Subiecte examen traducator Ministerul Culturii

Romana Engleza:
Art. 10. Contractul individual de munc este contractul n temeiul cruia o persoan fizic, denumit salariat,
se oblig s presteze munca pentru i sub autoritatea unui angajator, persoan fizic sau juridic, n schimbul
unei remuneraii denumite salariu.
Art. 11. Clauzele contractului individual de munc nu pot conine prevederi contrare sau drepturi sub nivelul
minim stabilit prin acte normative ori prin contracte colective de munc.
Art. 1!. "1# Contractul individual de munc se ncheie pe durat nedeterminat.
"!# $rin e%cepie, contractul individual de munc se poate ncheia i pe durat determinat, n condiiile
e%pres prevzute de lege.
Art. 1&.
"1# $ersoana fizic dob'ndete capacitate de munc la mplinirea v'rstei de 1( ani.
"!# $ersoana fizic poate ncheia un contract de munc n calitate de salariat i la mplinirea v'rstei de 1)
ani, cu acordul prinilor sau al reprezentanilor legali, pentru activiti potrivite cu dezvoltarea fizic,
aptitudinile i cunotinele sale, dac astfel nu i sunt periclitate sntatea, dezvoltarea i pregtirea
profesional.
"&# *ncadrarea n munc a persoanelor sub v'rsta de 1) ani este interzis.
"+# *ncadrarea n munc a persoanelor puse sub interdicie judectoreasc este interzis.
")# *ncadrarea n munc n locuri de munc grele, vtmtoare sau periculoase se poate face dup mplinirea
v'rstei de 1, ani- aceste locuri de munc se stabilesc prin hotr're a .uvernului.
/einerea
Condiiile reinerii
Art. 1+&. 0 1sura reinerii poate fi luat de organul de cercetare penal fa de nvinuit, dac sunt probe sau
indicii temeinice c a sv'rit o fapta prevzut de legea penal. 1sura reinerii se ia n cazurile prevzute
n art. 1+,, oricare ar fi limitele pedepsei cu nchisoare prevzute de lege pentru fapta sv'rit. 2unt indicii
temeinice atunci c'nd din datele e%istente n cauza rezult presupunerea c persoana fa de care se
efectueaz urmrirea penal a sv'rit fapta.
3urata reinerii
Art. 1++. 0 1sura reinerii poate dura cel mult !+ de ore. *n ordonana prin care s0a dispus reinerea trebuie
s se menioneze ziua i ora la care reinerea a nceput, iar n ordonana de punere n libertate, ziua i ora la
care reinerea a ncetat. C'nd organul de cercetare penala consider c este necesar a se lua msura
arestrii preventive, nainteaz procurorului, nuntrul termenului prevzut n alin. 1, un referat motivat.
Engleza Romana:
4illiamson v. 5ee 6ptical of 67lahoma, 89C
&+, :.2. +,& "1;))#
<ustice 36:.5A2 delivered the opinion of the Court.
=his suit >as instituted in the 3istrict Court to have an 67lahoma la>, declared unconstitutional and to enjoin
state officials from enforcing it, for the reason that it allegedl? violated various provisions of the @ederal
Constitution.
=he 3istrict Court held unconstitutional portions of three sections of the Act. @irst, it held invalid under the
3ue $rocess Clause of the @ourteenth Amendment the portions of A ! >hich ma7e it unla>ful for an? person
not a licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist to fit lenses to a face or to duplicate or replace into frames
lenses or other optical appliances, e%cept upon >ritten prescriptive authorit? of an 67lahoma licensed
ophthalmologist or optometrist.
An ophthalmologist is a dul? licensed ph?sician >ho specializes in the care of the e?es. An optometrist
e%amines e?es for refractive error, recognizes "but does not treat# diseases of the e?e, and fills prescriptions
for e?eglasses. =he optician is an artisan Bualified to grind lenses, fill prescriptions, and fit frames.
=he effect of A ! is to forbid the optician from fitting or duplicating lenses >ithout a prescription from an
ophthalmologist or optometrist. 8n practical effect, it means that no optician can fit old glasses into ne>
frames or suppl? a lens, >hether it be a ne> lens or one to duplicate a lost or bro7en lens, >ithout a
prescription. =he 3istrict Court conceded that it >as in the competence of the police po>er of a 2tate to
regulate the e%amination of the e?es. Cut it rebelled at the notion that a 2tate could reBuire a prescription
from an optometrist or ophthalmologist Dto ta7e old lenses and place them in ne> frames and then fit the
completed spectacles to the face of the e?eglass >earer. 8t held that such a reBuirement >as not Dreasonabl?
and rationall? related to the health and >elfare of the people.D =he court found that through mechanical
devices and ordinar? s7ills the optician could ta7e a bro7en lens or a fragment thereof, measure its po>er, and
reduce it to prescriptive terms.
=he 67lahoma la> ma? e%act a needless, >asteful reBuirement in man? cases. Cut it is for the legislature, not
the courts, to balance the advantages and disadvantages of the ne> reBuirement. 8t appears that in man? cases
the optician can easil? suppl? the ne> frames or ne> lenses >ithout reference to the old >ritten prescription.
8t also appears that man? >ritten prescriptions contain no directive data in regard to fitting spectacles to the
face. Cut in some cases the directions contained in the prescription are essential, if the glasses are to be fitted
so as to correct the particular defects of vision or alleviate the e?e condition. =he legislature might have
concluded that the freBuenc? of occasions >hen a prescription is necessar? >as sufficient to justif? this
regulation of the fitting of e?eglasses. 5i7e>ise, >hen it is necessar? to duplicate a lens, a >ritten prescription
ma? or ma? not be necessar?. Cut the legislature might have concluded that one >as needed often enough to
reBuire one in ever? case.