The herein study strives to concentrate the main theses developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the right to paid annual leave. Starting from these premises, it aims to detect the interferences and the effects of European jurisprudence on Romanian national law, with a special view on the practical protection of the right to paid annual leave, in both of its components, the entitlement to annual leave and to a payment on that account. The underlying of the carry-over period’s function represents the basis of the conclusions regarding the necessity for a rigorous distinction between the causes of non-exercise of the right to annual leave by the employee, consequently, reflecting in the different judicial solutions. From the point of view of the Romanian procedural law, the study underlines the need to amend the law regarding the limitation period of the right to action in court for the protection of the non-material component of the right analysed, in order to meet the imperative of full harmonization with the European law.

The unpredictability involves the intervention of the judge in a contractual legal relationship. Intellectual property can be considered a „laboratory” in which the intervention of the judge in the agreement of the parties has always been allowed. Without any connection with the unpredictability, in patent law there are legal mechanisms that allow the court to intervene to complete the contract regarding the quantum of the price in order to encourage the exploitation of the invention. In this hypothesis, the parties agree to contract, they do so, setting even the object of the contract, less the sale price. In other cases, the parties are obliged to contract by law, the court being required to intervene in the contractual mechanism established by law to determine the price. In Romania it cannot be argued that under the influence of the previous Civil Code the legislator has ruled on the non-application de plano of the unpredictability and that he would have been in favour of its application in certain special laws, such as the one from the field of intellectual property, because the reason for the judge’s intervention in the agreement of the parties is to favour the exploitation of intellectual creations, encouraging creativity. In the new Civil Code the conditions of the unpredictability are: 1. the existence of an excessive onerosity caused by an exceptional change (out of the ordinary, and not an ordinary one, simple or routine) and unforeseen (unpredictable), including as extension, of the circumstances existing at the conclusion of the contract. Excessive onerosity represents a contractual imbalance in relation to the initial contractual balance, which must exist as long as neither of the parties’ benefits can have a significantly higher value than the other, in the light of the regulation of the injury in the new Civil Code.

This article analyses the problem of international criminal liability for offences against cultural heritage. The author has considered three offences against cultural values: smuggling of cultural values, destruction of cultural goods and theft of cultural goods. The investigation of the offences against cultural values includes a number of aspects: the nature of the offences against cultural values; the advantages of the international or national character of the liability for the offences against cultural values; the circumstances of committing offences against cultural assets (for example the existence of an armed conflict); the objectives of committing offences against cultural values (their export as a treasure, the destruction of the cultural heritage; intimidation); the possible effects of the offences against cultural values. Based on these aspects, the author identifies a series of categories of offences against cultural assets. Each of these categories is analysed from the point of view of international liability.

The present article aims to analyse the antinomy contravention – offence by studying the incrimination of the deed of disturbance of public order and peace. Thus, the legislator, within Article 2 point 1 of the Law No 61/1991 for sanctioning the acts of violation of certain norms of social coexistence, of the public order and peace, incriminates the contravention consisting in committing in public of obscene deeds, acts or gestures, addressing of insults, offensive or vulgar expressions, threats with acts of violence against persons or their property, which may disturb public order and peace or provoke the indignation of citizens or harm the dignity and honour thereof or public institutions. On the other hand, according to Article 371 of the Criminal Code, the act of the person who, in public, by violence committed against persons or property or by serious threats or injuries to the dignity of the persons, disturbs the public order and peace is punished by imprisonment from 3 months to 2 years or with fine. It is easy to find, comparatively analysing, that there is a parallelism of the incriminations, which extract their vigour from spheres of different legal liability, thus the judicial interpreter having the difficult mission to distinguish the conditions in which the two forms of liability are employed, respectively if both can be retained simultaneously, successively or the application of one of them brings about ipso facto the removal of the other.

The promotion and protection of the rights of the child has always been one of the main objectives of the European Union, but it is also a result of international commitments. All Member States of the European Union have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the rules and principles of this Convention guide the policies and the actions of the Union that impact on the rights of the child. The Lisbon Treaty has conferred greater importance to the objectives of the European Union, and by Article 3 (3) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child it was explicitly established the imperative obligation to promote the protection of the rights of the child. In addition, the rights of the children are enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which by Article 24 recognizes children as independent and autonomous holders of rights, also considering the best interest of the child as paramount in relations with the public authorities and the private institutions. The transposition of the European and international objectives, as well as of the fundamental principles referring to the protection of the rights of the child took place naturally through the adoption of new national regulations reflecting the acquiescence of Romania to the European objectives and its constant concern for the protection of the rights of the child. However, in many cases there are encountered in practice situations where, although there are both the legal basis and the mechanisms necessary for its implementation, the rights of the children are not respected and/or are not given due importance. This paper aims to draw attention once again to the essential rights of children and to emphasize the fundamental principles referring to the promotion and protection of rights of the children, with particular regard to the principle of the best interest of the child, as regulated at European level.

Potrivit art. 226 alin. (5) C.pen., plasarea, fără drept, de mijloace tehnice de înregistrare audio sau video, în scopul săvârșirii faptelor prevăzute în alin. (1) și alin. (2), se pedepsește cu închisoarea de la unu la 5 ani. Conform art. 207 alin. (1) C.pen., constrângerea unei persoane să dea, să facă, să nu facă sau să sufere ceva, în scopul de a dobândi în mod injust un folos nepatrimonial, pentru sine ori pentru altul, se pedepsește cu închisoarea de la unu la 5 ani. Potrivit art. 291 alin. (1) C.pen., pretinderea, primirea ori acceptarea promisiunii de bani sau alte foloase, direct sau indirect, pentru sine sau pentru altul, săvârșită de către o persoană care are influență sau lasă să se creadă că are influență asupra unui funcționar public și care promite că îl va determina pe acesta să îndeplinească, să nu îndeplinească, să urgenteze ori să întârzie îndeplinirea unui act ce intră în îndatoririle sale de serviciu sau să îndeplinească un act contrar acestor îndatoriri, se pedepsește cu închisoarea de la 2 la 7 ani (cu notă parțial aprobativă).