Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Constitutional Bar ( Romanian: Baroul Constituțional), also known as the Romanian Constitutional Bar (Romanian: Baroul Constituțional Român) or the Bota Bar (Baroul Bota) and which fictitiously called itself the National Association of Romanian Bars (Uniunea Națională a Barourilor din România) in order to obtain material benefits, also called UNBR Bota (UNBR Bota) by then; was a parallel, illegal bar, bereft of juridical personhood, established by Pompiliu Bota in 2002 as an alternative to the "classic bars" of Romanian lawyers, reorganized after 1990 within UNBR, which is the genuine Romanian bar association. [1]

The Constitutional Bar had as object of activity the practice of law as lawyers by persons who legally did not have the right to practice as lawyers, according to Art. 348 of the new Romanian Criminal Code (Art. 281 of the old code). It also violates Art. 367 of the Criminal Code, as an organization that has the purpose of committing crimes or organized criminal group.

History

In 2002, the Deva Court recognized the legal personality of the "Bonis Potra" Charitable Association, which had included in its Statute, among other objects of activity, "the establishment of bars in compliance with the provisions of the Romanian Constitution, the provisions of international human rights pacts and conventions.".

After the finality of the court decisions, the "board of directors" of the Romanian Constitutional Bar was constituted, and Pompiliu Bota called himself "dean". On January 17, 2003, the "Annual Panel of Constitutional Bar Lawyers" was drawn up, in which 35 people were registered, 20 of whom were granted the pseudo-right to draw conclusions in courts and courts of appeal, the professional offices being located in Orăștie, Alba Iulia, Baia Mare, Timișoara, Reșița, Piatra Neamț, Satu Mare, Negrești Oaș, Turnu Severin, Petroșani and Bucharest. [2]

It is obvious nonsense for a charity to be able to set up bars, unions, foundations or trade unions, as only courts of law can legally set up organizations, and they cannot delegate this prerogative to a private association. [3] That is why the Constitutional Bar was never a legally established organization. [4] There is no court ruling that explicitly provides for the establishment of the Constitutional Bar. [3] The "Bonis Potra" Association or the "Figaro Potra" Association could not issue court rulings. [3]

Non-unitary practice of courts

The courts did not have a unitary practice in assessing the quality of lawyer of the members of the Constitutional Bar.

The following trends could be identified in the practice of the courts: [2] [5]

  1. accepting and allowing members of the Constitutional Bar to provide legal assistance and representation;
  2. to consider the members of the "Constitutional Bar" to present "evidence regarding the quality of lawyer under the conditions of Law no. 51/1995" and, in their absence, not to be allowed to provide assistance and representation;
  3. to qualify the mandate of representation as being given to a non-lawyer and, in accordance with the provisions of art. 68 paragraph 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the members of the mentioned bar are not allowed to draw conclusions.

Criminal conviction of Pompiliu Bota

On April 5, 2012, the Deva Court decided to sentence Pompiliu Bota, dean of the Constitutional Bar, to 6 months imprisonment for the unlawful exercise of a regulated profession and to 6 months imprisonment for the crime of complicity in the crime of unlawful pursuit of a regulated profession. Following the merging of the two sentences, the heaviest sentence of 6 months imprisonment was applied. The court also ordered the conditional suspension of the execution of the sentence applied to Pompiliu Bota for a probation period of 2 years and 6 months. [5] [6]

The sentence given by the Deva Court was appealed by Pompiliu Bota on April 26, 2012, to the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal, [7] but the appeal was rejected on May 29, 2012, so that the sentence of conviction of Pompiliu Bota by the Deva Court remained final. [6] The action for annulment was also dismissed. [8]

Bota and others will be tried in 2022 at the Suceava Court of Appeal for violating Art. 348 and Art. 367 of the Criminal Code; the injured parties (the plaintiffs who filed the complaint) number almost two hundred people. [9] [10] On 28 November 2023, the Suceava Court of Appeal annulled the acquittal of some "lawyers" from the Bota Bar (including Pompiliu Bota), terminated the criminal proceedings against them due to the limitation of criminal liability, the assets used for the illicit practice of law remain confiscated, the insurance seizure on certain assets and real estate was maintained, and they were obliged to pay some expenses related to the criminal investigation. [10] [11] The sentence is final (definitive). [10] [11]

Florin Talpan, jurist of the Steaua București Army Sports Club (CSA Steaua), stated: "First of all, Bota is not a lawyer! He is a jurist, who has repeatedly violated the law, being sentenced to suspended imprisonment. He is a person of bad faith who evades the law all the time, making a point of it." [12] Bota entered into a conflict with CSA Steaua by abusively registering their trademark with the European Union Intellectual Property Office. [12]

Criminal conviction of others

Two alleged lawyers from the Constitutional Bar have been definitively convicted either of illicitly practicing law as a lawyer or of threatening government officials during the investigation of the illegal practice of law (one of them went to jail and the other is or was wanted by the Romanian Police for being landed in jail). [13] [14] In fact, one of them was already excluded from the Bota Bar when he pretended to be a lawyer, so when the penal trial was being judged against the doubly false lawyer, the Bota Bar asked for damages from the doubly fake lawyer (asked 10 thousands RON as civil party to the trial); but since the Bota Bar was not recognized as a legally established bar association, the fake lawyer was not sentenced to pay damages to the Bota Bar. [13]

A Bucharest resident who was a member of the Bota Bar was also definitively sentenced to three years and six months in prison, among other things for violating Art. 348. [15] [16]

The Suceava Tribunal sentenced two people that were part of the Bota Bar to suspended sentences, but the decision is not final, being appealed. [9] [17] [18] In the same decision, the Suceava Tribunal ordered the annihilation of many documents signed by several "lawyers", i.e. the annihilation of many invoices, but this will produce legal effects only if the decision remains final [annihilation=making them void]. [18] The legal doctrine on the civil law effects of the annihilation of documents in criminal proceedings is unclear and controversial. [19] The appeal has been judged, see above. [10]

Another "lawyer" from the Bota Bar was definitively sentenced to a RON 7200 criminal fine in 2018 for practicing a regulated profession without having the right to do so. [20]

The head of UNBR Botomei, a former associate of Pompiliu Bota, was definitively sentenced to prison with immediate effect. [21] [22]

Another fake lawyer from Constanța or Tulcea, belonging to the Bota Bar, was sentenced to prison. [23] The appeal trial of this person was cancelled due to exceeding the statute of limitations (the trial has ended without declaring him either guilty or innocent). [24]

A pretended lawyer from Cluj was sentenced to 7200 RON penal fine for exercising the profession of lawyer without having the right to do so. [25] He has to pay a total of 35 thousands RON penal fines. [25] E.g. he got one sentence to pay a 9000 RON penal fine and 10000 RON damages to the real Cluj Bar Association. [26]

Another pretended lawyer received a postponed prison sentence. [27]

A woman pretending to be lawyer has been sentenced in Constanța. [28]

A fake lawyer from Tulcea was also sentenced. [29]

Two sons of a Romanian (ex)judge are being prosecuted for illegal practice as lawyers. [30] [31] They had been illegally registered as members of the Madrid Bar Association, which apparently could not distinguish between fake and genuine credentials of being a Romanian lawyer. [30]

A fake lawyer from Cluj was saved by the statute of limitations. [32]

Legal decisions on the Constitutional Bar

Currently, there are many decisions of the Constitutional Court of Romania or the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of the organization of the lawyer profession and bars in Romania as a result of the conflict between "classic bars" and "Bota bars", but the practice has long been non-uniform at the level of various courts. [33]

Appeal in the interest of law

On September 21, 2015, the High Court of Cassation and Justice ruled in an recourse in the interest of the law (RIL) on the non-unitary practice regarding lawyers in alternative bars.

