Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr.

3/2014

JURISPRUDENA IZVOR DE DREPT

JURISPRUDENCE - A SOURCE OF
LAW

Titu IONACU

Abstract: Practica judiciar, dei nu este

considerat , n dreptul romnesc, izvor de drept, este
considerat ca fiind deosebit de valoroas n procesul
interpretrii i aplicrii legii la cazuri concrete.
Cuvinte
cheie:
jurispruden,
practic
judiciar, competen, instane judectoreti

Titu IONACU**
Abstract: Judicial practice, although it is not
considered in the Romanian law, sources of law, is
considered particularly valuable in the interpretation
and application of the law to specific cases.
Key words:
competence, court

1. Noiune
Jurisprudena sau practica judiciar
este alctuit din totalitatea soluiilor i
hotrrilor judectoreti pronunate de
ctre instanele de toate gradele, prin care
s-au interpretat sau aplicat normele
juridice la diferite situaii concrete. Din
punct de vedere etimologic, cuvntul
jurispruden provine din cuvintele
latine juris, insemnnd drept i dictio,
semnificnd pronunare, iar la origine,
jurisprudentia desemna arta i tiina
juridic, n societatea contemporan.
Jurisprudena este un izvor de drept
formal ce include experiena practic a
organelor judectoreti ce aplic dreptul
pozitiv i cruia i probeaz i legitimeaz
valabilitatea. Trebuie menionat faptul c
jurisprudena este rezultatul interpretrii i
aplicrii dreptului, realizat de organul
judiciar potrivit voinei legiuitorului care
a edictat norma de drept. n dreptul
romnesc actual, prin de finiie,
jurisprudena i precedentul judiciar nu
constituie izvor de drept pozitiv,
judectorul avnd ndatorirea de a se
supune legii i de a o aplica n litera i
spiritul ei1.
Jurisprudena n raport cu legea,

law,

judicial

practice,

1. Concept
Jurisprudence and legal practice
consists of all solutions and judgments by
courts at all levels, which have been
interpreted or applied legal standards
different
situations.
Etymologically
speaking, the word "law" comes from the
Latin words "juris" means right and
"dictio"
signifying
references
and
originally Jurisprudence " appoint legal art
and science in contemporary society.
Case law is a formal source of law
which includes practical experience
judiciary applying positive law and that
proves it legitimizes validity. It should be
noted that the case is the result of
interpretation
and law enforcement,
conducted by the judicial body according
to the will of the legislature that approves
the rule of law. The current Romanian law
by the finite case and judicial precedent is
not a source of positive law, the judge
having the duty to obey the law and to
apply it in letter and spirit 8.
Jurisprudence in relation to the
law, has three forms which distorts or
transforms dead letter law: case law

Conf. univ. dr., Departamentul tiine Juridice, Facultatea de Relaii Internaionale, Drept i tiine
Administrative, Universitatea Constantin Brncui din Tg-Jiu
**
Assoc.Proff.Ph.D, Department of Juridical Sciences, Faculty of International Relations, Law and
Administrative Sciences, Constantin Brncui University of Tg-Jiu
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 3/2014

