The courts can not censure the decisions of the Constitutional Court in terms of the statements which they contain with regard to the unconstitutionality of a legal norm and the impact they have on the way of settling the ongoing disputes, respectively not finalized through the pronunciation of some irrevocable judgments, following the cessation of the application of that norm by declaring it unconstitutional. They have the obligation to apply the decisions of the Constitutional Court to their letter and spirit and they can not add by way of interpretation elements that are capable of restricting them or, respectively, to extend their scope. By the Decision of the Constitutional Court No 369/2017 it has been stated that all the judgments pronounced after the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette of Romania are subject to appeal, in the cash assessable applications, except for those exempted according to the criterion of matter, expressly provided in the theses covered by Article XVIII (2) of the Law No 2/2013. In the application of this decision, the High Court of Cassation and Justice – the Panel for the settlement of some matters of law, by the Decision No 52/2018 has stated that the effects of the decision of unconstitutionality will concern all judgments pronounced after the date of its publication, but in trials commenced after 20 July 2017. By this statement, the decision of the Constitutional Court No 369/2017 has been amended without justification under the pretext of the settlement of the matter of law concerning the application of that decision over time. By the Decision of the Constitutional Court No 454/2018 it was established that the High Court of Cassation and Justice does not have the power to rule on the effects of the decision of the Constitutional Court or to give binding rulings which are contrary to the decisions of the Constitutional Court, but has the obligation to apply that decision in such a way suitable to its considerations to the case subjected to judgment. The Decision No 454/2018 has an interpretative character and therefore, by way of derogation from the principle according to which the decisions of the Constitutional Court apply only for the future, it has a retroactive effect, in the sense that it is put into application from the date when the Decision of Constitutional Court No 369/2017 began to take effect.

Within the international trade relations, risks may currently arise from certain facts or events that result in conflict situations between the parties involved in commercial operations, having as consequence the appearance of the litigation. In this context, a special place is occupied by maritime litigation, a complex, plurivalent dispute, combining elements emerging from international trade law, transport law and maritime law. The present study aims to identify and analyze the main issues that give the maritime litigation a particular nature, conferring it, legally, a specific character compared to other international trade disputes. The objectives of the research are circumscribed to the analysis of the characteristics of the maritime litigation, of the causes of its occurrence and of its conditions of manifestation. Within the paper, special attention was devoted to studying how to instrument the maritime litigations, with the methods of the maritime technique and the legal and economic solutions used in this matter. With regard to the procedures of settlement of maritime litigations, the study focuses on highlighting the operational phases, the analysis of evidence and of other issues that configure the applicable procedural framework in case the parties involved have expressed the option to settle the dispute for the contentious procedure. Examining the specific features of this original type of disagreement has highlighted a pronounced pragmatic character over the theoretical argumentation taking into account the force of maritime or harbour regulations or usages in this field. The notion of maritime litigation and its regulation became outstanding at a stage preceding the emergence of maritime law. Over time, seafarer’s practices have created usages and traditions specific to trade in goods carried by sea, which have led to the unification and even codification thereof in the context of classical maritime law. The scope of the notion of maritime litigation is much wider than that of the maritime trial and has an earlier application over time, whereas only a part of the maritime litigations lead to a proper judicial trial or to a maritime arbitration. Maritime litigations can be defined as disputes between two or more parties involved in the maritime expedition or between the signatory parties to specific contracts used in all activities related to maritime trade. In this regard, disputes of a maritime nature may arise as a consequence of the non-performance or malfunction of maritime transport contracts, so that it is indicated to mention in these contracts some specific clauses, stating the modality and rules for solving such conflict situations, including the jurisdiction clause, since the non-inclusion of this clause raises disputes over the jurisdiction of the courts of such litigious cases. Maritime litigations are dealt with by the specialists in the field both in the ante-judicial and judicial stage, through the correct coordination of the parties involved and the professional settlement of all the litigious aspects. The specialist in maritime litigations should be a person with cumulative competencies in the technical, economic and legal field, maritime navigation and port exploitation. Solving major maritime disputes is a complex and laborious process, which requires pragmatism, accuracy, increased attention, quick decision and efficiency. The general procedure for dealing with this disagreement is carried out on the basis of a strictly technical, specialized methodology and requires going through several phases such as the finding the occurrence of the event or conflict-generating act, the notification of the parties involved, the collection and preservation of the evidence for defence or for the drawing up of the complaint, quantifying and filing the complaint, taking a decision on the modality of approach, the negotiation and pronunciation of the solution to finalize the case. The resolution of maritime litigations is based on the case law in the field, strongly influenced by international maritime conventions and on the relations created between the rules from various law systems, applicable in the field, in the context of assimilation and implementation of the international trade usages.