The minute reads as follows:

The act of a person exercising activities specific to the lawyer profession within entities that are not part of the forms of professional organization recognized by Law 51/1995 on the organization and exercise of the lawyer profession, republished, with subsequent amendments and completions, constitutes the felony of practicing without permission of a regulated profession provided by Art. 348 of the Criminal Code. [34] [35]

Since then, the practice of law by the "lawyers" of the Constitutional Bar has been a crime, without any doubt in this regard. [34] [36] This was confirmed by the Constitutional Court of Romania on 17 September 2019, citing, inter alia, the rejection as inadmissible of application 24.057/03 to the European Court of Human Rights. [37]

The Constitutional Court has stipulated again on 19 January 2021, decision no. 30, that bars alternative to the real UNBR are not allowed. [38]

www.bota.ro

The web domain www.bota.ro was deleted as a result of the Decision 2384/2019 of October 17, 2019 of the Bucharest Tribunal. [39] [40] [41]

Trademark

The UNBR trademark registered by the Constitutional Bar was definitively annulled by the decision of the HCCJ. [26] [41] [42] [43] The deregistration or cancellation of the trademark is also confirmed by the Register of Trademarks kept by the Romanian State Office for Inventions and Trademarks (OSIM). [44] UNBR Bota, led by Constantin Bălăcescu, filed an annulment appeal with the HCCJ, [45] requesting, among other things, the recusal of the entire court (i.e. judicial panel). [46] The annulment appeal is an extraordinary remedy and can only be exercised for a limited number of reasons specifically provided by law. [47] On 3 May 2022, the annulment appeal was definitively rejected for failing to pay the required court fees ( stamp duty). [45]

The Constitutional Court rejected the objection of unconstitutionality invoked by Bălăcescu and Bota regarding the UNBR Bota trademark; the European Court of Justice will not be consulted in this case. [48]

On the OSIM Trademark Register, Pompiliu Bota appears with 11 trademarks: 10 rejected and one canceled. [44] The UNBR trademarks registered by RODALL SRL have had varying degrees of success: some are still registered, some have been canceled, some have been rejected, and some are currently (as of February 2023) listed as "pending litigation". [44] Although civil law would allow their use, in criminal law their use is a crime (punishable by imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years or a fine). [4] Registering those trademarks is not a felony, but actually using them is. [4]

Capacity to contract

The point of view of the Romanian Ministry of Justice is that UNBR Bota and INPPA Bota are not juridical entities: "The two entities do not have the capacity of use within the meaning of art. 205 para. (1) Civil Code, i.e. they cannot acquire rights and they cannot have obligations. They are not subjects of law." [4] [49] This view has been communicated to the courts for implementation. [4] This has to do with their lack of juridical personhood, not with the mental state of their leaders: these two structures formally do not exist, so they cannot stand trial because they not exist. [49] Speaking of civil law, organizations that do not exist cannot stand trial. [49] Verbatim quote: "Correspondingly, the article 56 paragraph (2) of the Code for Civil Procedure expressly states that the two entities that are not established under the law cannot stand trial." [49]

According to lawyer Gheorghe Florea, the president of the real UNBR, the National Union of Romanian Bars, led by Constantin Bălăcescu, is "an entity without legal personality". [42] [50] Florea's point of view is enacted by the courts. [41] Indeed, no such entity appears in the National Register of NGOs (data from 2 March 2020). [51] Also confirmed for data from 26 May 2021 and for associations registered until 1 March 2016. [52]

According to the Romanian Ministry of Finance, UNBR-Bota did not register any declarations as economic agent after 22 April 2019 (data from 21 September 2023). [53] The date of the last processing is 25 March 2021. [53]

The National Union of Romanian Bars - Bota, with Fiscal Identification Code (CIF) 20626000, was declared a person without procedural capacity of use (capacity to contract). [54] The decision was appealed by Pompiliu Bota and UNBR Bota. [54] The lack of this capacity shows that the organization cannot be a party to civil law proceedings (cannot stand trial). [55] In the context of the decision, this means that UNBR Bota cannot own or rent real estate and cannot pay or owe money to anyone — economically or financially this organization does not exist and has no money rights or obligations, property or rental. [54] The appeal was reinstated, the Bucharest Municipal Tribunal requesting proof of the economic activities, income, property and bank accounts of UNBR Bota and Pompiliu Bota. [56] Pompiliu Bota and the National Union of Romanian Bars (Bota Structure) requested public aid, but the court ruled: "Rejects the requests for public aid as unfounded." [56] It is a matter of Bota and UNBR-Bota claiming that they cannot afford to pay a lawyer, and in general the costs of the proceedings (experts, executors, etc.), this is what public legal aid is all about. [57] These conditions are "the average monthly net income per family member, in the last two months prior to the application, is below the level of 600 lei" for 50% compensation and below 300 lei, for 100% compensation [lei=RON]. [57] The court either did not receive evidence that Bota and UNBR Bota met the legal requirements for granting them public aid, or considered that an "organization" without procedural capacity of use has no basis for receiving public aid, or considered that an "organization" clearly has no family members. [56]

On 18 March 2022, the Bucharest Municipal Tribunal rejected the demand for reexamination of the public legal aid. [58]

On 21 April 2023, the Bucharest Municipal Tribunal ruled that the Bota Bar cannot stand trial. [56] The verdict got attacked with recourse (still pending). [56] [59] And merely technically, the failure to recuse the judges can be appealed. [56]

On 5 September 2023, the Bucharest Court of Appeal decided: "Cancel the request for public judicial aid, for lack of signature. With the right of re-examination within 5 days of communication." [59] The request for re-examination of the stamp duty was refused by the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 21 September 2023; the decision about stamp duty is final (definitive). [60]

International recognition

In Italy, the lawyer's certificates as being registered in the Bota Bar were considered worthless scraps of paper, and the Italians who used them were not allowed to register in the Italian bars or were erased from the Italian bars due to lacking the title "lawyer". [61] [62] Each false certificate costs 7000 Euro, plus VAT, payable to the Bota Bar. [61]

After Viviana Onaca, from the Romanian Justice Department, officially notified the Order or Lawyers from Tivoli, Italy, that UNBR Bota does not exist (i.e. it is neither recognized nor legally established), UNBR Bota attacked her notification in court, but UNBR Bota definitively lost the trial. [63] [64]

Affair Bota vs. Romania

The European Court of Human Rights judged the Affair Bota vs. Romania. This is not about being a lawyer, but about a trial regarding unregistered cigarettes. [65]

Petitions to the EU Commission

Several petitions were addressed to the EU Commission. Those were answered in 2015. [66] [67]

International Criminal Court

Bota sent a request for judgment at the International Criminal Court, claiming the lawyers from the Bota Bar were and still are victims of genocide. [68] There is no indication that the Office of the Prosecutor will accept to start an investigation. [69]

Botomei Bar

At one point there was UNBR-Botomei, which had split from UNBR-Bota, for which Vasile Botomei, who had been a colleague of crimes with Pompiliu Bota, was criminally convicted. [21] [70] [71] Botomei was or is serving a "clandestine lawyer" prison sentence as a repeat offender. [21] [22] [72] The judge who recruited clients for the Botomei Bar for a fee had to endure the rigors of the law, being definitively convicted and subsequently released from office by Romanian President Klaus Iohannis. [71] [72] [73]

The Independent Union of Romanian Jurists

The Independent Union of Romanian Jurists, led by Pompiliu Bota, is another clandestine lawyers structure. Bota's union has promoted nonsensical actions in court, in which it claims to consult (see) the act of establishment of the real UNBR. Or the real UNBR has no other act of establishment than the special law, published in the Official Gazette ( Monitorul Oficial), the law can be consulted publicly by absolutely everyone. As such, the deed of establishment of the real UNBR cannot be the object of "law no. 544/2001 on free access to information of public interest" (Romanian FOIA law). [74] [75]

Pompiliu Bota also makes great efforts (but without much success) to obtain criminal prosecutions for some of his enemies, including two former associates of his:

  • file 7129/2/2021 (3180/2021) Gheorghe Gheorghiu, former vice-president of the Association of Romanian Jurists (real) [76]
  • file 12741/4/2021 Ina Spînu (Racovita), vice-president of the Bota Bar [76]
  • file 306/57/2021 Cosmin Alin Roncioiu, dean of the Hunedoara Bar (real) [76]
  • file 8076/2/2021 (3721/2021) Ion Dragne, dean of the Bucharest Bar (real) [76]
  • file 46664/299/2021 Viorel Nimernicu, vice-president of the Bota Bar [76]