31

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 3/2014

cunoate trei forme care denatureaz sau

transform legea n liter moart:
jurisprudena obligatorie n virtutea legii,
a unei delegri a legii (secundum legem),
care nu poate fi contestat ca izvor de
drept, deoarece puterea ei vine din lege,
aceasta nu modific i nu completeaz
legea, ci doar determin aplicarea ei strict,
jurisprudena
praeter
legem
(n
completarea legii), aceasta are rolul de a
completa legea sau de a o suplini acolo
unde exist lacune legislative, prin
interpretarea
praeter
legem,
care
constituie un tip de interpretare creatoare
a legii de ctre judector; jurisprudena
praeter legem, dei formal se pstreaz n
limitele textului legal, practic deformeaz
coninutul normei juridice, situndu-se la
limita acestuia.
Cu toate c legea nu este
contrazis, prin interpretarea praeter
legem se modific, n mod subtil,
coninutul acesteia. Aceasta nu este
admis dect n msura n care textele
legale sunt nvechite i desuete.
Jurisprudena contra legem (mpotriva
legii) n sistemele moderne de drept nu ar
putea exista. Prin jurispruden contra
legem judectorul d legii o interpretare
ntr-un sens contrar celui avut n vedere de
ctre legiuitor, iar aceasta este admisibil
doar n msura n care normele legale
respective constituie anacronisme, ele
fiind depite de dezvoltarea societii i
astfel transform legea n liter moart.
2. Evoluie istoric
Practica judiciar este emanaia
autoritii judiciare, fiind anterioar legii
ca izvor de drept. Jurisprudena sau
practica judiciar nu a avut acelai rol n
toate sistemele de drept, rolul su a variat
de la o epoc istoric la alta, de la o ar la
alta. n antichitate i feudalism (la fel ca i
cutuma), jurisprudena a constituit un
izvor de drept important, care s-a diminuat
apoi n epoca modern n rile europene o
data cu ponderea creterii actelor

required under the law, a delegating law

(secundum legem), which can not be
challenged as a source of law, because its
power comes from the law, it does not
change or supplement the law, but only
determines
its
application
strictly
praeterita case legem (in addition to the
law), it is intended to complement the law
and replace it where there legislative gaps
by praeterita legem interpretation, which
is a kind of creative interpretation of the
law by the judge; legem praeterita case,
although formal kept within legal text
basically distorts the content rule legal
standing to its limit.
Although
the
law
is
not
contradicted
by
praeterita
legem
interpretation changes subtly, its content.
This is allowed only to the extent that
legal texts are outdated and obsolete. Case
law contra legem (against the law) in
modern law could not exist. By law contra
legem interpretation of the law the judge
gives a contrary one considered by the
legislature, and this is permissible only if
legal rules that are anachronistic, being
overcome by the development of society
and thus transforming the law a dead
letter.
2. Historical Evolution
Judicial practice is the emanation
of judicial authority, the previous law that
source of law. Jurisprudence and legal
practice had the same role in all systems
of law, its role has varied from one
historical epoch to another, from one
country to
other. In antiquity and
feudalism (as is customary) law has been a
important source of law, which then
diminished in modern European countries
along with the percentage growth laws.
In Rome the king was judge and
creator of legal rules while case is an
important source of law, which formed the
basis of evolution right. After creating
royalty decisions Pretoria called edicts,
became mandatory for all judges forming

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 3/2014

32

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 3/2014

normative.
n Roma regele era judector i
creator de norme juridice n acelai timp,
jurisprudena fiind un izvor de drept
important, ce a constituit fundamentul
evoluiei
dreptului.
Dup
crearea
regalitii, hotrrile pretorilor, denumite
edicte, au devenit obligatorii pentru toi
magistraii formnd dreptul pretorian,
denumit i drept onorar ce reprezint un
izvor formal al dreptului. Odat cu
formarea imperiului, rolul pretorilor
scade, mpratul fiind cel ce face legile.
Astfel, mpratul Iustinian codific
ntregul drept roman i desfiineaz
puterea creatoare a dreptului pretorian i a
jurisconsulilor.
n secolul al XIII-lea au aprut n
Anglia colecii de jurispruden denumite
reports. n rile n care dreptul este
reprezentat prin common law (Anglia,
SUA, Canada etc.) exist concepia c
nelesul dreptului este cel dat de
instanele judectoreti, deci, coninutul
normelor juridice este determinat n
precedentul judiciar (ex. Hotrrile date
de Consiliul privat al Camerei Lorzilor n
Anglia). n aceste mprejurri, judectorul
era considerat ca fiind autoritatea care
creeaz dreptul, care instituie reguli noi de
drept2 cu caracter permanent. n raport cu
aceste reguli, legea era privit ca fiind
auxiliar, subsidiar (legile existente fiind
considerate simple corective ale practicii
judiciare), dreptul comun (common law)
fiind considerat ca avnd o existen
obiectiv chiar dac nu era exprimat n
acte.
Creterea puterii monarhului n
rile din Europa, precum i creterea
rolului actelor normative nsoite de
codificri, au redus cmpul de aplicare al
jurisprudenei (de exemplu, Codul penal al
Germaniei i Codul civil francez au
interzis aplicarea ei). Jurisprudena i
pierde treptat rolul de izvor principal de
drept, rmnnd un izvor subsidiar de
drept. n timpul Revoluiei burgheze

