The new Civil Code achieves in art. 1730-1740 a general-rule regulation of both legal and conventional preemption right, regulation applicable wherever the law or the contract do not stipulate otherwise. The conventional preemption right is recognized and regulated under the name of preemption right established by contract; it is nothing but a preference pact in the matter of the sales Contract. Considering that, regardless of the legal or conventional nature of the preemption right, is not normal to have two different systems that penalize violations in the beneficiary’s purchasing priority, the mechanism operating in case of preemption was governed unitary, the freedom of contract left to preemption’s promisor and this freedom overcome consequences being outlined. Whilst trying to settle the doctrinal controversy on the legal characteristics of the right of preemption, the new Civil Code provided for in Art. 1731 that the sale of the property on which there is a legal or conventional preemption right can be concluded with a third party only provided that there is a condition precedent of the preemptor non-exercising the right of preemption, but without specifying explicitly whether such a condition should be considered implicit where it has not been stipulated in the sales contract with the third party. Removing the jurisprudential shortcomings of the substitution mechanism related to the beneficiary instead of the third party purchaser, who is incompatible with the dissolution contract signed between the latter and the promisor, Art. 1732 and 1723 of the new Civil Code, without expressly referring to the sale under condition precedent, stipulate that, through the exercise of preemption, the sales contract is deemed concluded between the preemptor and the seller in the conditions contained in the contract with the third party, and this latter contracts shall be canceled retroactively. In terms of obligations, the creditor is entitled to proper execution and should the creditor have such right, he/she should be granted the opportunity to find effective means to protect it. Reading of Art. 1731 of the new Civil Code, in the sense of making the condition precedent of the preemptor’s non-exercise of the right of preemption in the any sale between the promisor and the third party to be implied, corresponds to the doctrine and jurisprudence attempts to find appropriate means to ensure the observance of the preemptor’s ignored rights, while considering the above principle.

1. Achitare nelegalã. Gradul de pericol social al unei infracțiuni. În cazul în care legea prevede, în mod expres, cã o anumitã faptã prezintã pericolul social specific unei infracțiuni, în orice condiții de comitere, instanța nu poate pronunța o soluție de achitare și de aplicare a unei sancțiuni cu caracter administrativ.

What seems relevant to this study highlight is the current trend of Europeanization guarantees the right to a fair trial in civil matters established by art. 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and relativization constitutional provisions to guarantee this right, from the perspective of European Court of Human Rights. With this approach, the study proposed open a complex and complete vision, but not exhaustive approach guarantees within the current right to a fair trial in civil matters. Following an outline Key – are analyzed successively three major parts of the study, namely, 1. Identification of universal standards and regulations contained in the European human rights and, of Romanian constitutional and legal regulations on the right to a fair trial in civil matters. 2. Doctrinal guidelines on the requirements of the right to a fair trial in civil matters. 3. Jurisprudential guidelines on the requirements of the right to a fair trial in civil matters.