Concluded on 12 December 2015, and entering into force on 4 November 2016, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change establishes the new international legal regime of the global response to threat of climate change. Contributing to the application of the Framework Convention of 1992, the Agreement adds the objective of adaptation and breaks the tradition of the Kyoto Protocol (1997), by imposing a new approach in this field, having in its center the limitation to 2°C and, whenever possible, 1,5°C of the growth of global average temperature, in relation to preindustrial levels, determined national contributions, and a transparency mechanism in ensuring the compliance of the self-assumed commitments. Accepting climate change as a „common concern of mankind” with scientific legitimacy of the conventional process and a specific legal value, being neither a „convention” nor a „protocol”, the Agreement has a universal nature, and it completes and transforms the international legal regime of the global climate action. Innovating principles are consecrated: intergenerational equity, climate justice or progression principle, new market mechanisms, with limited action, the facilitating mechanism, periodical evaluation, et al. An important role in imposing the new strategy and the new mechanism of action in climatic matters is held by the negotiations related to the post-2015 Conferences of Parties, designed to establish the „roadmap” and the proceedings for the preparation and enforcement, after 2020, of the Paris Agreement. Part of the new international conventional context regarding the new global challenges, the Agreement completes and updates the climate regime, as part of the international environmental law, bearing important specificities.

Soluția legislativă cuprinsă în art. 345 alin. (1) din Codul de procedură penală, care nu permite judecătorului de cameră preliminară, în soluționarea cererilor și excepțiilor formulate ori excepțiilor ridicate din oficiu, să administreze alte mijloace de probă în afara „oricăror înscrisuri noi prezentate”, este neconstituțională. (Curtea Constituțională a României, Decizia nr. 802/2017 – cu notă aprobativă)

There are many questions concerning the context in which we witness the entry into force (on 25th May 2016) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and its application (starting 25th May 2018). The answers can be numerous: political, sociological, journalistic, etc. However, we choose to analyse from the legal point of view. The GDPR was adopted taking into account the weaknesses that the Directive 95/46/EC has shown, specific weaknesses, in fact, of a EU legal act of this type, compared to the type of regulation. The Directive in question has failed to prevent the fragmentation of the way data protection has been ensured in all EU Member States. Legal uncertainty or public perceptions according to which there are significant risks to the protection of individuals, especially online, have been widespread. It is further added that the differences in the levels of protection existing in the 28 EU Member States, differences due to the transposition and application of the Directive, have sometimes led to a slowdown in the application of the principle of the freedom of movement of personal data within the EU, which may constitute real obstacles to economic activity at this level, distorting competition and preventing authorities from fulfilling their responsibilities under EU law.

This study emphasizes that, from a substantial point of view, the criteria required to be fulfilled for cataloguing a deed as pertaining to the criminal domain are: the qualification of the deed in the domestic law, the nature of the deed and the purpose and the severity of the sanction. Formally, an official report of finding and sanctioning the contravention which represents at the same time also a criminal charge in the conventional sense must cumulatively include the description of the deed and the presentation of the legal classification. The effect of classifying the report of finding and sanctioning the contravention in the category of the criminal charge in a conventional sense is given by the fact that to the procedure for finding and sanctioning the contravention there are attached its own guarantees of a fair trial. The presumption of lawfulness of the report is compatible with the presumption of innocence only if it respects certain limits, taking into account the gravity of the stake and protecting the rights of the defence. The limits of the presumption of lawfulness of the official report, in the context of protecting the rights of the defence, are: the imperative that the deed be perceived directly, through its own senses, by the fact-finding agent and the exigence not to impose on the person concerned an impossible task, as regards the administration of the proof to the contrary.

The retransmission of the right to successoral option raises some difficulties of theoretical understanding and practical application, at least for the following reasons: the Civil Code, now in force, substantially changes the logic of the previous regulation of this legal institution; in practice, there are being debated, with a significant frequency, inheritances opened before 1 October 2011 (the moment when the current Civil Code entered into force) and which consequently fall under the incidence of the provisions of the former Civil Code (which ultractivates); there are encountered, in practice more frequently, several inheritances in respect of which the right to successoral option has been successively retransmitted; the institution about whose issues we are concerned herein, in particular, have some resemblances to the successoral representation and to the retransmission of the inheritance. For all these reasons, and we believe that there are not few, nor the only ones, we will discuss further the retransmission of the right to successoral option, starting from the theoretical aspects, which are indispensable for its just understanding and for its proper application in practice. In this context, we will give concrete examples, with the hope that they will be of use to theoreticians and, in particular, to practitioners in the field of successions.

The content of the medical legal relation includes all rights and obligations of the provider and of the beneficiary of the medical service. Among these, only the rights of the patient benefit by an explicit and ample special regulation and by a growing doctrinal interest. However, this does not mean the lack of specific rights in favour of the doctor, but only the necessity to identify the existence and the determination of their content by analyzing the nature and/or the implicit effects of the legal provisions and of the jurisprudential solutions. Thus, the patient’s acceptance by the doctor, based on Article 663 (1) of the Law No 95/2006, is the equivalent of the informed consent of the patient, expressed pursuant to Articles 660–662 of the Law No 95/2006 and Articles 13–20 of the Law No 46/2003; the interruption of the relation between the doctor and the patient, pursuant to Article 664 (1) c) (ii) of the Law No 95/2006, as a result of a hostile and/or irreverent attitude towards the doctor, would be impossible in the absence of an obligation of gratitude of the patient, correlative to a right to gratitude of the doctor; and the jurisprudential consecration of the liability of the sanitary unit for the damage suffered by the doctor due to a nosocomial infection is due precisely to the existence of a right to security of the doctor.