Throughout more than 150 years of constitutional history in Romania, the Romanian constitutions have provided the modality of engaging the liability of the ministers for their activity. This article aims to make a brief analysis of how it was regulated the liability of ministers in the various constitutions which Romania has adopted over time and of the relation between the political and legal liability of ministers in the Romanian law, starting from the practical realities of recent years. Although, traditionally, in the constitutional law it is made a clear distinction between the political and legal liability, in practice, the boundary between the two types of liability is questionable, especially from the perspective of the legal classification of these types of liability. If the political liability is considered to be that liability of ministers before the Parliament for their political activity which may result in the loss of confidence and the removal from the office of minister, the legal liability has in view how a minister should bear the consequences of the law, by his prosecution and indictment.

The obligations in solidum represent a controversial category of obligations, the controversy existing both in the Romanian and in the French doctrine. The legislator that created the current Civil Code did not outline the legal regime of the obligations in solidum, these not being mentioned among the other complex obligations. It must be noted that the obligations in solidum constitute a separate category of obligational relations with a plurality of subjects, exception from the rule of division by the operation of law of the obligations between creditors and debtors, and therefore we have considered that it is however required that, in the future, the matter of these obligational relations should be clarified by the legislator, as a legal reality in the landscape of complex obligations, which is why we will further make a theoretical analysis thereof. In this study, the defining features and legal characters of the obligations in solidum, the scope of application and the legal effects have been considered, among others.

This study aims at performing a critical analysis of the Decision No 814/2015 of the Constitutional Court, by which the Court ascertained the unconstitutionality of Article 60 (1) g) of the Labour Code, which regulated the prohibition of dismissing trade union leaders, except in cases they committed serious or repeated misconducts. Also, the study puts forward a critical exam of the provisions regulating the prohibition of dismissing trade union leaders, emphasizing regulatory errors, by using historical arguments, and making consistent references to the relevant international and European legislation and case law.

The emergence of the Law No 76/2012 for the implementation of the Law No 134/2010 on the Code of Civil Procedure had great influence on the Government Emergency Ordinance No 34/2006 on the award of public procurement contracts. The latter stated that, in the matter of claims for compensation for damage caused during the public procurement procedure, the way of attack is an appeal on law submitted within 5 days of the communication. Difficulties with the publication and entry into force of the Law No 76/2012 were felt because it provided that the appeal would be the remedy in the matter, but before it came into force, the Government Emergency Ordinance No 34/2006 was amended by the Government Emergency Ordinance No 77/2012 which was approved by the Law 193/2013 and which left unchanged the way of attack. To solve the problems related to the succession in time of the laws, the High Court of Cassation and Justice by the Decision No 20/2015 of 5 October 2015 on the examination of the appeal in the interest of the law formulated by the Board of the Suceava Court of Appeal determined that the appeal on law is the only way of attack in the matter. Problems of interpretation have not stopped here because, while the High Court has made compulsory the way of attack, it did not make any mention of the term of exercise. Thus, a non-unitary practice has emerged because some courts have considered that the term of exercise is that of appeal, i.e. 5 days, while others have applied the general term. In our view, the time limit for exercising the appeal on law cannot be considered to be 5 days, because in this situation it would only mean that there was a replacement of the term „appeal” with „appeal on law”, but the general term provided by the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply.

Part of our daily lives, light pollution enjoys less media coverage than other, more serious environmental issues, like climate change, air pollution, desertification of many areas of land, illegal deforestation of huge areas of forest land. We are talking about light pollution when artificial lights are everywhere – through billboards, street lighting, etc. – and such intensity that it changes the levels of natural lighting the night, with negative impacts on human health and biodiversity.

This study addresses, from a practical perspective, the freezing order referred to in the Law No 302/2004 on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters and presents some of the steps to be taken by the criminal investigation bodies from tracing an asset for which there is an associated alert, in accordance with the Decision 2007/533/JHA of the Council of Europe of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), and by the recognition and enforcement of the freezing order.