This is after in the file 5397/303/2020 he tried to obtain the criminal prosecution of the real UNBR. [40] [76]

References

  1. ^ "Regulated Profession Database". European Commission. Retrieved 5 April 2023.
  2. ^ a b Lupașcu, Dan. Nr. 662/CSM/2004 Nr. 671C5/02-06-2004 Nr. 1581/IG/M/2004 Punctul de vedere al Direcției Inspecției Generale din Ministerul Justiției, punct de vedere însușit de către Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii cu privire la verificarea legalității constituirii Baroului Constituțional în raport de dispozițiile OG nr. 26/2000 și Legea nr. 51/1995 și identificarea instanțelor la care avocații respectivi au pledat și actele de reprezentare în baza cărora au făcut-o. — textul poate fi consultat pe "baroul lui POMPILIU BOTA". Răspunsuri Avocatnet.ro (in Romanian). 13 December 2017. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  3. ^ a b c E-JURIDIC.RO, Redactia (24 October 2011). "ICCJ a sanctionat baroul lui Pompiliu Bota". Stiri juridice, contracte si legislatie actualizata - E-JURIDIC.RO (in Romanian). Retrieved 19 November 2021.
  4. ^ a b c d e "UNBR - BOTA ȘI INPPA - BOTA NU AU EXISTENȚĂ LEGALĂ!". UNBR (in Romanian). 2 November 2017. Retrieved 18 November 2021.
  5. ^ a b Tudurachi, Elena-Cătălina (2019). "The constitutionalisation of criminal standards concerning the exercise of the lawyer s profession". Revista de Drept Constituțional. Editura Universitatii Alexandru Ioan Cuza din Iasi: 51–69. doi: 10.47743/rdc-2019-2-0004. ISSN  2810-1979.
  6. ^ a b Pompiliu Bota a fost condamnat pentru exercitarea fara drept a profesiei de avocat, 29 mai 2012, Juridice.ro.
  7. ^ Numãr unic dosar: 002147/221/2007, Portalul Instanțelor din România, Ministerul Justiției.
  8. ^ "Curtea de Apel ALBA IULIA - Informații dosar 553/57/2012". portal.just.ro. 14 March 2013. Archived from the original on 5 March 2016. Retrieved 19 January 2022.{{ cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL ( link)
  9. ^ a b Sources for 'suspended sentence':
  10. ^ a b c d Curtea de Apel SUCEAVA - Informații dosar 8064/314/2015/a1, portal.just.ro
  11. ^ a b Sources for 'appeal':
  12. ^ a b "EXCLUSIV - Talpan îl distruge pe Bota: "Nici măcar nu este avocat. A fost condamnat la închisoare!" Ce se va întâmpla cu marca înregistrată de Pompiliu Bota în Europa: "Avem protectie absoluta asupra ei!"". Telekomsport (in Romanian). 1 January 1970. Retrieved 19 November 2021.
  13. ^ a b "Fals avocat, condamnat pentru exercitarea fără drept a profesiei. UNBR-Bota a cerut daune!". CLUJUST (in Romanian). 24 January 2021. Retrieved 19 August 2021.
  14. ^ Sources for 'jail':
  15. ^ Marcu, Ionel (22 March 2021). "Avocat din Baroul scos in afara legii, condamnat definitiv la inchisoare. A incasat 25.000 euro de la un medic". adevarul.ro (in Romanian). Retrieved 18 November 2021.
  16. ^ Curtea de Apel ORADEA - Informații dosar 3252/271/2018, portal.just.ro
  17. ^ Gaci, Stere (2 March 2022). "Hotărârea judecătorilor provoacă schimbări majore în justiție. Ce s-a stabilit în legătură cu membrii barourilor paralele". evz.ro (in Romanian). Retrieved 13 August 2022.
  18. ^ a b "Tribunalul SUCEAVA - Informații dosar 8064/314/2015/a1". Portalul instanțelor de judecată - Prima pagină (in Romanian). 4 January 2022. Retrieved 4 January 2022.
  19. ^ Kuglay, Irina; Toma-Dăuceanu, Laura; Trandafir, Andra-Roxana (30 January 2020). Societatea de Stiinte Juridice (ed.). "Desființarea înscrisurilor și anularea actelor juridice în procesul penal". JURIDICE - in Law we Trust (in Romanian). Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  20. ^ Mureșan, Ionuț (17 October 2018). "Avocata Laura Vicol, achitată de Instanța supremă". evz.ro (in Romanian). Retrieved 23 January 2022.
  21. ^ a b c Sources for 'Botomei' (1):
  22. ^ a b Sources for 'Botomei' (2):
  23. ^ Sources for 'prison':
  24. ^ D.A. (23 January 2023). "Tulceanul condamnat pentru exercitarea fără drept a profesiei de avocat, a scăpat de acuzații: s-a prescris răspunderera penală". focuspress.ro. Retrieved 13 February 2023.
  25. ^ a b Bețu, Camelia (27 November 2021). "Un avocat clujean riscă să-și piardă locuința, după ce a fost acuzat că își exercită profesia ilegal". Ziar Gazeta de Cluj. Archived from the original on 11 April 2022. Retrieved 22 July 2022.
  26. ^ a b Bursașiu, Veronica (1 September 2020). "ÎCCJ a respins cererea de recurs în casație a unui clujean acuzat de exercitarea FĂRĂ DREPT a profesiei de AVOCAT". Bihor Just (in Romanian). Retrieved 1 May 2023.
  27. ^ "Încurajat de clasări și achitări, un fals avocat a continuat să profeseze. În cele din urmă a primit o pedeapsă cu amânare". CLUJUST (in Romanian). 25 October 2022. Retrieved 25 October 2022.
  28. ^ Albu, Daniel (20 January 2022). "O falsă avocată, condamnată la Constanța, nu este de acord cu amenda primită după ce și-a recunoscut fapta în fața procurorilor". focuspress.ro. Retrieved 16 January 2023.
  29. ^ "Un FALS AVOCAT, trimis în judecată pentru înşelăciune". replicaonline.ro (in Romanian). 15 January 2023. Retrieved 16 January 2023.
  30. ^ a b "Inculpatul Alexandru Ion-Tudoran, avocatul impostor, gata de judecata penală. Urmează fratele Tudor". national.ro (in Romanian). 6 April 2022. Retrieved 16 January 2023.
  31. ^ Sidorov, Andrei (7 April 2022). "Beizadeaua judecătorului Ion Tudoran ajunge la proces. Nu ca avocat, ci ca inculpat". Cetateanul.net - Orașul tău, știrile tale. Retrieved 16 January 2023.
  32. ^ Robu, Razvan (15 April 2023). "Prescripția scapă un avocat clujean de acuzația de înșelăciune". Ziar Gazeta de Cluj. Retrieved 21 April 2023.
  33. ^ Sources for 'non-uniform':
    • Decizia nr. 233/2004 referitoare la excepția de neconstituționalitate a dispozițiilor art. 48 alin. (1) teza întâi și ale art. 57 alin. (1) și (3) din Legea nr. 51/1995 pentru organizarea și exercitarea profesiei de avocat, republicată, cu modificările și completările ulterioare, precum și a dispozițiilor art. 26 alin. 1 și 2 și ale art. 27 din Legea notarilor publici și a activității notariale nr. 36/1995, cu modificările și completările ulterioare. Publicată în Monitorul Oficial, Partea I nr. 603 din 05/07/2004.
    • Decizia nr. 234/2004 referitoare la excepția de neconstituționalitate a dispozițiilor art. 48 alin. (1) teza întâi și ale art. 57 alin. (1) și (3) din Legea nr. 51/1995 pentru organizarea și exercitarea profesiei de avocat, republicată, cu modificările și completările ulterioare. Publicată în Monitorul Oficial, Partea I nr. 532 din 14/06/2004.
    • ECHR Decision of 12 October 2004 regarding the admissibility of the request no. 24057/03 presented by Pompiliu Bota vs. Romania.
  34. ^ a b cristiu (22 September 2015). "RIL admis: exercitarea profesiei de avocat in afara UNBR este infractiune". Consilier juridic (in Romanian). Archived from the original on 31 July 2017. Retrieved 26 March 2020.
