to protect life must be proportionate. That is, they must offer a reasonable hope of benefit and not impose excessive burdens on individuals, families, or the community. The measures enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic are not proportionate. Restrictions on family and religious activities are disproportionate to the benefit they provide, particularly to the extent that they obstruct the Church in its duty to tend to the health of souls and salvation of its members.

Rinnovare il patrimonio. Learning from contemporary artists

Three contemporary art projects suggest some useful reflections to introduce a discontinuity in the ways of thinking about the transformation of existing spaces going beyond the misunderstood oppositions as “old” and “new”. In Trentino, the artworks by Collective OP, Anna Scalfi Eghenter and Michele De Lucchi show how art and culture are extraordinary means for social innovation but also for promoting new architectural practices based on reduce, reuse and recycle that may be kept in mind for the development of further initiatives.

Healing and Protective Magic: Defense against the Dark Arts

This chapter looks at the tradition of protective and healing magic in the Greco-Roman world. While normal strategies of defense and protection against one's enemies and the ordinary perils of life in the ancient world could be employed in everyday problems, for extraordinary crises, extraordinary means with extraordinary efficacy were needed. Such means were needed not only to ward off potential harm but also to heal the damage already done. Special knowledge might be required to determine the necessary remedy for an unusual or serious problem, whether that knowledge was transmitted in the traditional lore about various plants and minerals or in systematic treatises that compiled the arcane lore for scholarly minded philosophers and doctors. Either the traditional lore or the occult knowledge might be labeled as “magic.” Protective and curative magic channeled divine power in special ways to achieve its extraordinary effects, and so, like other forms of magic in the ancient Greco-Roman world, it was at times viewed askance as superstition and at other times eagerly sought as the only solution to otherwise insuperable problems.