In view of the positive effects on both theory and practice of maintaining coherence in legal reasoning, I aim to bring into focus the essence of ‘detention’ of property (n.ed. in Romanian, the concept is detenție precara; as it does not have an exact correspondent in English, we accepted to use this notion throughout this article; the term ‘detention’ has also been used in US law in relation to property law), a recurring concept in Romanian Civil Law.

Given that the problem of abusive clauses in loan contracts is currently at the forefront of public debate in Romania, as well as in other European States, I believe it is a subject of interest to analyse the conduct of the banks in Romania who have abusive clauses. My analisys is based on the decisions of the European Court of Justice in this matter, and the interpretation of the European rules in this situation.

The lines bellow present a short review over the crime of omission stipulated in Article 17 of the Romanian Penal Code. The crime of omission is characterized by a failure to act from a person who does not fulfil an obligation imposed on him by law. It is divided into proper omission and improper omission, the latter being also known as commission by omission. 

Our Supporters Opportunities Masters Abroad Newsletter