  35. ^ "Decizia ICCJ - RIL nr. 15/2015. Avocatura ilegală. Barouri paralele". LegeAZ (in Romanian). Retrieved 26 March 2020.
  36. ^ Sources for 'declared illegal':
  37. ^ "DECIZIE 502 17/09/2019". Portal Legislativ (in Romanian). Retrieved 26 March 2020.
  38. ^ Sources for 'alternative bars':
  39. ^ Sources for 'www.bota.ro':
  40. ^ a b RAPORT DE ACTIVITATE AL CONSILIULUI UNBR (între Congresul avocaților 2019 și Congresul avocaților 2020). Annex 7. #9 and #126.
  41. ^ a b c Florea, Av. dr. Sonia (3 November 2022). "Acțiunea în decădere din drepturile conferite de marcă și acțiunea în anularea înregistrării mărcii. Cazul înregistrării ca marcă a insignei profesiei de avocat de către o entitate lipsită de personalitate juridică". JURIDICE - in Law we Trust (in Romanian). Retrieved 16 January 2023.
  42. ^ a b "Uniunea Națională a Barourilor din România și Baroul București au câștigat litigiul contra structurii Bota care a înregistrat abuziv marca UNBR". UNBR (in Romanian). 28 June 2021. Retrieved 19 August 2021.
  43. ^ "Detalii dosar 42445/3/2017". Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție a României (in Romanian). Retrieved 19 August 2021.
  44. ^ a b c "JSP Page". Welcome to WildFly (in Luxembourgish). Retrieved 19 August 2021. The same holds true on 13 February 2023 about Pompiliu Bota's own trademarks.
  45. ^ a b "Detalii dosar 2257/1/2021". Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție a României (in Romanian). Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  46. ^ "Detalii dosar 2257/1/2021/a3". Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție a României (in Romanian). Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  47. ^ Indaco Systems (24 January 2022). "Contestația în anulare - Noul Cod de Procedură Civilă actualizat 2022". Lege5 (in Romanian). Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  48. ^ Sources for 'ECJ':
  49. ^ a b c d Morecuț, Veronica, UNBR - BOTA AND INPPA - BOTA DO NOT HAVE LEGAL EXISTENCE! unbr.ro, 3 November 2017.
  50. ^ Florea, Gheorghe (3 November 2017). "UNBR – BOTA AND INPPA – BOTA DO NOT HAVE LEGAL EXISTENCE!". Romanian Lawyers Week. Retrieved 23 April 2023.
  51. ^ "Registrul National ONG – Ministerul Justitiei". Ministerul Justitiei – Ministerul Justiției. 17 April 2012. Retrieved 19 August 2021.
  52. ^ "Registrul National ONG". data.gov.ro (in Romanian). 10 October 2014. Retrieved 19 August 2021.
  53. ^ a b "Agenți economici și instituții publice - date de identificare, informații fiscale, bilanțuri - MFP". Acasa. Retrieved 21 September 2023.
  54. ^ a b c "Judecătoria SECTORUL 6 BUCUREȘTI - Informații dosar 1258/303/2020". Portalul instanțelor de judecată - Prima pagină (in Romanian). 30 September 2021. Retrieved 30 September 2021.
  55. ^ "Capacitate procesuală de folosință". LegeAZ (in Romanian). Retrieved 30 September 2021.
  56. ^ a b c d e f Tribunalul BUCUREȘTI - Informații dosar 1258/303/2020, portal.just.ro
  57. ^ a b "Ajutor public judiciar – Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție a României". Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție a României (in Romanian). Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  58. ^ "Tribunalul BUCUREȘTI - Informații dosar 1258/303/2020/a1". Portalul instanțelor de judecată - Prima pagină (in Romanian). 6 April 2022. Retrieved 6 April 2022.
  59. ^ a b "Curtea de Apel BUCUREŞTI - Informaţii dosar 1258/303/2020 (1413/2023)". Portalul instanţelor de judecată - Prima pagină (in Romanian). 25 June 2023. Retrieved 25 June 2023.
  60. ^ "Informații dosar 1258/303/2020/a3 (1549/2023 )". Curtea de Apel BUCUREȘTI (in Romanian). 22 September 2023. Retrieved 22 September 2023.
  61. ^ a b Stan, Filip (2 July 2013). "Fraudă cu diplome românești de Drept în Italia". Romania TV (in Romanian). Retrieved 19 January 2022.
  62. ^ Sources for 'Italy':
  63. ^ "UNBR-Bota a pierdut procesul cu Ministerul Justitiei". MediereNet.ro (in Romanian). 10 December 2015. Retrieved 8 March 2024.
  64. ^ Radu, Florin (9 December 2015). "Ministerul Justiției câștigă procesul cu "UNBR-Bota"". JURIDICE.ro (in Romanian). Retrieved 8 March 2024.
  65. ^ "AFFAIRE BOTA c. ROUMANIE". HUDOC. 4 February 2009 [4 November 2008]. Retrieved 16 February 2024.
  66. ^ Notice to members European Parliament. Committee on Petitions. 28 February 2015.
  67. ^ Notice to members European Parliament. Committee on Petitions. 30 October 2015.
  68. ^ L.J. (5 June 2022). "BAROUL BOTA, PLANGERE PENALA LA HAGA – Avocatul Pompiliu Bota acuza la Curtea Penala Internationala zeci de judecatori CCR si ICCJ, presedintii, premierii si sefii de camere parlamentare ai Romaniei de genocid si crime impotriva umanitatii pentru persecutarea avocatilor din Baroul Bota: "Actiunea politica premeditata de exterminare, persecutarea unui grup, prin privare de drepturile fundamentale, din 2004 pana in prezent, impotriva a 2.177 avocati UNBR-2004" (Plangerea) BAROUL BOTA, PLANGERE PENALA LA HAGA – Avocatul Pompiliu Bota acuza la Curtea Penala Internationala zeci de judecatori CCR si ICCJ, presedintii, premierii si sefii de camere parlamentare ai Romaniei de genocid si crime impotriva umanitatii pentru persecut". Lumea Justitiei (in Romanian). Retrieved 18 June 2022.
  69. ^ WP:BLUE
  70. ^ "Publicăm Decizia nr. 160/2018 a Curții Constituționale a României referitoare la respingerea excepției de neconstituționalitate a dispozițiilor art. 60 alin. (6) din Legea nr. 51/1995 pentru organizarea și exercitarea profesiei de avocat". UNBR (in Romanian). 7 June 2018. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  71. ^ a b Chifu, Cătălina (19 July 2017). "Sentințe definitive pentru Vasile Botomei și judecătorul Sorin Curpăn. Ultimul își pierde funcția". Deșteptarea- Ziarul Bacăului (in Romanian). Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  72. ^ a b Boacnă, Cătălin (2 March 2016). "Sentinta trasnet la Curtea de Apel Iasi! Judecator celebru achitat la Iasi, dupa ce agata studente pe facebook!". BZI.ro (in Romanian). Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  73. ^ Sources for 'Iohannis':
  74. ^ "Baroul Suceava a învins în instanță așa numitul Sindicat independent al juriștilor din România". UNBR (in Romanian). 15 December 2021. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  75. ^ "Curtea de Apel SUCEAVA - Informații dosar 883/86/2020". Portalul instanțelor de judecată - Prima pagină (in Romanian). 24 January 2022. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  76. ^ a b c d e f All these files are public on https://portal.just.ro , but it only displays the development of trial, in provisional steps taken by the court and/or an overview of the verdict. It also mentions the available avenues for challenging the court decision.

