Law No. 221/2009 regarding political convictions and their related administrative measures issued in the period comprised between March 6, 1945 – December 22, 1989 established, inter alia, that the victims of such convictions shall be entitled, within an interval of 3 years from the enforcement of this law (June 14, 2009) to request the Romanian State to pay moral damages (without any ceiling in terms of value) for the suffering caused by such convictions. The law was subsequently amended, in the sense that a ceiling was established for the value of such damages. In its first two decisions (No. 1358/2010 and No. 1360/2010), the Constitutional Court stated that both the original and the amended text of the law are unconstitutional, without denying, however, in principle, the fairness and lawfulness of granting such moral damages in the given situation. Until the present time, the Romanian State did not proceed to enact Law No. 221/2009, in consideration of the mentioned decisions issued by the Constitutional Court, although it was bound by the Constitution to proceed as such. Taking this situation into account, the author sets forth the idea that, at present, although we are apparently in the presence of a legislative void, the injured parties may claim, however, such damages in court, even at this time, on the strength of certain principles from the Constitution of Romania, from the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This study is dedicated to the Special Part of the Criminal Procedure Code, in terms of the amendments brought by Law No. 202/2010, with reference to criminal prosecution, judgment on the merits, ordinary and extraordinary means of challenge, enforcement decisions or special judgment procedures. The study contains equally an analysis of the new regulations introduced in the field of recourse in the interest of the law. The text comments concerning the referral of the case to another Prosecutor’ Office, the information of the next hearing date, the judgment in case of admittance of guilt, the limits of the recourse judgment, the procedure in case of review can be indicated as examples. For an easier understanding of the study, the sequence of the analyzed legal regulations complies with both the structure of the Criminal Procedure Code, and with the chronology of the texts of the amending laws. Otherwise, given the fact that the work is especially addressing practitioners in criminal law and in criminal procedural law and given the fact that, for reasons of economy of the publishing space, the amended or amending texts were only rarely and partially reproduced, authors believe that the latter should be concomitantly available for a complete understanding of the study. With special reference to the contents of the second part of the study, emphasis needs to be placed on the fact that the work tried to highlight both the progressive and positively innovating provisions in the criminal procedure, and certain errors, non-compliances or legislative omissions or potential lack of correlation with the constitutional provisions. CUMPĂRĂ ACUM

On the strength of Art. 322, item 4 of the current Romanian Civil Procedure Code, the review of a decision that remained final in the appeal court or through the fact that no appeal was submitted against it, as well as the review of a decision issued by a recourse court (when the merits of a case is invoked) may be requested, inter alia, also if “a judge, witness or expert who took part in the lawsuit received a final conviction for any crime regarding a case or if a decision was issued on the strength of a writ that was declared false during or after the lawsuit or if a magistrate received a disciplinary penalty for exercising his office in bad faith or with gross negligence in that case”. The author is discussing in this study the manner in which a civil court must proceed if, at present (for the reasons provided by the criminal law), the perpetration of the abovementioned crimes can no longer be ascertained under a criminal decision.

Fidejussion represents a form of personal guarantee, an accessory contract, particularized, in essence, by its purpose, commitment procedure and legal effects. When it comes to determining the identity and legal regime of fidejussion, there must be taken as a point of reference the triangular relation within which its three protagonists act: fidejussor, creditor and main debtor. The present work will be analyzing the conclusion and the effects of the fidejussion from the perspective of the Romanian Civil Code and the New Romanian Civil Code, with the purpose of establishing the elements of continuity and novelty brought by the new regulations.

Relatively recently brought under regulation by our law system, the models of utility are inventions with a lower level of complexity that are legally protected by means of the protection certificate released following a specific procedure. Encompassed in the study presented herein are precisely those judicial aspects of the formalities that need to be fulfilled when aiming at the release of the model of utility certificate of protection. Altogether, the author sets forth an original point of view regarding the approach and the systematisation of the internal and international formalities to be taken into account when dealing with the procedure of releasing the protection title for the models of utility, and also critically inspects the legal editing process, and the corelation between some legal provisions belonging to this field of interest and intereferring law-related notions, while laying down relevant de lege ferenda proposals in fulfilling the purpose of correction and defining with more clarity the legal provisions specific to this law branch.

Government Emergency Ordinance No. 71/2009, serially amended and supplemented by Government Emergency Ordinances Nos. 18/2010 and 45/2010 established that Court decisions that became enforceable until December 31, 2009 and that concern salary rights to the benefit of the personnel from the budgetary sector shall be paid by budgetary authorities and institutions as follows: 34% in 2012; 33% in 2013; 33% in 2014, of the value of the enforceable title. The author considers that Government Emergency Ordinance No. 71/2009 (as amended and supplemented) does not infringe Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as the applicable jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.