Construction related crimes in the Romanian Law no. 10/1995 regarding quality in construction

Abstract

The current article has set its aim to surpass the Romanian doctrine’s standstill concerning construction related crimes, especially by analyzing the manner in which other legal systems have dealt with the possible issues surrounding this area. The study starts by exploring the origins and nomenclature of Law no. 10/1995 regarding quality in construction. Throughout this stage, the author points out the pros, cons and possible interpretation quandaries of the current legal text.

Moving on, the author analyzes the criminal provision stipulated in article 31 of the Law at hand, alongside providing a short glimpse of some analgous European legal provisions During this phase, dismantling other authors’ thought-to-be obsolete oppinions on the matter becomes the writer’s main concern.

After scrutinizing all the basic issues surrounding this article, the breakdown of the criminal provisions of article 32 enters the spotlight.

Both during and subsequent to the examination of these two articles, the author is aptly devoted to proposing a series of compulsory changes that would remodel Law nr. 10/1995 into a suitable overseer of quality in construction. Currently, this Law’s criminal provisions are seldom applied, because of the legislator’s ambiguous choice of syntax, the high penalties, and the jumbled action-result coupling.