External links

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Romanian_Constitutional_Bar&oldid=1220038570"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Constitutional Bar ( Romanian: Baroul Constituțional), also known as the Romanian Constitutional Bar (Romanian: Baroul Constituțional Român) or the Bota Bar (Baroul Bota) and which fictitiously called itself the National Association of Romanian Bars (Uniunea Națională a Barourilor din România) in order to obtain material benefits, also called UNBR Bota (UNBR Bota) by then; was a parallel, illegal bar, bereft of juridical personhood, established by Pompiliu Bota in 2002 as an alternative to the "classic bars" of Romanian lawyers, reorganized after 1990 within UNBR, which is the genuine Romanian bar association. [1]

The Constitutional Bar had as object of activity the practice of law as lawyers by persons who legally did not have the right to practice as lawyers, according to Art. 348 of the new Romanian Criminal Code (Art. 281 of the old code). It also violates Art. 367 of the Criminal Code, as an organization that has the purpose of committing crimes or organized criminal group.

History

In 2002, the Deva Court recognized the legal personality of the "Bonis Potra" Charitable Association, which had included in its Statute, among other objects of activity, "the establishment of bars in compliance with the provisions of the Romanian Constitution, the provisions of international human rights pacts and conventions.".

After the finality of the court decisions, the "board of directors" of the Romanian Constitutional Bar was constituted, and Pompiliu Bota called himself "dean". On January 17, 2003, the "Annual Panel of Constitutional Bar Lawyers" was drawn up, in which 35 people were registered, 20 of whom were granted the pseudo-right to draw conclusions in courts and courts of appeal, the professional offices being located in Orăștie, Alba Iulia, Baia Mare, Timișoara, Reșița, Piatra Neamț, Satu Mare, Negrești Oaș, Turnu Severin, Petroșani and Bucharest. [2]

It is obvious nonsense for a charity to be able to set up bars, unions, foundations or trade unions, as only courts of law can legally set up organizations, and they cannot delegate this prerogative to a private association. [3] That is why the Constitutional Bar was never a legally established organization. [4] There is no court ruling that explicitly provides for the establishment of the Constitutional Bar. [3] The "Bonis Potra" Association or the "Figaro Potra" Association could not issue court rulings. [3]

Non-unitary practice of courts

The courts did not have a unitary practice in assessing the quality of lawyer of the members of the Constitutional Bar.

The following trends could be identified in the practice of the courts: [2] [5]

  1. accepting and allowing members of the Constitutional Bar to provide legal assistance and representation;
  2. to consider the members of the "Constitutional Bar" to present "evidence regarding the quality of lawyer under the conditions of Law no. 51/1995" and, in their absence, not to be allowed to provide assistance and representation;
  3. to qualify the mandate of representation as being given to a non-lawyer and, in accordance with the provisions of art. 68 paragraph 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the members of the mentioned bar are not allowed to draw conclusions.

Criminal conviction of Pompiliu Bota

On April 5, 2012, the Deva Court decided to sentence Pompiliu Bota, dean of the Constitutional Bar, to 6 months imprisonment for the unlawful exercise of a regulated profession and to 6 months imprisonment for the crime of complicity in the crime of unlawful pursuit of a regulated profession. Following the merging of the two sentences, the heaviest sentence of 6 months imprisonment was applied. The court also ordered the conditional suspension of the execution of the sentence applied to Pompiliu Bota for a probation period of 2 years and 6 months. [5] [6]

The sentence given by the Deva Court was appealed by Pompiliu Bota on April 26, 2012, to the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal, [7] but the appeal was rejected on May 29, 2012, so that the sentence of conviction of Pompiliu Bota by the Deva Court remained final. [6] The action for annulment was also dismissed. [8]

Bota and others will be tried in 2022 at the Suceava Court of Appeal for violating Art. 348 and Art. 367 of the Criminal Code; the injured parties (the plaintiffs who filed the complaint) number almost two hundred people. [9] [10] On 28 November 2023, the Suceava Court of Appeal annulled the acquittal of some "lawyers" from the Bota Bar (including Pompiliu Bota), terminated the criminal proceedings against them due to the limitation of criminal liability, the assets used for the illicit practice of law remain confiscated, the insurance seizure on certain assets and real estate was maintained, and they were obliged to pay some expenses related to the criminal investigation. [10] [11] The sentence is final (definitive). [10] [11]

Florin Talpan, jurist of the Steaua București Army Sports Club (CSA Steaua), stated: "First of all, Bota is not a lawyer! He is a jurist, who has repeatedly violated the law, being sentenced to suspended imprisonment. He is a person of bad faith who evades the law all the time, making a point of it." [12] Bota entered into a conflict with CSA Steaua by abusively registering their trademark with the European Union Intellectual Property Office. [12]

Criminal conviction of others

Two alleged lawyers from the Constitutional Bar have been definitively convicted either of illicitly practicing law as a lawyer or of threatening government officials during the investigation of the illegal practice of law (one of them went to jail and the other is or was wanted by the Romanian Police for being landed in jail). [13] [14] In fact, one of them was already excluded from the Bota Bar when he pretended to be a lawyer, so when the penal trial was being judged against the doubly false lawyer, the Bota Bar asked for damages from the doubly fake lawyer (asked 10 thousands RON as civil party to the trial); but since the Bota Bar was not recognized as a legally established bar association, the fake lawyer was not sentenced to pay damages to the Bota Bar. [13]

A Bucharest resident who was a member of the Bota Bar was also definitively sentenced to three years and six months in prison, among other things for violating Art. 348. [15] [16]

The Suceava Tribunal sentenced two people that were part of the Bota Bar to suspended sentences, but the decision is not final, being appealed. [9] [17] [18] In the same decision, the Suceava Tribunal ordered the annihilation of many documents signed by several "lawyers", i.e. the annihilation of many invoices, but this will produce legal effects only if the decision remains final [annihilation=making them void]. [18] The legal doctrine on the civil law effects of the annihilation of documents in criminal proceedings is unclear and controversial. [19] The appeal has been judged, see above. [10]

Another "lawyer" from the Bota Bar was definitively sentenced to a RON 7200 criminal fine in 2018 for practicing a regulated profession without having the right to do so. [20]

The head of UNBR Botomei, a former associate of Pompiliu Bota, was definitively sentenced to prison with immediate effect. [21] [22]

Another fake lawyer from Constanța or Tulcea, belonging to the Bota Bar, was sentenced to prison. [23] The appeal trial of this person was cancelled due to exceeding the statute of limitations (the trial has ended without declaring him either guilty or innocent). [24]

A pretended lawyer from Cluj was sentenced to 7200 RON penal fine for exercising the profession of lawyer without having the right to do so. [25] He has to pay a total of 35 thousands RON penal fines. [25] E.g. he got one sentence to pay a 9000 RON penal fine and 10000 RON damages to the real Cluj Bar Association. [26]

Another pretended lawyer received a postponed prison sentence. [27]

A woman pretending to be lawyer has been sentenced in Constanța. [28]

A fake lawyer from Tulcea was also sentenced. [29]

Two sons of a Romanian (ex)judge are being prosecuted for illegal practice as lawyers. [30] [31] They had been illegally registered as members of the Madrid Bar Association, which apparently could not distinguish between fake and genuine credentials of being a Romanian lawyer. [30]

A fake lawyer from Cluj was saved by the statute of limitations. [32]

Legal decisions on the Constitutional Bar

Currently, there are many decisions of the Constitutional Court of Romania or the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of the organization of the lawyer profession and bars in Romania as a result of the conflict between "classic bars" and "Bota bars", but the practice has long been non-uniform at the level of various courts. [33]

Appeal in the interest of law

On September 21, 2015, the High Court of Cassation and Justice ruled in an recourse in the interest of the law (RIL) on the non-unitary practice regarding lawyers in alternative bars.

