The present analysis is justified by the challenges generated by the regulation of the normative framework of public power intervention in the management of some new social realities, with a direct impact on the state-citizen relations, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Undoubtedly, some measures established by the Law No 136/2020 on the establishment of some measures in the field of public health in situations of epidemiological and biological risk, taken most often with celerity, will be subject to the control of legality of the courts of law. It would be absurd for acts that ultimately affect fundamental rights and freedoms not to be subject to the means of appeal and not to pass through the judge’s filter, the latter being the one who will, actually, decide on the fairness of the measure adopted. At the boundary between the analysis of the legality and the appropriateness of the measures adopted by the competent authorities of the state, the court of law will have to rule so that both the citizen, viewed individually, and the community feel safe in front of a threat that humanity never faced before. From this analytical perspective, the authors intend to address the issue of the possibility to invoke in court the exceptions of illegality in the context of the provisions provided by Article 17 of the Law No 136/2020.

This paper analyses judicial limits of property in national legal context, where this kind of property limits are relatively young comparing to the legal limits, which are clearly delimited. The study begins with brief comparative law on similar English, French, and Canadian regulations, continuing by presenting the doctrinal divergence on the foundation of civil liability for abnormal inconveniences of good neighbourhood. The study shows different points of view from doctrine on the fundament of civil liability for causing inconveniences by exceeding the reasonable boundaries of neighbourhood. The paper focuses on differentiating between abuse of right, tortious civil liability and extra-contractual liability, proposing the last one as the fundament of civil liability for causing abnormal inconveniences that bothers the relations of good neighbourhood. Also, it is brought into discussion the meaning of „owner” to which Article 630 of the Civil Code refers, and the implications regarded by giving a restricted meaning to this notion used by the legislator. Still, the French doctrine and the European Court of Human Rights Jurisprudence is orientated to a broad interpretation of this notion.

Reflections on the moral and legal status of the animal, its cognitive abilities, its differences, essential or not, with humans, have nourished human thinking since ancient times; source of debate also today are a lot of questions: can we kill animals, we can eat them, we can use them in our activity, both in the field and in laboratories, do animals have rights, are they subjects of law? Ever since Roman law, the animal was considered from legal point of view, considering only the faculty of man’s appropriation as a subject of law; the main status of animal remains that of reification, their interests being most often ignored for the benefit of humans’ interests. This status embraced by doctrine, praised legally throughout the different civilizations and which has lasted until today, could be maintained by virtue of the „natural” power of human domination exercised over the rest of living beings also through the Cartesian animal–machine theory, which was translated into law by the animal–thing theory.

The interpretation and the application of the provisions of Article 31 (3) and Article 60 of the Labour Code have led to the existence of a non-unitary judicial practice and to the expression of some divergent positions in the doctrine as regards the applicability of the temporary prohibitions on dismissal in case of termination of the individual labour contract at the initiative of the employer, during or at the end of the period of probation. In a first doctrinal and jurisprudential orientation it is argued that Article 60 of the Labour Code is not applicable, because we are not in the presence of a dismissal, but of a separate case of termination of the individual labour contract at the initiative of the employer. The second opinion argues the thesis according to which the termination of the individual labour contract at the initiative of the employer during or at the end of the period of probation is also a case of dismissal, the legislative derogations aiming only at simplifying the dismissal procedure during the period of probation, and not at removing the temporary prohibitions on dismissal provided by Article 60 of the Labour Code.

La data de 1 martie 2020, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria X a solicitat a se dispune înlocuirea măsurii preventive a controlului judiciar cu măsura arestării preventive față de inculpat, ca urmare a incidenței în cauză a dispozițiilor art. 215 alin. (7) C.pr.pen

În cazul în care, prin contract, întreținerea a fost constituită în favoarea unei terț, această persoană are doar dreptul de a cere executarea contractului, nu și pe acela de a cere rezoluțiunea pentru neîndeplinirea obligațiilor. În lipsa unei prevederi exprese în cuprinsul secțiunii care reglementează contractul de întreținere, sunt pe deplin aplicabile normele de drept comun care reglementează stipulația pentru altul, iar acestea prevăd în mod clar că stipulantul este singurul care poate revoca stipulația [art. 1287 alin. (1) C.civ.], beneficiarul având doar dreptul de a solicita executarea [art. 1284 alin. (2) C.civ.]. (Curtea de Apel Timișoara, Secția I civilă, Decizia nr. 235 din 11 iunie 2020, www.rolii.ro1 )