praetorian law, also called as honorary

represents a formal source of law. With
the formation of the Empire, the role
praetors decreases the king is the one who
makes the laws. The entire coding
Justinian Roman law and abolishes the
creative power of praetorian law and
solicitor.
In the thirteenth century arose in
England collection of case law referred
reports. In countries where the law is
represented by the common law (England,
USA, Canada etc.) there is the view that
the right meaning given by the courts, so
the content of legal norms is determined
by case law (eg. Judgments of the Privy
Council of the House of Lords in
England). In these circumstances, the
judge was regarded as authority creates
law which establishes new rules 9 as
permanent. In relation to these rules, the
law was seen as auxiliary subsidiary
(existing laws are considered simple
corrective jurisprudence), common law
(common law) being regarded as having
objective existence even if it was not
expressed in the papers.
Increasing the power of the
monarch in European countries, and the
increasing role accompanied by encoding
laws have reduced the scope of
jurisprudence (eg Criminal Code of
Germany and the French Civil Code
forbade its application). Case law loses its
role as the main source of law, leaving a
subsidiary source of law. During the
French bourgeois revolution, the role of
judicial practice was limited. When
adopting the French Civil Code of 1804,
Portalis said that there should be a law
with the role of fill in the gaps of the law,
while claiming that "all matters must be
regulated by law (...) abandoned
jurisprudence rare and extraordinary and
the contingency of laws. "
With time, some current and legal
schools were ordered to unfavorable
maintaining jurisprudence from formal

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 3/2014

33

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 3/2014

franceze, rolul practicii judiciare s-a

limitat. Cu ocazia adoptrii Codului Civil
francez din 1804, Portalis afirma c
trebuie s existe o jurispruden cu rol de
a umple golurile legii, susinnd n acelai
timp c, toate materiile trebuie
reglementate de legi (...) abandonnd
jurisprudenei
cazurile
rare
i
extraordinare precum i cele neprevzute
de legi.
Cu timpul, unele curente i coli
juridice s-au pronunat chiar defavorabil
meninerii
practicii
judiciare
ntre
izvoarele de drept formal. Acest lucru era
motivat de faptul c jurisprudena opune
rezisten la nou, neputnd oferi modele
juridice corespunztoare schimbrilor
sociale. De asemenea, jurisprudena i
pierde din importan i ca urmare a
dezvoltrii activitii normative a statului.
3. Rolul jurisprudenei
Dreptul romnesc contemporan, nu
acord practicii judiciare calitatea de izvor
de drept, pentru c, potrivit principiului
separaiei puterilor n stat i al legalitii,
puterea judectoreasc nu este competent
s legifereze (s creeze legea), ci doar s
aplice legea care este edictat de
Parlament (ca putere legislativ n stat).
De altfel, Codul civil romn stabilete
expres interdicia ca judectorul s creeze
norme juridice prin hotrrea pe care o
pronun. Art.4 din Codul nostru
civil dispune: puterea judectoreasc nu
poate dect s rezolve litigiile ntre
indivizi, dnd hotrri aplicabile numai
speei i far caracter general i
permanent 3.
Obligativitatea magistrailor de a
soluiona cauzele numai n baza legii, far
a crea noi reguli de drept i far s fie
inui de precedentul judiciar, rezult i
din dispoziiile Art. 124, pct. 3 din
Constituia Romnie 4, conform cruia:
judectorii sunt independeni i se supun
numai legii, far a fi legai de hotrrile
pronunate n cauze similare de ali

