I think that the main cause wherefore in the legal field in Romania it is not written much and deep is the fact that the legislation is extremely dynamic. It is normally to be like this in the transition period that Romania is passing. I don’t think that this thing may be avoidable. Sure, the laws could be done better, with more accuracy; it could be correlated better ones with the others, but the rhythm of legislative production is so big that, it appears problems to which the jurists must bear up. The jurists must solve the legal problems, no matter how are the laws, they must answer the conflicts. Then, even if you are a law lover, a human dedicated to the laws, sometimes it is hard even for the jurists to understand the rationality of the legislator, which is the goal spotted by the legislator, mainly when the legislator is changing his mind in a short time.
Another cause is related, in my opinion, to the organization of the judicial system, which it hasn’t got fixed the control mechanisms which has to ensure a unitary practice. In Justice is very risky for humans. The judges are striving to give good solutions, to give solutions in the law limits, but the mechanisms of assurance of the unitary practice are not absolutely functional. This induces an uncertainty feeling. Of course, the legal writing is following this inclination. The legal writing tends to concentrate, on very general things, which are interesting, are important, but which in practice they don’t have an inconceivable utility level, or on things extremely punctual, related to certain articles, trying to clarify that problem, resulting, therefore, small materials, which inexorable have a limited interest.
I don’t know which may be the solution. Maybe the change of the laws is a very realist solution… I hope that the new civil procedure Code, which will enter into force soon, to be a step forward.