In the context of the amendments operated on the Administrative Disputes Law No 554/2004 by the Law No 212/2018, the author proposes to analyse the time limits in which the prior complaint can be filed and to analyze each of them separately, by grouping them according to the subject of the prior complaint and to the object of the prior complaint. The author makes the transition from the time limits imposed on the addressees of the administrative act to the time limits imposed on third parties, in the situation of the typical and assimilated individual administrative act, by investigating the length of the time limit, the moment from which it starts, the legal nature or the applicable legal regime and the sanction applied in case of non-compliance with these time limits. The main time limits within which the prior complaint can be filed are analyzed, special attention being given to cases where the prior complaint is not mandatory. Finally, the author emphasizes the importance of applying these time limits in just measure so that the prior complaint procedure does not become an obstacle, not related to the concrete situation, in the way of access to justice of the alleged injured party, nor it becomes an instrument of abuse.

Over time, the claim for awarding legal costs in the civil trial has not been paid due attention. Starting with 1959, following a decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Tribunal, in the practice of the courts, as well as in the specialized works has been taken over automatically, until it has been imprinted in the collective mind, the idea that the court costs can be claimed at any time until the debates are closed on the merits, and the court may even draw attention to this issue, or they may be claimed separately, even if they were initially requested within the dispute. The present study aims to analyze the legal status of awarding the claim for costs, while giving at the same time the correct legal classification of this claim by reference to the texts of the Civil Procedure Code. Thus, we will show that this claim brought to the justice can not be subject to the discretionary will of the parties, but must be circumscribed by the procedural rigors with regard to filing a claim before the court. In the first instance, the party must accordingly request court costs, respectively by way of introductory application, an objection, an intervention, etc. If it did not do it, as a rule, it will not be able to claim them within that litigation. If it did it, but then waives their request in the initial litigation, wishing to claim them separately, it will be subject to the consent of the opponent. In the redress or withdrawal means of appeal, claiming the court costs is conditionned twice, both in the compliance claim before the court of first instance and in the compliance claim before each court that has examined the case (by way of appeal, objection, etc.). The practical implications of the study are some of the most spectacular, since the party that does not comply with the procedural rigors of the claim for court costs will either be in a position to promote separate action for their recovery or in the event of a final impossibility to recover, in whole or in part, the advanced court costs.

Faptul că autoturismul în litigiu a făcut obiectul mai multor vânzări succesive și s-a constatat că a fost furat, deschizându-se un proces penal împotriva autorului furtului, nu înseamnă că reclamanta își putea recupera prejudiciul constând în plata prețului plătit. În ceea ce o privește pe reclamantă, prin Ordonanța din data de 20 ianuarie 2015 a Parchetului de pe lângă Judecătoria Galați s-a dispus clasarea cauzei, reținându-se în motivare faptul că nu au fost identificate indicii care să conducă la concluzia că reclamanta ar fi cunoscut faptul că bunul era furat. Tot în procesul penal, prin Ordonanța din 27 august 2014 a Parchetului de pe lângă Judecătoria Galați s-a dispus restituirea autoturismului către proprietar, astfel că reclamanta, care devenise proprietara autoturismului în baza contractului de vânzare-cumpărare încheiat cu pârâtul, l-a predat organelor de cercetare penală, care în baza procesului-verbal din 16 septembrie 2014 l-au restituit proprietarului. În aceste condiții, în mod corect prima instanță a statuat că temeiul obligației a cărei executare este urmărită este contractual, iar, potrivit dispoziției art. 1695 alin. (1) C.civ., vânzătorul este de drept obligat să îl garanteze pe cumpărător împotriva evicțiunii. (Tribunalul Galați, Decizia civilă nr. 131 din 1 februarie 2018, definitivă)1

With Marice Hauriou, in France, public law goes into the modern age. By his style, by the number and complexity of the themes he approached as well as by their exhaustiveness, this founding father of French administrative law – as we know it today – leaves behind a legal literature that, up to him, has only been able to provide sterile and purely descriptive commentaries of normative acts, modest works belonging to those that the modern history of public law labelled as of glossary or repertory writers. Hauriou is the one who, for the first time in the history of French administrative law, confers it the terminological and ideological substance for which it is highly appreciated by public law specialists today. Among the major themes that Professor Hauriou has approached in his work, the following are still outstanding, due to the accuracy and relevance of the analyses surrounding them, such as: – the administrative regime and the administrative function; – the institution and the institutional phenomenon; – the legal persons of public law, the public establishments and the establishments of public utility; – the public administration; – the public interest and the administrative management; – the public service; – the civil service and the civil servant; – the public property and the public domain; – the self-executing decisions or the unilateral administrative act; the administrative contract; – the administrative litigations; – the acts of government; – the discretionary power of the public administration; – the patrimonial liability for the public administration’s illicit acts; – the administrative police. Most of these themes have been systematically addressed by Hauriou, either by reference to the ideological foundation represented by the „public power”, or in relation to the notion of corporate institution, or in connection with the fact that administrative law groups rules with a derogatory nature from the rules of civil law, and legal persons under public law called upon to carry out the administrative function of the State are endowed with exorbitant prerogatives, the exercice of their duties being likely to result in a restriction of the freedom or the property of individuals. Surely, this risk – far from being totally eliminated – can be diminished, but only when individuals have effective tools to fight against abuses by executive authorities. According to Hauriou, an important place among these instruments is occupied by the so-called judicial review on abuse of power, a type of judicial action aiming at the annulment of unlawful administrative acts.