sources of law. This was motivated by the

fact that resistance to new case law, can
not provide models appropriate legal
social change. Also, the case loses its
importance and due to normative
development activities of the state.
3. The role of jurisprudence
Contemporary Romanian law does
not grant legal practice quality source of
law, because the principle of separation of
powers and the legality, the judiciary is
not competent to legislate (to create law),
but to apply the law that is enacted by the
Parliament (the legislative power state).
Moreover, the Romanian Civil Code
expressly prohibits the judge determines
create legal rules by a judgment which
pronounced. Article 4 of our Code Civil
has "the judiciary can only resolve
disputes between individuals, giving the
ruling applied only case without a general
and permanent 10".
Mandatory magistrates to decide
cases based only on the law, without
create new rules of law and without being
bound by judicial precedent, results from
the provisions of Art. 124, pt. 3 of the
Constitution of Romania 11, that: Judges
are independent and subject only to the
law, without being bound by the
judgments in similar cases by other judges
or even her, and to establish general
provisions that create new legal rules
when solving a reason.
There are cases in judicial practice
for whose solution there legal provisions
or even if there is not sufficient or clear
enough, but the judge is obliged to settle
the principles of law specific and legal
conscience, otherwise is guilty of denial
of justice. In such cases, the judge will
decide after other legal requirements,
without which deciding a case to compel
him or other judges to decide the same in
other case, the respect of the principles
which it stops giving general solutions12.
The judgment of the judge in a case

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 3/2014

34

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 3/2014

judectori sau chiar de ei, i far a putea

stabili dispoziii generale prin care s
creeze noi norme juridice, cu ocazia
soluionrii unei pricini.
Exist ns situaii n practica
judiciar pentru a cror soluionare nu
exist prevederi normative sau chiar dac
exist nu sunt suficiente sau destul de
clare, dar pe care judectorul este obligat
s le rezolve conform principiilor de drept
specific i contiinei sale juridice, n caz
contrar se face vinovat de denegare de
dreptate. n astfel de cazuri, judectorul se
va pronuna dup alte norme juridice, far
ca ceea ce decide ntr-o spe s-l oblige
pe el sau pe ali judectori s decid la fel
i n alte spee,
respectnd astfel
principiul care-l oprete s dea soluii cu
caracter general5.
Hotrrea pronunat de judector
ntr-o cauz are for obligatorie numai
fa de cauza pentru care s-a dat (numai
pentru spea respectiv) nu i pentru alte
cauze similare. n prectica judiciar nu se
creeaz norme juridice noi , ci numai se
interpreteaz sau se completeaz cele
existente sau se adapteaz noilor condiii
de via ale societii. Se apreciaz c
practica organelor judiciare prezint o
importan deosebit ntr-un stat de drept,
chiar i ca izvor subsidiar de drept,
aceasta fiind deosebit de valoroas n
procesul rezolvrii multiplelor probleme
social-economice i politice.
Din cele prezentate, putem contura
urmtoarele trsturi caracteristice ale
jurisprudenei: eman de la o autoritate
public,
respectiv
autoritatea
judectoreasc, are un caracter oficial,
are fora juridica obligatorie pentru
cazurile concrete, are form scris, fapt
ce-i confer precizie, este anterioar legii,
sub aspectul apariiei sale, are caracter
evolutiv, dinamic, imprimat de nevoile
sociale, a avut un rol creator n drept, are
rol n interpretarea i aplicarea legii la
cazuri concrete, completeaz legea cnd
este lacunar .

