Thought Articles

Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in The Government Procurement Review, 2nd edition (published in May 2014 – editors Jonathan Davey and James Falle). The second edition of The Government Procurement Review brings even wider geographic coverage than the first edition, now covering six continents and 24 national chapters (including the EU chapter). In Romania, public procurement contracts are essentially regulated by Government Emergency Ordinance No. 34/2006 on the award of public procurement contracts, public works concession contracts and service concession contracts (GEO No. 34/2006). Specific sector regulation and clarifications of GEO No. 34/2006 can be found in the secondary legislation, consisting of government decisions and National Authority for the Regulation and Monitoring of Public Procurement (ANRMAP) orders. GEO No. 34/2006 transposes EC directives on public procurement and creates the legal framework to secure compliance with the principles of contract awarding in public procurement: non-discrimination, equal treatment, mutual recognition, transparency, proportionality, optimum use of funds and undertaking of liability.

Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in Getting the Deal Through – Labour & Employment 2014, (published in April 2014; contributing editors: Matthew Howse, Walter Ahrens, Sabine Smith-Vidal and Mark Zelek of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP). Romania is a civil law jurisdiction and the core employment regulation is the Labour Code. Besides the Labour Code, specific tailored legal enactments regulate other employment-related aspects, such as employment safety and health, insurance for work accidents and professional diseases and social dialogue. Collective bargaining agreements also provide binding rules and obligations to be complied with by the employers. Finally, considering Romania’s accession to the European Union, which took place on 1 January 2007, EU legislation and ECJ decisions are also relevant.

Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in The Corporate Governance Review, 4th edition (published in March 2014 – editor Willem J L Calkoen). The Law No. 31/1990 on trading companies, republished in 2004 and further amended and completed (the Companies Law) and the Capital Market Law No. 297/2004, as further amended and completed (the Capital Market Law), represent the primary sources of law relating to the corporate governance of listed companies in Romania. In addition, as an independent agency the securities regulator, the Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF) may issue legally binding regulations. Furthermore, Government Emergency Ordinance No. 109/2011 concerning the corporate governance of public enterprises (GEO No. 109/2011) sets out specific statutory rules for the corporate governance of enterprises controlled by the Romanian state (a significant number of the targeted companies that are listed on the Romanian regulated markets or that are envisaged for listing in the near future).

Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in The Dispute Resolution Review, 6th edition (published in February 2014 – editor Jonathan Cotton). The Romanian dispute resolution framework is currently experiencing one of the most significant, substantial and extensive reforms of the last century, due to the recent enactment of the new Civil Procedure Code alongside a new Civil Code already in force; the enactment of new Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes is also being prepared. The reform seeks to put in place a legal framework able to answer the needs of contemporary developments of societal relations, with a clear view to coordination with EU law essentials. High expectations are placed on the system’s ability to absorb the new provisions aimed at speeding up trials, and avoid future allegations of systemic failure to settle disputes within ‘a reasonable time’. Particular applications of the legislator’s need for acceleration of trial proceedings include newly instituted duties of the judge to develop a written correspondence with the claimant in order to ensure the fulfilment of all validity requirements concerning his or her application, and then to coordinate the submitting of the parties’ written materials and the organisation of the hearing within a very strict time frame.

Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in Getting the Deal Through – Dominance 2014, (published in December, 2013; contributing editors: Thomas Janssens and Thomas Wessely of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer). In its latest high-profile case, the Romanian Competition authority (RCC) applied record fines totalling 63.18 million Euros on the two major mobile telecommunications operators for refusing access to their networks for call termination, exceeding the record of 24.06 million Euros set in the previous abuse case against the National Company of Romanian Mail. The sanctioned undertakings appealed the RCC’s decision. The cases are still before the courts and the decision is pending. Although in 2010 and 2011 the RCC finalised two highprofile abuse cases, the case law of the RCC as regards the abuse of dominant position is still scarce and some old investigations targeting potential abuses are still pending before RCC.

Product liability emerged as a stand-alone branch of law in Romania rather recently, during the last few decades. However, it is essentially grounded on "classical" civil law, which has acknowledged and regulated fundamental principles such as tort liability and contractual liability for more than a century. Product liability is thus based on the traditional civil law under the New Civil Code and the special statutes regulating product liability.