Protecting the Judicial Interdiction under the Regulations of the New Civil Code

• Author: Matefi, R.
• Position: Law Faculty, Transilvania University of Brasov
• Pages: 75-78

Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov

Series VII: Social Sciences • Law • Vol. 5 (54) No. 2 - 2012

PROTECTING THE JUDICIAL

INTERDICTION UNDER THE

REGULATIONS OF THE NEW

CIVIL CODE

Roxana MATEFI1

Abstract: The present article deals with the institution of judicial

interdiction having in view the perspective of the New Civil Code, which is

considered a protection measure ruled regarding the people without enough

discernment as to mind their own interests because of alienation or mental

debility, measure which can also be taken in relation to the minors with a

restricted capacity of decision.In the beginning of the paper, I have analyzed

this institution with reference to the notion and the conditions whose

fulfillment is required by the legislator with a view to take the measure of

placing under judicial interdiction. Subsequently, I dealt with the effects of

placing under judicial interdiction, respectively the person’s deprivation of

capacity of decision, as well as appointing a guardian. The last question

dealt with is the one of lifting the judicial interdiction, the law court being

entitled to pronounce on this matter.

Key words: judicial interdiction, protection, alienation, mental debility,

guardian, minor, capacity of decision, instance.

1 Law Faculty, Transilvania University of Braşov.

1. The notion and conditions of

interdiction

The measure of judicial interdiction was

regulated for those situations “when the

mental status is so much altered that the

normal reasoning is totally compromised,

either permanently, or intermittently”[1].

In Roman law, the people deprived of

discernment were placed under

guardianship with a view to protecting

them and their goods, but their incapacity

did not have a permanent character . Thus,

as long as they were lucid, the people in

question reacquired their capacity to sign

deals, including by themselves. The danger

consisted in the fact that “the alternation

between dementia and the lucid intervals is

the habitual state of the mentally alienated

so, if he/she signs a contract while being

lucid, nothing can give clues about the

illness he/she suffers from; the other

contracting party cannot realize the altered

mental status of the persons with whom he

signs the contract (…) then he/she can

commit very serious offences appearing as

normal behaviour, there being impossible

to deduce the alienation status from

them”[1].