shall be binding only to cause to give (for

the present case in question) not for other
similar cases. The judicial prectica does
not create new legal rules, but only to
interpret or supplement existing ones or
adapt to new conditions life of society. It
is estimated that the practice of judicial
bodies is of particular importance in the
rule of law, even as a subsidiary source of
law, which is particularly valuable in
solving the many problems social,
economic and political.
From the above, we can define the
following features of jurisprudence:
emanating from a public authority or
judicial authority, is of a formal, legally
binding to specific cases, has written,
which gives them accurate, earlier law, in
terms of its appearance, is evolutionary
dynamic printed social needs, had a
creative role in law has a role in the
interpretation and application of the law to
specific cases, completing the law when
incomplete.
Although not receiving the right to
consider the source of contemporary
Romanian as though the judicial activity
of the Constitutional Court can enforce the
Constitution
even
the
legislature,
declaring unconstitutional any act issued
by it.
So, by jurisdiction,
the
Constitutional Court established a law can
ignore the will of the legislature,
jurisprudence arising important decisions
that can confirm or refute the direct rules
legal persons adopted by the legislative
body. Also decisions of the Court
Supreme Court to resolve appeals on
points of law, the Attorney General's
complaint are general-binding as law, all
courts.
In most cases, courts reach
solutions in the interpretation and
application of legal rules. In case of
conflict between lower courts, the
Supreme Court requires such an
interpretation, the constant and consistent
delivery of solutions (decisions of the

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 3/2014

35

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 3/2014

Dei nu primete n dreptul

contemporan romnesc considerarea de
izvor de drept, totui activitatea judiciar
a Curii Constituionale poate impune
respectarea
Constituiei
chiar
i
legiuitorului,
prin
declararea
neconstituionalitii oricrui act emis de
ctre acesta. Deci, prin competena sa,
Curtea
Constituional
instituie
o
jurispruden ce poate nesocoti voina
legiuitorului, jurispruden din care
rezult decizii importante care pot s
confirme sau s infirme n mod nemijlocit,
normele juridice adoptate de forul
legislativ.
De
asemenea,
deciziile
pronunate de Curtea Suprem de Justiie
n soluionarea recursurilor n interesul
legii, la sesizarea Procurorului General,
sunt general-obligatorii, ca i legea, pentru
toate instanele.
De cele mai multe ori, instanele de
judecat ajung la soluii unitare n
interpretarea i aplicarea unor norme
juridice. n cazul existenei conflictelor
dintre
instanele
inferioare,
Curtea
Suprem de Justiie impune acestora o
anumit interpretare, prin pronunarea
unor soluii constante i unitare (decizii
ale Plenului Curii Supreme de Justiie),
acestea find invocate uneori ca precedente
judiciare n activitatea judectoreasc.
Deciziile ns, nu completeaz, nu
dezvolt legea i nici nu creeaz norme
noi de drept, ci doar explic sensul real al
unei norme juridice (l interpreteaz);
acestea nu sunt izvor de drept i nu au
caracter obligatoriu pentru judectori, dar
pot fi avute n vedere, n anumite cazuri,
de ctre instanele de judecat, date fiind,
prestigiul i poziia organului de la care
eman.
Trebuie menionat faptul c dup
aderarea Romniei la Consiliul Europei (la
2 octombrie 1993) s-a ratificat Convenia
European a Drepturilor Omului 6 (20 iunie
1994) astfel c pe lng adaptarea
legislaiei interne la prevederile acesteia,
jurisprudena Curii de la Strasbourg a

Plenum Supreme Court), they find

sometimes invoked judicial precedent
judicial activity. Decisions, however, not
complete, do not develop the law nor not
create new rules of law, but explains the
real meaning of a legal norm (it interpret);
they are not a source of law and not
binding judges, but may be considered in
certain cases by the courts, given the
prestige and position of authority from
which it emanates.
It should be noted that after
Romania joined the Council of Europe
(the October 2, 1993) has ratified the
European Convention on Human Rights 13
(20 June 1994) so that in addition to adapt
domestic legislation provisions, the case
law of the Strasbourg Court has become
an active stimulus for the national courts,
which are interested to deliver solutions
that not can be challenged by the
Strasbourg Court. Thus, taking into
account by the Court in each process that
is related to a solution already given by
the Court and that could give solving the
case. Romanian Constitutional Court takes
into account the jurisprudence of the
Strasbourg Court14 when ruling on the
constitutionality of laws or provisions of
law, as the
Constitutional Court
recognizes the direct applicability of the
European Court of Human Rights.

