Extensive confiscation safety measure has a narrow enforcement scope, as it can be ordered only for the crimes expressly provided by law. On the other hand, extended confiscation can cover only property or the equivalent thereof, obtained by the convicted person whilst committing, in a specified time period, other crimes for which the law provides for such safety measures. Prerequisite to be met for the enforcement of extended confiscation is the existence of an obvious disproportion between income earned lawfully by the person convicted and the value of goods obtained through criminal activity for which the law provides for this safety measure.

Art. 1 of the Romanian Labor Code states that its provisions shall apply to employment relationships, and the legal literature established that the employment relationship arises mainly from the employment contract between the employees and their employers. Law no. 52/2001, which regulates the casual work performed by the day laborer, by way of derogation from the provisions the Labor Code, provides that an employment relationship is established between the labor beneficiary and the day laborer, but an employment contract (which, according to Article 16 of the Labor Code requires written form) is not concluded. As the Court of Justice of the European Union decided in the Land Tirol Case that workers performing occasionally work, even for a single day, fall within the scope of the Framework Agreement on temporary work, and the Albron Catering BV decision stated that between the “employment contract” and “employment relationship” terms there is a relation of subsidiarity, the employment relationship of workers who provide occasional work must produce the same effects, in terms of the concerned person’s rights, with those of an individual employment contract Is concluded that Community legislation conferring rights to workers who have a employment contract or an employment relationship under the national law in force must be construed and enforced in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, with regard to the relationship between the employment contract and the employment relationship.

Article 7 paragraph 1 of the Law no. 554/2004 regarding Administrative Litigation regulates the “preliminary procedure”; therefore, the establishment that, before addressing the administrative courts, the prejudiced person in his/ her own right or interest (usually by an individual administrative action) shall require the issuing authority (or the superior authority, if any) the (in whole or in part) rescission of the action, within 30 days from the notification date of the action concerned. As the “preliminary procedure” issue presents some peculiarities in the matter of the construction permit [covered by Law no. 50/1991 on the authorization of construction works (republished on 13 October 2004)], the study’s author, examines on the one hand, in detail, the issue of the “preliminary procedure”, and on the other hand, presents the peculiarities mentioned above.

The role of the notary public is very important in today’s society. Notary services must be performed in good faith, conscientiously and in compliance with all incidental legal norms. Moreover, the assessment made by the Constitutional Court that notaries public are public officials imposes a more rigorous selection on objective criteria, after some tests that may be organized at national level, also given the invalidation cases of locally organized competitions1. However, the notary public profession requires careful attention on behalf of the national guardianship authority in overseeing their careers, so that sanctions are to be imposed to those less prepared, or having reputation problems or incursions into committing criminal acts, and thus the Romanian notary system to be more reliable and increase its quality.

A “natural right” being most profoundly democratic not only retained, despite the historical vicissitudes, its intrinsic moral values, but due to the constant and firm “juridicization”, in another historical ambience, has increased these values and the implications of their valorization, while granting plenary sense to the contemporary “rule of law”, ensuring above all - according to the beautiful and meaningful saying of a historical figure - the protection of the “powerless people in front of power”: the right to request the assistance of a judge or the right of access to a judge. Article 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure recalls us that right, but unfortunately, as it does, requires again to make any effort for the consistent and undoubtedly useful understanding from the social point of view of its purposes.

The article intends to give an analysis of the constituent elements of the crime of violation of private life, taking into consideration that this incrimination is new for the penal legislation in our country. The emphasis lies especially on the issues regarding the components of the external and mental elements of this crime, together with the presentation – when the author found it necessary – of certain sugesstions for the improvement of the incriminating rule. The actual analysis of the crime comes with certain generic considerations on private life as a social value, reffering to those aspects emerging from the juridsprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.