The minute reads as follows:

The act of a person exercising activities specific to the lawyer profession within entities that are not part of the forms of professional organization recognized by Law 51/1995 on the organization and exercise of the lawyer profession, republished, with subsequent amendments and completions, constitutes the felony of practicing without permission of a regulated profession provided by Art. 348 of the Criminal Code. [34] [35]

Since then, the practice of law by the "lawyers" of the Constitutional Bar has been a crime, without any doubt in this regard. [34] [36] This was confirmed by the Constitutional Court of Romania on 17 September 2019, citing, inter alia, the rejection as inadmissible of application 24.057/03 to the European Court of Human Rights. [37]

The Constitutional Court has stipulated again on 19 January 2021, decision no. 30, that bars alternative to the real UNBR are not allowed. [38]

www.bota.ro

The web domain www.bota.ro was deleted as a result of the Decision 2384/2019 of October 17, 2019 of the Bucharest Tribunal. [39] [40] [41]

Trademark

The UNBR trademark registered by the Constitutional Bar was definitively annulled by the decision of the HCCJ. [26] [41] [42] [43] The deregistration or cancellation of the trademark is also confirmed by the Register of Trademarks kept by the Romanian State Office for Inventions and Trademarks (OSIM). [44] UNBR Bota, led by Constantin Bălăcescu, filed an annulment appeal with the HCCJ, [45] requesting, among other things, the recusal of the entire court (i.e. judicial panel). [46] The annulment appeal is an extraordinary remedy and can only be exercised for a limited number of reasons specifically provided by law. [47] On 3 May 2022, the annulment appeal was definitively rejected for failing to pay the required court fees ( stamp duty). [45]

The Constitutional Court rejected the objection of unconstitutionality invoked by Bălăcescu and Bota regarding the UNBR Bota trademark; the European Court of Justice will not be consulted in this case. [48]

On the OSIM Trademark Register, Pompiliu Bota appears with 11 trademarks: 10 rejected and one canceled. [44] The UNBR trademarks registered by RODALL SRL have had varying degrees of success: some are still registered, some have been canceled, some have been rejected, and some are currently (as of February 2023) listed as "pending litigation". [44] Although civil law would allow their use, in criminal law their use is a crime (punishable by imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years or a fine). [4] Registering those trademarks is not a felony, but actually using them is. [4]

Capacity to contract

The point of view of the Romanian Ministry of Justice is that UNBR Bota and INPPA Bota are not juridical entities: "The two entities do not have the capacity of use within the meaning of art. 205 para. (1) Civil Code, i.e. they cannot acquire rights and they cannot have obligations. They are not subjects of law." [4] [49] This view has been communicated to the courts for implementation. [4] This has to do with their lack of juridical personhood, not with the mental state of their leaders: these two structures formally do not exist, so they cannot stand trial because they not exist. [49] Speaking of civil law, organizations that do not exist cannot stand trial. [49] Verbatim quote: "Correspondingly, the article 56 paragraph (2) of the Code for Civil Procedure expressly states that the two entities that are not established under the law cannot stand trial." [49]

According to lawyer Gheorghe Florea, the president of the real UNBR, the National Union of Romanian Bars, led by Constantin Bălăcescu, is "an entity without legal personality". [42] [50] Florea's point of view is enacted by the courts. [41] Indeed, no such entity appears in the National Register of NGOs (data from 2 March 2020). [51] Also confirmed for data from 26 May 2021 and for associations registered until 1 March 2016. [52]

According to the Romanian Ministry of Finance, UNBR-Bota did not register any declarations as economic agent after 22 April 2019 (data from 21 September 2023). [53] The date of the last processing is 25 March 2021. [53]

The National Union of Romanian Bars - Bota, with Fiscal Identification Code (CIF) 20626000, was declared a person without procedural capacity of use (capacity to contract). [54] The decision was appealed by Pompiliu Bota and UNBR Bota. [54] The lack of this capacity shows that the organization cannot be a party to civil law proceedings (cannot stand trial). [55] In the context of the decision, this means that UNBR Bota cannot own or rent real estate and cannot pay or owe money to anyone — economically or financially this organization does not exist and has no money rights or obligations, property or rental. [54] The appeal was reinstated, the Bucharest Municipal Tribunal requesting proof of the economic activities, income, property and bank accounts of UNBR Bota and Pompiliu Bota. [56] Pompiliu Bota and the National Union of Romanian Bars (Bota Structure) requested public aid, but the court ruled: "Rejects the requests for public aid as unfounded." [56] It is a matter of Bota and UNBR-Bota claiming that they cannot afford to pay a lawyer, and in general the costs of the proceedings (experts, executors, etc.), this is what public legal aid is all about. [57] These conditions are "the average monthly net income per family member, in the last two months prior to the application, is below the level of 600 lei" for 50% compensation and below 300 lei, for 100% compensation [lei=RON]. [57] The court either did not receive evidence that Bota and UNBR Bota met the legal requirements for granting them public aid, or considered that an "organization" without procedural capacity of use has no basis for receiving public aid, or considered that an "organization" clearly has no family members. [56]

On 18 March 2022, the Bucharest Municipal Tribunal rejected the demand for reexamination of the public legal aid. [58]

On 21 April 2023, the Bucharest Municipal Tribunal ruled that the Bota Bar cannot stand trial. [56] The verdict got attacked with recourse (still pending). [56] [59] And merely technically, the failure to recuse the judges can be appealed. [56]

On 5 September 2023, the Bucharest Court of Appeal decided: "Cancel the request for public judicial aid, for lack of signature. With the right of re-examination within 5 days of communication." [59] The request for re-examination of the stamp duty was refused by the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 21 September 2023; the decision about stamp duty is final (definitive). [60]

International recognition

In Italy, the lawyer's certificates as being registered in the Bota Bar were considered worthless scraps of paper, and the Italians who used them were not allowed to register in the Italian bars or were erased from the Italian bars due to lacking the title "lawyer". [61] [62] Each false certificate costs 7000 Euro, plus VAT, payable to the Bota Bar. [61]

After Viviana Onaca, from the Romanian Justice Department, officially notified the Order or Lawyers from Tivoli, Italy, that UNBR Bota does not exist (i.e. it is neither recognized nor legally established), UNBR Bota attacked her notification in court, but UNBR Bota definitively lost the trial. [63] [64]

Affair Bota vs. Romania

The European Court of Human Rights judged the Affair Bota vs. Romania. This is not about being a lawyer, but about a trial regarding unregistered cigarettes. [65]

Petitions to the EU Commission

Several petitions were addressed to the EU Commission. Those were answered in 2015. [66] [67]

International Criminal Court

Bota sent a request for judgment at the International Criminal Court, claiming the lawyers from the Bota Bar were and still are victims of genocide. [68] There is no indication that the Office of the Prosecutor will accept to start an investigation. [69]

Botomei Bar

At one point there was UNBR-Botomei, which had split from UNBR-Bota, for which Vasile Botomei, who had been a colleague of crimes with Pompiliu Bota, was criminally convicted. [21] [70] [71] Botomei was or is serving a "clandestine lawyer" prison sentence as a repeat offender. [21] [22] [72] The judge who recruited clients for the Botomei Bar for a fee had to endure the rigors of the law, being definitively convicted and subsequently released from office by Romanian President Klaus Iohannis. [71] [72] [73]

The Independent Union of Romanian Jurists

The Independent Union of Romanian Jurists, led by Pompiliu Bota, is another clandestine lawyers structure. Bota's union has promoted nonsensical actions in court, in which it claims to consult (see) the act of establishment of the real UNBR. Or the real UNBR has no other act of establishment than the special law, published in the Official Gazette ( Monitorul Oficial), the law can be consulted publicly by absolutely everyone. As such, the deed of establishment of the real UNBR cannot be the object of "law no. 544/2001 on free access to information of public interest" (Romanian FOIA law). [74] [75]

Pompiliu Bota also makes great efforts (but without much success) to obtain criminal prosecutions for some of his enemies, including two former associates of his:

  • file 7129/2/2021 (3180/2021) Gheorghe Gheorghiu, former vice-president of the Association of Romanian Jurists (real) [76]
  • file 12741/4/2021 Ina Spînu (Racovita), vice-president of the Bota Bar [76]
  • file 306/57/2021 Cosmin Alin Roncioiu, dean of the Hunedoara Bar (real) [76]
  • file 8076/2/2021 (3721/2021) Ion Dragne, dean of the Bucharest Bar (real) [76]
  • file 46664/299/2021 Viorel Nimernicu, vice-president of the Bota Bar [76]

