The analysis of the offenses against safety on public roads refers hereinafter to four other offenses (leaving the scene of an accident or changing or erasing evidence of the accident; preventing or hindering traffic on public roads; failure to comply with the tasks regarding the technical inspection or the performance of repairs and the performance of unauthorized works in the public road area), continuing our approach to present to the reader our personal option regarding this set of offenses, presently provided for in an emergency ordinance. Key words: vehicle, car, leaving the scene of an accident, changing the scene of an accident, erasing evidence of the accident, carrying out unauthorized works on the public road, preventing traffic, hindering traffic, poor performance of the technical inspection for vehicles and cars.

The brief presentation of the appearance and evolution of the case of annulment provided under point 171 of art. 3859 parag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code in force, which mentions that the judgments under appeal are subject to annulment, “when the judgment is contrary to the law or when an erroneous application of the law was made by the judgment”, of the issues of unconstitutionality, of the provisions of art. 13 of the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights represent the arguments of the article for the need and justification of introducing the case of annulment provided under art. 3859 parag. 1 point 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Law on certain measures to accelerate the settlement of trials, which guarantees that jurisdictions can effectively control the legality of the judgment, both in relation to the substantive rules and to the procedure rules, being vested with the prerogative of the possibility to annul the judgment subject to appeal.

While the matter of the restoration of real estate abusively seized by the communist state has raised a special interest, both from individuals and from authorities, the subject of the restoration of movable cultural property remained relatively marginalized until the coming into force of Law no. 182/2000, which provides the persons entitled with the possibility of an action for special recovery of movable property, for the purpose of recovering ownership over the movable cultural property illegally seized by the State. This study intends to examine this matter, focusing on the essential aspects of the action for special recovery of movable property put into operation by the lawmaker.

1. Principiul nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. Reguli generale. Drepturile fundamentale fac parte integrantã din principiile generale de drept a cãror respectare este asiguratã de cãtre instanțele europene în cauzele de concurențã, ținând cont în special de Convenția (europeanã) pentru apãrarea drepturilor omului și a libertãților fundamentale (în continuare denumitã Convenția) ca sursã de inspirație.

SECȚIILE UNITE, deliberând asupra recursului în interesul legii, constatã urmãtoarele: În practica instanțelor judecãtorești s-a constatat cã nu existã un punct de vedere unitar în aplicarea dispozițiilor art. 105, cu referire la art. 10 din Legea nr. 46/2008 privind fondul forestier proprietate privatã a persoanelor fizice sau juridice.

The institution of conditional release under judicial control regulated in Title IV, Chapter I, Section V of the Criminal Procedure Code, has been analyzed succinctly in the Romanian specialized legal literature. The problems arising in the context of erroneous interpretations given in practice to the legal texts regulating this institution by the courts of law derive, according to the author’s opinion, from the insufficient approach at doctrinal level of the way in which the conditions under which this measure can be ordered should be interpreted. Of course, the situation should also be analyzed in the light of the particular situation of each case. Thus, the article written by the author intends to analyze the conditions under which conditional release can be ordered after addressing an actual situation submitted to judgment by the courts.

Potrivit art. 145 alin. 12 lit. f C.pr.pen., organul judiciar care a dispus mãsura preventivã a obligãrii de a nu pãrãsi localitatea poate impune învinuitului sau inculpatului ca pe durata mãsurii „sã nu exercite profesia, meseria sau sã nu desfãșoare activitatea în exercitarea cãreia a sãvârșit fapta”, și anume sã nu-și exercite atribuțiile de primar (cu notã criticã).

Law does obviously not benefit from the privilege of having its own exhaustive language. We might say that most concepts used in law are borrowed from other branches of knowledge. The quite rare concepts that are its own often do not receive a definition that can be classified, according to the methodology of the act of definition itself, as “legal”. The amalgamation of legal terminology with the economic, political, sociological or philosophical terminology, without revising the concepts and without their clear understanding in the areas of knowledge from where they come makes the doctrine and the case law too often flat and stereotyped, if not even chaotic from the conceptual point of view. Lawyers are no longer seen as persons of learning, who try to explain the nature of things through justice, but as simple technicians, who apply concepts taken from other social-human sciences. Under these conditions, one of the fundamental problems for lawyers is to explain a fact that seems to be overlooked by our current culture: what is meant by a legal concept? Afterward, it becomes equally important to understand the way in which the non-legal concepts used in law should be revised, namely what the standards of the legal definition of concepts are. The above-mentioned article attempts to answer to these challenges.

The author examines the – complex – issue of the procedure – in Romania – in case of exequatur and the recognition of foreign judgments given in the Member States of the European Union, taking into consideration that in our country, at present, the common law in the matter is represented by Law no. 105/ 1992 regarding the regulation of the private international law relationships, while in case of judgments given in the other Member States of the European Union, a special law in the matter is considered, namely: the Council Regulation (E.C.) no. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, respectively the Council Regulation (E.C.) no. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

The cases examined in this study were generated by a recent decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal. In essence, the author considers legally admissible the conclusion of agreements between the employer and the trade union, outside the formal framework established by Law no. 130/1996 regarding the collective labor agreement, but only subject to complying with certain limits, which he presents.