Apending before the courts that referred the Constitutional Court with the present exceptions of unconstitutionality it must have a clear picture of the factual elements and their essential rights. Obviously the Court examines these elements only to the extent that this is necessary to allow it to determine whether the criticized regulation is related to the resolution of the exception of unconstitutionality with which it was invested. . In applying the above the Court notes as a common element of the factual situation in the cases pending before the courts that referred the.
Court in the present files that all credit contracts were concluded before the Country Email List entry into force of the new Civil Code respectively October . The Court notes that the authors of the exception invoked the unconstitutionality of art. of Law no. without referring distinctly to its two hypotheses namely the hypothesis concerning the applicability of the new Civil Code By way of derogation from the provisions of Law no. regarding the Civil Code republished with subsequent amendments and the hypothesis regarding the applicability of the old Civil Code. Under these conditions the argument contained in paragraph of Decision no. of October published in the Official Gazette of Romania Part I no. of.
January Also regarding the provisions of art. first sentence of Law no. By derogation from the provisions of Law no. regarding the Civil Code republished with subsequent amendments considering that the same credit agreements were concluded even before the entry into force of Law no. regarding the Civil Code i.e. October and which cannot be applied to contracts concluded before the entry into force of the new as inadmissible the exception of unconstitutionality of these provisions. . The Court considers that there are no reasons to depart from this reasoning and as such.
發表於 2023-12-27 19:06:59