This is after in the file 5397/303/2020 he tried to obtain the criminal prosecution of the real UNBR. [40] [76]

References

  1. ^ "Regulated Profession Database". European Commission. Retrieved 5 April 2023.
  2. ^ a b Lupașcu, Dan. Nr. 662/CSM/2004 Nr. 671C5/02-06-2004 Nr. 1581/IG/M/2004 Punctul de vedere al Direcției Inspecției Generale din Ministerul Justiției, punct de vedere însușit de către Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii cu privire la verificarea legalității constituirii Baroului Constituțional în raport de dispozițiile OG nr. 26/2000 și Legea nr. 51/1995 și identificarea instanțelor la care avocații respectivi au pledat și actele de reprezentare în baza cărora au făcut-o. — textul poate fi consultat pe "baroul lui POMPILIU BOTA". Răspunsuri Avocatnet.ro (in Romanian). 13 December 2017. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  3. ^ a b c E-JURIDIC.RO, Redactia (24 October 2011). "ICCJ a sanctionat baroul lui Pompiliu Bota". Stiri juridice, contracte si legislatie actualizata - E-JURIDIC.RO (in Romanian). Retrieved 19 November 2021.
  4. ^ a b c d e "UNBR - BOTA ȘI INPPA - BOTA NU AU EXISTENȚĂ LEGALĂ!". UNBR (in Romanian). 2 November 2017. Retrieved 18 November 2021.
  5. ^ a b Tudurachi, Elena-Cătălina (2019). "The constitutionalisation of criminal standards concerning the exercise of the lawyer s profession". Revista de Drept Constituțional. Editura Universitatii Alexandru Ioan Cuza din Iasi: 51–69. doi: 10.47743/rdc-2019-2-0004. ISSN  2810-1979.
  6. ^ a b Pompiliu Bota a fost condamnat pentru exercitarea fara drept a profesiei de avocat, 29 mai 2012, Juridice.ro.
  7. ^ Numãr unic dosar: 002147/221/2007, Portalul Instanțelor din România, Ministerul Justiției.
  8. ^ "Curtea de Apel ALBA IULIA - Informații dosar 553/57/2012". portal.just.ro. 14 March 2013. Archived from the original on 5 March 2016. Retrieved 19 January 2022.{{ cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL ( link)
  9. ^ a b Sources for 'suspended sentence':
  10. ^ a b c d Curtea de Apel SUCEAVA - Informații dosar 8064/314/2015/a1, portal.just.ro
  11. ^ a b Sources for 'appeal':
  12. ^ a b "EXCLUSIV - Talpan îl distruge pe Bota: "Nici măcar nu este avocat. A fost condamnat la închisoare!" Ce se va întâmpla cu marca înregistrată de Pompiliu Bota în Europa: "Avem protectie absoluta asupra ei!"". Telekomsport (in Romanian). 1 January 1970. Retrieved 19 November 2021.
  13. ^ a b "Fals avocat, condamnat pentru exercitarea fără drept a profesiei. UNBR-Bota a cerut daune!". CLUJUST (in Romanian). 24 January 2021. Retrieved 19 August 2021.
  14. ^ Sources for 'jail':
  15. ^ Marcu, Ionel (22 March 2021). "Avocat din Baroul scos in afara legii, condamnat definitiv la inchisoare. A incasat 25.000 euro de la un medic". adevarul.ro (in Romanian). Retrieved 18 November 2021.
  16. ^ Curtea de Apel ORADEA - Informații dosar 3252/271/2018, portal.just.ro
  17. ^ Gaci, Stere (2 March 2022). "Hotărârea judecătorilor provoacă schimbări majore în justiție. Ce s-a stabilit în legătură cu membrii barourilor paralele". evz.ro (in Romanian). Retrieved 13 August 2022.
  18. ^ a b "Tribunalul SUCEAVA - Informații dosar 8064/314/2015/a1". Portalul instanțelor de judecată - Prima pagină (in Romanian). 4 January 2022. Retrieved 4 January 2022.
  19. ^ Kuglay, Irina; Toma-Dăuceanu, Laura; Trandafir, Andra-Roxana (30 January 2020). Societatea de Stiinte Juridice (ed.). "Desființarea înscrisurilor și anularea actelor juridice în procesul penal". JURIDICE - in Law we Trust (in Romanian). Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  20. ^ Mureșan, Ionuț (17 October 2018). "Avocata Laura Vicol, achitată de Instanța supremă". evz.ro (in Romanian). Retrieved 23 January 2022.
  21. ^ a b c Sources for 'Botomei' (1):
  22. ^ a b Sources for 'Botomei' (2):
  23. ^ Sources for 'prison':
  24. ^ D.A. (23 January 2023). "Tulceanul condamnat pentru exercitarea fără drept a profesiei de avocat, a scăpat de acuzații: s-a prescris răspunderera penală". focuspress.ro. Retrieved 13 February 2023.
  25. ^ a b Bețu, Camelia (27 November 2021). "Un avocat clujean riscă să-și piardă locuința, după ce a fost acuzat că își exercită profesia ilegal". Ziar Gazeta de Cluj. Archived from the original on 11 April 2022. Retrieved 22 July 2022.
  26. ^ a b Bursașiu, Veronica (1 September 2020). "ÎCCJ a respins cererea de recurs în casație a unui clujean acuzat de exercitarea FĂRĂ DREPT a profesiei de AVOCAT". Bihor Just (in Romanian). Retrieved 1 May 2023.
  27. ^ "Încurajat de clasări și achitări, un fals avocat a continuat să profeseze. În cele din urmă a primit o pedeapsă cu amânare". CLUJUST (in Romanian). 25 October 2022. Retrieved 25 October 2022.
  28. ^ Albu, Daniel (20 January 2022). "O falsă avocată, condamnată la Constanța, nu este de acord cu amenda primită după ce și-a recunoscut fapta în fața procurorilor". focuspress.ro. Retrieved 16 January 2023.
  29. ^ "Un FALS AVOCAT, trimis în judecată pentru înşelăciune". replicaonline.ro (in Romanian). 15 January 2023. Retrieved 16 January 2023.
  30. ^ a b "Inculpatul Alexandru Ion-Tudoran, avocatul impostor, gata de judecata penală. Urmează fratele Tudor". national.ro (in Romanian). 6 April 2022. Retrieved 16 January 2023.
  31. ^ Sidorov, Andrei (7 April 2022). "Beizadeaua judecătorului Ion Tudoran ajunge la proces. Nu ca avocat, ci ca inculpat". Cetateanul.net - Orașul tău, știrile tale. Retrieved 16 January 2023.
  32. ^ Robu, Razvan (15 April 2023). "Prescripția scapă un avocat clujean de acuzația de înșelăciune". Ziar Gazeta de Cluj. Retrieved 21 April 2023.
  33. ^ Sources for 'non-uniform':
    • Decizia nr. 233/2004 referitoare la excepția de neconstituționalitate a dispozițiilor art. 48 alin. (1) teza întâi și ale art. 57 alin. (1) și (3) din Legea nr. 51/1995 pentru organizarea și exercitarea profesiei de avocat, republicată, cu modificările și completările ulterioare, precum și a dispozițiilor art. 26 alin. 1 și 2 și ale art. 27 din Legea notarilor publici și a activității notariale nr. 36/1995, cu modificările și completările ulterioare. Publicată în Monitorul Oficial, Partea I nr. 603 din 05/07/2004.
    • Decizia nr. 234/2004 referitoare la excepția de neconstituționalitate a dispozițiilor art. 48 alin. (1) teza întâi și ale art. 57 alin. (1) și (3) din Legea nr. 51/1995 pentru organizarea și exercitarea profesiei de avocat, republicată, cu modificările și completările ulterioare. Publicată în Monitorul Oficial, Partea I nr. 532 din 14/06/2004.
    • ECHR Decision of 12 October 2004 regarding the admissibility of the request no. 24057/03 presented by Pompiliu Bota vs. Romania.
  34. ^ a b cristiu (22 September 2015). "RIL admis: exercitarea profesiei de avocat in afara UNBR este infractiune". Consilier juridic (in Romanian). Archived from the original on 31 July 2017. Retrieved 26 March 2020.