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 3/2014

36

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 3/2014

devenit un stimulent activ pentru

instanele naionale, ce sunt interesate s
pronune soluii care s nu poat fi
contestate de Curtea de la Strasbourg.
Astfel, se ine cont de jurisprudena Curii
n cadrul fiecrui proces care are legtur
cu o soluie deja pronunat de Curte i
care ar putea da rezolvare cazului dat.
Curtea Constituional a Romniei ine
cont de jurisprudena Curii de la
Strasbourg7, atunci cnd se pronun
asupra constituionalitii unei legi sau a
unor dispoziii dintr-o lege, astfel Curtea
Constituional recunoate aplicabilitatea
direct a jurisprudenei Curii Europene a
Drepturilor Omului.

Elena Paraschiv, Izvoarele formale ale dreptului , Ed. C.H. Beck, Bucureti, 2007, p.92
Instanelor anglo-saxone li se recunoate puterea de a crea att norme individuale, aplicabile la cazuri
concrete, ct i norme generale asemenea legilor, precedentul judiciar fiind obligatoriu, att n cazul
soluionat , ct i n cazuri viitoare , pentru instana care l-a creat i pentru celelalte instane care
soluioneaz cazuri similare.
3
Nicolae Popa, Teoria general a dreptului, Ed. Actami, Bucureti, 1994 ,p.195
4
n Art.124 pct.3 din Constituia Romniei se stabilesc dou cerine, care de fapt sunt principial
constituionale: independena judectorului i supunerea judectorului numai legii. A se vedea n acest
sens Ioan Muraru, E.S. Tnsescu (coordonatori), Constituia Romniei. Comentariu pe articole, Ed.
C.H. Beck, Bucureti, 2008, p.1221-1225.
5 Ion Dobrinescu, Dreptatea i valorile culturii, Ed. Academiei Romne, Bucureti, 1992, p.44
6 Convenia pentru Protecia Drepturilor Omului i Liberalitilor Fundamentale, cunoscut i su b
denumirea de Convenia European a Drepturilor Omului, este un catalog al drepturilor fundamentale
elaborat de Consiliul Europei, semnat pe 4 noiembrie 1950 la Roma i intrat n vigoare pe 3 septembrie
1953.
7 Curtea de la Strasbourg numit i Curtea European a Drepturilor Omului a fost creat pentru
sistematizarea procedurii plngerilor n materria drepturilor omului provenite din statele membre al e
Consiliului Europei. Misiunea Curii este s vegheze la respectarea prevederilor Conveniei Europene a
Drepturilor Omului de ctre statele semnatare.
8 Elena Paraschiv, Formal sources of law, Ed. CH Beck, Bucharest, 2007, p.92
9 Anglo-Saxon courts are recognizing the power to create both individual rules applicable to specific
cases and general rules also laws, judicial precedent is binding both to solve and in future cases, the
court created for other courts that settled similar cases.
10 Nicolae Popa, General Theory of Law, Ed. Actami, Bucharest, 1994, p.195
11 In item 3 Article 124 of the Constitution of Romania to establish two requirements that are actually
constitutional principles: the independence of the judge and the judge obedience only to the law. See this
John Muraru, E. S. Tanasescu (coordinators), Constitution of Romania. Comment on articles, Ed. C. H.
Beck, Bucharest, 2008, p.1221-1225.
12 Ion Dobrinescu, Justice and cultural values, Ed. Romanian Academy, Bucharest, 1992, p.44
13
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Liberties, known as the European
Convention on Human Rights, is a catalog of fundamental rights developed by the Council of Europe,
signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and entered into force on 3 September 1953.
2

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 3/2014

37

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 3/2014

14

Strasbourg Court called the European Court of Human Rights was created to systematize the procedure
Materr human rights complaints from Council of Europe member states. Its job is to ensure compliance
with the European Convention on Human Rights by the signatory States.

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 3/2014

38