Post by account_disabled on Jan 2, 2024 1:45:17 GMT -5
AConstitution according to which Private property is guaranteed and protected equally by the law regardless of the owner the Court notes that even under this aspect the criticism cannot be retained. Acceptance of art. para. the first sentence of the Constitution obliges the state to take legal and equal measures to protect the right to private property and through the criticized provisions the legislator fulfilled this very obligation equally protecting all the creditors of the Autonomous Directorate for Nuclear Activities Drobeta Turnu Severin under the conditions of applicability of the provisions regarding the insolvency procedure. . Compared to what was presented the.
Court cannot retain the alleged Country Email List unconstitutionality of the criticized provisions in relation to the constitutional provisions of art. para. in conjunction with those of art. para. . . Next the Court observes that the author of the exception of unconstitutionality although she invokes in support of the exception the provisions of art. para. of the Constitution also refers to an alleged contradiction of the provisions of Law no. against the provisions of art. para. of the Basic Law. Thus the author claims that although according to the constitutional provisions claims on the state are guaranteed in reality by Law no. the apparently legal framework was created by adopting some privileges for the Autonomous.
Directorate for Nuclear Activities so that the state evades the payment and guarantee obligations of its claims. However this criticism cannot be retained since the creditors claims on the insolvent debtor are not claims on the state in the sense of the provisions of art. para. of Constitution because in this hypothesis the debtor is not the Romanian state itself but an economic agent autonomous management with full state capital in this case the Autonomous Management for Nuclear. The fact that the state fully owns the social capital of.
Court cannot retain the alleged Country Email List unconstitutionality of the criticized provisions in relation to the constitutional provisions of art. para. in conjunction with those of art. para. . . Next the Court observes that the author of the exception of unconstitutionality although she invokes in support of the exception the provisions of art. para. of the Constitution also refers to an alleged contradiction of the provisions of Law no. against the provisions of art. para. of the Basic Law. Thus the author claims that although according to the constitutional provisions claims on the state are guaranteed in reality by Law no. the apparently legal framework was created by adopting some privileges for the Autonomous.
Directorate for Nuclear Activities so that the state evades the payment and guarantee obligations of its claims. However this criticism cannot be retained since the creditors claims on the insolvent debtor are not claims on the state in the sense of the provisions of art. para. of Constitution because in this hypothesis the debtor is not the Romanian state itself but an economic agent autonomous management with full state capital in this case the Autonomous Management for Nuclear. The fact that the state fully owns the social capital of.