  35. ^ "Decizia ICCJ - RIL nr. 15/2015. Avocatura ilegală. Barouri paralele". LegeAZ (in Romanian). Retrieved 26 March 2020.
  36. ^ Sources for 'declared illegal':
  37. ^ "DECIZIE 502 17/09/2019". Portal Legislativ (in Romanian). Retrieved 26 March 2020.
  38. ^ Sources for 'alternative bars':
  39. ^ Sources for 'www.bota.ro':
  40. ^ a b RAPORT DE ACTIVITATE AL CONSILIULUI UNBR (între Congresul avocaților 2019 și Congresul avocaților 2020). Annex 7. #9 and #126.
  41. ^ a b c Florea, Av. dr. Sonia (3 November 2022). "Acțiunea în decădere din drepturile conferite de marcă și acțiunea în anularea înregistrării mărcii. Cazul înregistrării ca marcă a insignei profesiei de avocat de către o entitate lipsită de personalitate juridică". JURIDICE - in Law we Trust (in Romanian). Retrieved 16 January 2023.
  42. ^ a b "Uniunea Națională a Barourilor din România și Baroul București au câștigat litigiul contra structurii Bota care a înregistrat abuziv marca UNBR". UNBR (in Romanian). 28 June 2021. Retrieved 19 August 2021.
  43. ^ "Detalii dosar 42445/3/2017". Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție a României (in Romanian). Retrieved 19 August 2021.
  44. ^ a b c "JSP Page". Welcome to WildFly (in Luxembourgish). Retrieved 19 August 2021. The same holds true on 13 February 2023 about Pompiliu Bota's own trademarks.
  45. ^ a b "Detalii dosar 2257/1/2021". Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție a României (in Romanian). Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  46. ^ "Detalii dosar 2257/1/2021/a3". Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție a României (in Romanian). Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  47. ^ Indaco Systems (24 January 2022). "Contestația în anulare - Noul Cod de Procedură Civilă actualizat 2022". Lege5 (in Romanian). Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  48. ^ Sources for 'ECJ':
  49. ^ a b c d Morecuț, Veronica, UNBR - BOTA AND INPPA - BOTA DO NOT HAVE LEGAL EXISTENCE! unbr.ro, 3 November 2017.
  50. ^ Florea, Gheorghe (3 November 2017). "UNBR – BOTA AND INPPA – BOTA DO NOT HAVE LEGAL EXISTENCE!". Romanian Lawyers Week. Retrieved 23 April 2023.
  51. ^ "Registrul National ONG – Ministerul Justitiei". Ministerul Justitiei – Ministerul Justiției. 17 April 2012. Retrieved 19 August 2021.
  52. ^ "Registrul National ONG". data.gov.ro (in Romanian). 10 October 2014. Retrieved 19 August 2021.
  53. ^ a b "Agenți economici și instituții publice - date de identificare, informații fiscale, bilanțuri - MFP". Acasa. Retrieved 21 September 2023.
  54. ^ a b c "Judecătoria SECTORUL 6 BUCUREȘTI - Informații dosar 1258/303/2020". Portalul instanțelor de judecată - Prima pagină (in Romanian). 30 September 2021. Retrieved 30 September 2021.
  55. ^ "Capacitate procesuală de folosință". LegeAZ (in Romanian). Retrieved 30 September 2021.
  56. ^ a b c d e f Tribunalul BUCUREȘTI - Informații dosar 1258/303/2020, portal.just.ro
  57. ^ a b "Ajutor public judiciar – Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție a României". Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție a României (in Romanian). Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  58. ^ "Tribunalul BUCUREȘTI - Informații dosar 1258/303/2020/a1". Portalul instanțelor de judecată - Prima pagină (in Romanian). 6 April 2022. Retrieved 6 April 2022.
  59. ^ a b "Curtea de Apel BUCUREŞTI - Informaţii dosar 1258/303/2020 (1413/2023)". Portalul instanţelor de judecată - Prima pagină (in Romanian). 25 June 2023. Retrieved 25 June 2023.
  60. ^ "Informații dosar 1258/303/2020/a3 (1549/2023 )". Curtea de Apel BUCUREȘTI (in Romanian). 22 September 2023. Retrieved 22 September 2023.
  61. ^ a b Stan, Filip (2 July 2013). "Fraudă cu diplome românești de Drept în Italia". Romania TV (in Romanian). Retrieved 19 January 2022.
  62. ^ Sources for 'Italy':
  63. ^ "UNBR-Bota a pierdut procesul cu Ministerul Justitiei". MediereNet.ro (in Romanian). 10 December 2015. Retrieved 8 March 2024.
  64. ^ Radu, Florin (9 December 2015). "Ministerul Justiției câștigă procesul cu "UNBR-Bota"". JURIDICE.ro (in Romanian). Retrieved 8 March 2024.
  65. ^ "AFFAIRE BOTA c. ROUMANIE". HUDOC. 4 February 2009 [4 November 2008]. Retrieved 16 February 2024.
  66. ^ Notice to members European Parliament. Committee on Petitions. 28 February 2015.
  67. ^ Notice to members European Parliament. Committee on Petitions. 30 October 2015.
  68. ^ L.J. (5 June 2022). "BAROUL BOTA, PLANGERE PENALA LA HAGA – Avocatul Pompiliu Bota acuza la Curtea Penala Internationala zeci de judecatori CCR si ICCJ, presedintii, premierii si sefii de camere parlamentare ai Romaniei de genocid si crime impotriva umanitatii pentru persecutarea avocatilor din Baroul Bota: "Actiunea politica premeditata de exterminare, persecutarea unui grup, prin privare de drepturile fundamentale, din 2004 pana in prezent, impotriva a 2.177 avocati UNBR-2004" (Plangerea) BAROUL BOTA, PLANGERE PENALA LA HAGA – Avocatul Pompiliu Bota acuza la Curtea Penala Internationala zeci de judecatori CCR si ICCJ, presedintii, premierii si sefii de camere parlamentare ai Romaniei de genocid si crime impotriva umanitatii pentru persecut". Lumea Justitiei (in Romanian). Retrieved 18 June 2022.
  69. ^ WP:BLUE
  70. ^ "Publicăm Decizia nr. 160/2018 a Curții Constituționale a României referitoare la respingerea excepției de neconstituționalitate a dispozițiilor art. 60 alin. (6) din Legea nr. 51/1995 pentru organizarea și exercitarea profesiei de avocat". UNBR (in Romanian). 7 June 2018. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  71. ^ a b Chifu, Cătălina (19 July 2017). "Sentințe definitive pentru Vasile Botomei și judecătorul Sorin Curpăn. Ultimul își pierde funcția". Deșteptarea- Ziarul Bacăului (in Romanian). Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  72. ^ a b Boacnă, Cătălin (2 March 2016). "Sentinta trasnet la Curtea de Apel Iasi! Judecator celebru achitat la Iasi, dupa ce agata studente pe facebook!". BZI.ro (in Romanian). Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  73. ^ Sources for 'Iohannis':
  74. ^ "Baroul Suceava a învins în instanță așa numitul Sindicat independent al juriștilor din România". UNBR (in Romanian). 15 December 2021. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  75. ^ "Curtea de Apel SUCEAVA - Informații dosar 883/86/2020". Portalul instanțelor de judecată - Prima pagină (in Romanian). 24 January 2022. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  76. ^ a b c d e f All these files are public on https://portal.just.ro , but it only displays the development of trial, in provisional steps taken by the court and/or an overview of the verdict. It also mentions the available avenues for challenging the court decision.

External links

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Romanian_Constitutional_Bar&oldid=1220038570"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE