This study starts from a case settled in the preliminary chamber by a court that has proceeded to the exclusion from the probative material of some illegally obtained evidence, but also of those derived therefrom. In the analyzed situation in the context of the preliminary chamber it was found that there had been a confusion which led to obtaining data on a person’s financial transactions in an unlawful manner, namely by an ordinance that had not been validated by a judge of rights and freedoms, as the provisions of Article 138 (9) of the Criminal Procedure Code would have required.

The Decision of the Constitutional Court of Romania No 405/2016, referring to the plea of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 246 of the Criminal Code of 1969, of Article 297 (1) of the Criminal Code and of Article 132 of the Law No 78/2000 on preventing, discovering and sanctioning of corruption acts (hereinafter referred to as „Decision No 405”)1, is not a mere interpretative decision2 whereby, following the admission of a plea of unconstitutionality, it is established that a text of law is constitutional only provided that a certain wording has a certain meaning3. The recitals of the Decision No 405, to which there have been added, shortly after, those included in the Decision No 392/2017, referring to the plea of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 248 of the Criminal Code of 1969, of Article 297 (1) of the Criminal Code and of Article 132 of the Law No 78/2000 on preventing, discovering and sanctioning of corruption acts4 (hereinafter referred to as „Decision No 392”), have emphasized the fact that the current rules of incrimination of the deeds of abuse of office, once clarified the meaning of the phrase „defectively fulfils”, still establish a criminal liability that rather acts with priority, and not according to ultima ratio principle, and the constitutive elements of the offence do not meet the standards of drafting of such legal norms identified in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as „ECHR”), the United Nations Convention against Corruption5, as well as in various reports and positions assumed by the European Union bodies on this subject. For the assumption that these observations of the Constitutional Court would determine the legislator to reflect on the necessity to reconfigure the legal provisions in question, the Court has indicated certain points of reference that should be considered in order to ensure a regulation compatible with the international and European standards mentioned.

Although the European Union’s activities hardly integrate into the civilist logic of the „illicit legal act”, its non-contractual liability is triggered in particular for what the doctrine generically calls „behaviours” considered to be illegal. Even under this generous hypothesis, the Union liability can only be engaged under very strict conditions, less established by the Treaties and, rather, by the judge in Luxembourg, on the basis of some rules that discourage the litigants, limiting the possibility, in procedural and material terms, to bring such actions. The jurisdiction to settle the disputes concerning non-contractual liability of EU exclusively pertains to the European Unional jurisdictions, by applying Article 268 TFEU, which necessarily implies that the non-contractual liability of the Union must be engaged solely on the basis and under the conditions of EU law. Such an argument is fundamentally justified by the fact that engaging this liability very often implies that the scope of application is an appreciation of the Union’s policy, which is why the exclusion of the competence of any national jurisdiction appears to be natural.

The study is devoted to the legislative convergences and divergences existing at the level of the European countries regarding the functioning of small and mediumsized companies. The first part of this approach emphasizes the important role of small and medium-sized companies within the national economies, including their contribution to the formation of the gross domestic product. In the author’s opinion, the support granted by the political and legislative powers, including by the doctrine, is not in accordance with the contribution brought by the small and medium-sized companies to the development of the national economies. Starting from the finding that the typical legal form of functioning of the small and medium-sized companies is represented by the limited liability companies, the author presents the most relevant aspects regarding their establishment, organization and functioning. A particular analysis is also carried out in relation to Directive 2017/828/EC, a European document that is likely to significantly promote appropriate normative convergences. The author also emphasizes some positive trends manifested at the level of the European Union, such as those represented by the elimination of the fixed minimum share capital or by the reduction thereof. Among the legislative divergences, the author analyzes those determined by the conflicts of interests between the members of the limited liability company. In particular, the author takes into account the divergences concerning the right of the minority members, whose interests are threatened by the actions of the majority members, to freely exit that company.

Having regard to the number of judgments delivered in the field of property and of expropriation against Romania by the European Court of Human Rights, it is necessary to present the relevant principles which this court has set out, principles which the national judge is bound to observe and to apply to concrete cases, in accordance with the provisions of Article 20 of the Constitution. The principles not correlated with actual examples would be devoid of content, therefore the presentation of the most important examples on the basis of the state of fact emphasizes the correct reasoning of the Court, the more so as it has a limited competence to verify the compliance with the domestic law1, attribution which is the responsibility of the national judge.