The loss of the chance to obtain an advantage or to avoid a damage represents a new form of reparation of prejudice regulated by the Civil Code, enshrined by the provisions of Article 1385 (4) of the Civil Code, and represents a distinct category of prejudice reparable by engaging in tort civil liability, which concerns those negative consequences directly caused by the commission of an illegal act that consist in missing the real and serious possibility of the occurrence of a favourable event for the victim’s life, which could have brought him fulfilment in his personal or economic life by the carrying out of some projects. Therefore, the loss of a chance means the loss by a person of the possibility to achieve a gain or, as the case may be, to avoid a damage, which may result in causing a prejudice to that person. De lege lata, we mention that the prejudice caused by the „loss of the chance to obtain an advantage” can be invoked within the framework of tort (extra-contractual) civil liability, but also in the field of contractual civil liability whenever by the non-fulfilment of the legal or contractual obligations such consequences have occurred. This prejudice could be claimed both by the direct victim of an illegal act and by those close to them if they prove that they suffered, through ricochet, such a prejudice. In order to have a reparable prejudice, the chance of occurrence of the favourable event for the victim must be as real as it is serious, which is assessed differently, whether or not the victim was in the process of taking the chance at the time when the event that compromised the possibility to achieve it occurred, and this prejudice must be in a direct causal link with the illegal act committed by the responsible person. The assessment of the chance shall be carried out in relation with two criteria, namely the examination of the circumstances in which the illegal act was committed, on the one hand, and the special situation in which the victim was at that time, on the other hand. With regard to the features of the prejudice, we specify that it must be certain (certain, unquestionable) and real (undeniable, effective, indisputable), and not an eventual one (possible, probable), the loss, therefore, must be actual.

An application of the new technologies has involved a modern regulation, and the European states have received the electronic form of the patient file and have transposed it into a relatively recent regulation, and the novelty of the problems and the strict dependence on the IT platforms have led to successive changes in the legislation, at the level of several states. Adjustments, correlations, adaptations took place at the law-technology border, in relation to the „physical” reality of the national medical system. The electronic health file does not have the role of replacing the „classic” file, in written form. The latter remains in the circuit of the health system and preserves its usefulness, and the medical act is not conditioned by the existence of an electronic file. From the DES perspective and for the usefulness of the approach undertaken, some guarantees of the protection of private life and personal data were verified. The secrecy of the data concerning health is no longer just a „privacy” between the patient and a limited number of people, but is „displayed” on an IT platform, to which several natural persons/entities have access, the technical access key (matrix, user, password) is entrusted to the users through the administrator, given that the Internet is an environment susceptible to the generation of security breaches. Granting access to the entire electronic file implies that the medical staff is aware of all the information and all the health problems of a person. The secret becomes a „shared” one and the central problem (of the patient) is the control – over the private life, over their own personal data, over the information that, otherwise, they would not want to be disclosed in a virtual environment. At issue is not only a balance between public interest (public health) and private interest or between personality rights that can end up in a conflicting position. If it will be proven that the interest of the medical care coordination prevails over the patient’s acceptance, then the electronic file will remain outside the true control of its owner. But, if, on the contrary, the patient has the prerogative of control (with justified, strict, limiting exceptions), then his right to limit access to the file will be recognized.