Consideratii cu privire la o neconcordanta legislativa privind unul dintre cazurile de încetare a calitatii de executor judecatoresc prevazute de lege
Aproaches on legislative inconsistency concerning a case of suspension of the quality of a bailiff under law no. 188/2000

Summary/Abstract: This article aims to approach a problem caused by a disparity of laws under Article 22 of Law no. 188/2000 on bailiffs. The question at issue concerns the overlap of two purports for the same de facto situation. More specifically, if Article 22 e) provides that suspension of the quality of bailiff may be ruled only if the person in question is finally convicted for committing an intentional crime reflecting on the prestige of the profession, the same Article point d provides that suspension of the quality of bailiff may also be ruled should the person in question fail to meet any longer some requisite conditions for accession to this office, and among conditions set forth hereunder there stands also inexistence of previous convictions provided for in Article 15 d) of Law no. 188/2000. Reviewing purports cited, we hereby argue that we deal with an error of law, the same de facto situation being treated inconsistently under two paragraphs of the same enactment. herefore, until intervention by the legislature aimed to correct this error, it is due to see which is the correct interpretation to be given to relevant purports.Finally, we argue a fortiori rapid intervention by the legislature to repeal reference made under Art. 22 g) to Article 15 d) and e) of Law no. 188/2000 for the removal of explicit error of law, critics of constitutionality and possible misinterpretation of relevant purports.

• Details
• Contents