This study is devoted to a very present topic, namely that of the liability of the State and of the magistrates for the judicial errors produced in the criminal cases or other type of cases. After a brief introduction to the subject, the author makes an analysis of comparative law in the matter subject to examination, pointing out that, in most European countries, the dominant system is that of establishing the liability of the State and of the magistrates for the judicial errors. The author also presents us some of the solutions of the common law system, where the principle is that of impunity of the magistrates for the judicial errors. The author emphasizes that, in our law, the liability of the State is the dominant one and it has the character of an objective liability, founded on the provisions of Article 52 (3) of the Romanian Constitution. There are also analyzed in this article the procedural conditions of the liability of the State for the judicial errors. A special place in this study is devoted to the liability of the magistrates, particularly of the judges, for the judicial errors. It is emphasized, in particular, the subsidiary nature of the liability of the magistrates, as well as the fact that their liability may be engaged only under the subjective conditions specifically determined by the law, respectively in the situations where they have acted in their judicial function in „bad faith” or with „obvious negligence”. The author pleads for maintaining this solution in the future as well, the only one that, in his opinion, is meant to achieve the necessary balance between the independence of the judge and the necessary social and legal responsibility. At the end of the study there are also formulated some legislative proposals, such as those relating to setting some common time limits in civil and criminal matters, to establishing the obligation of the State to exercise the action for regress, to the professional liability insurance of magistrates etc.

In the new Criminal Procedure Code, the function for verification the sending to trial legality is conducted by a judicial body independent of the Court, the judge for preliminary chamber. In the preliminary chamber procedure, the judge checks the regularity of the referral, the legality of the administration of evidence and of prosecution acts, as well as the jurisdiction of the Court. The Criminal Procedure Code does not provide expressly the type of the act by which the Prosecutor can remedy the deficiencies of the referral. The jurisprudence is not unitary, sometimes recognizing, sometimes penalizing the remedy of the deficiencies of the indictment through different types of procedural acts. The article achieves analysis of doctrine with regard to this issue. The authors motivate the solution that preserves the unity of the sending to Court act, respectively the remake of the indictment. Consequences of the types of solutions adopted in practice are explored from the perspective of the right to defence of the accused person.

The regulation (Article 226) of the new Criminal Procedure Code has a corresponding regulation in the provisions of Article 1371 paragraph 1 and Article 1491 paragraphs 9–11 of the previous Criminal Procedure Code (1968), with an exception: the duration of the remand on custody will no longer be deducted from the duration of the preventive detention. The authors analyze the institution of admission of the proposal of preventive detention of the defendant during the criminal prosecution, by presenting some critical aspects and by proposing some improvements to the new regulation.

The offences regulated by the Law No 31/1990 on companies form a domain relatively little explored by the criminal law specialists and quasi-unexplored by the civil law specialists. This study deals with those offences grouped within Article 273. These offences have a few specific elements. First, the active subject of the legal rule hypothesis is qualified, namely a person that holds a certain quality of company member. Secondly, the hypothesis of criminal rule contains elements of company law, which can be found in other articles of the Law No 31/1990. By the fact that the hypotheses of the offences provided in Article 273 are part of the company law, first it is the duty of the civil law specialist to decode the meaning of the material rule, because a rigid application of the purely criminal vision in a field of the private law can lead to wrong conclusions, with serious consequences on the subjects of the offences. But, in order to cover the entire interpretative area, the same consideration must be given to the criminal aspects as well, where the role of the criminal law specialist steps in, so that the reader – either a civil law specialist or a criminal law specialist – forms a proper idea about a far too little investigated field.

In this article the author aims to analyze, from a constitutional point of view, the content of Article 21 of the Basic Law. The constitutionalization of free access to justice and the provisions of Article 21 located in the First Chapter of the Second Title of the Basic Law, along with other rules and principles that protect the man-citizen as the primer pin of the governance system and the holder of sovereign political power, as well as exclusive beneficiary, proves thereof the concern of the Constituent Assembly of 1991 in creating the necessary guarantees in regard with the defence of the human rights and liberties in accordance with the general principles of the constitutional democracy and the rule of law as established in the documents of universal human rights, ratified by Romania.

The new Fiscal Procedure Code, approved by the Law No 207/2015, in force starting from 1 January 2016, through the transposition of some European acts into our domestic law, has brought significant mutations in matters of administrative and fiscal disputes as well. In the ambience of the new normative framework regulated by the Law No 207/2015 on the Fiscal Procedure Code, this study aims at analyzing a few aspects less regulated by the new normative framework and which could create controversies both in the application of the new normative framework by the public tax authorities and by the administrative disputes courts entrusted with the settlement of some litigations in matters of administrative and fiscal disputes. Starting from this desideratum, the study analyzes the categories of judgments pronounced by the administrative courts in matters of fiscal and administrative disputes, as well as the procedure for their enforcement, in relation to each category of judgments pronounced in this matter. There are also analyzed within this study the problems of suspension of the enforcement and of the contestation against enforcement in matters of administrative and fiscal disputes.