Declanșarea și judecarea unui proces atrag per se o serie de cheltuieli bănești care se materializează în taxele judiciare, onorariile avocaților, experților și ale altor specialiști, ori în sume de bani cuvenite martorilor chemați să răspundă în fața judecătorului, pe lângă multe alte inconveniente. Dacă sarcina înfăptuirii justiției aparține statului, principiu recunoscut în majoritatea sistemelor democratice, se pune problema sarcinii suportării cheltuielilor pe care le presupune judecarea unui litigiu. S-a ajuns astfel la „compromisul” prin care cheltuielile de judecată să fie împărțite, aproximativ proporțional, între stat și părțile litigante. Culpa procesuală este izvorul cheltuielilor de judecată, partea îndreptățită la acordarea acestora este partea litigantă, potrivnică celei care cade în pretenții și, pe cale de consecință, cea care a fost în culpă procesuală, prima fiind „victima” celei de-a doua. Ab initio trebuie precizat că stabilirea cheltuielilor de judecată va fi făcută de instanță numai în măsura în care acestea au fost solicitate în cursul procesului pendinte, faptul că instanța nu le-a acordat reprezentând o omisiune a acesteia, care poate fi îndreptată pe calea unei cereri de completare a hotărârii, dacă partea are deschisă această procedură. Probleme s-au ivit în legătură cu actualizarea cheltuielilor de judecată în faza de executare silită, când executorul judecătoresc proceda la punerea în executare a hotărârii judecătorești. Astfel, s-a născut întrebarea „Poate executorul judecătoresc să actualizeze sumele cuvenite creditorului cu titlu de cheltuieli judecătorești?” Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție a limpezit problema de drept ridicată și a statuat că sumele acordate printr-o hotărâre judecătorească pot fi actualizate în funcție de rata inflației, de executorul judecătoresc în etapa executării silite (cu notă aprobativă).

The absolutisation of the effects of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union or of the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in areas not falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the European Union (EU or the Union) or in areas of shared jurisdiction where EU no longer wishes to legislate on the basis of the principles of subsidiarity or proportionality can lead to mistakes in the application of the national law by the law courts of the Member States of EU. In this article the author identifies such a case in the field of access to the data stored by the suppliers of public electronic communications networks and by the suppliers of publicly available electronic communication services and brings arguments to remedy this situation.

In this case study, the authors analyze a less common situation in the judicial practice, namely the one of the confirmation of the judicial administrator, in so far as the judicial control court admits the appeal of the creditor that had requested by means of an application for summons the appointment of another insolvency practitioner. The institution of judicial control finds its legal basis in Article 129 of the Basic Law, according to which against the judgments, the parties concerned and the Public Ministry may exercise the legal remedies, under the terms of the law. The provisions of Article 501 of the new Civil Procedure Code give efficiency to the above-indicated constitutional text, given that, without the binding nature of the judgments pronounced by the judicial control court, the purpose of control and, finally, the well-grounded and legal settlement of the cases would not be achieved.

In this article the author aims to analyze, from a constitutional point of view, the content of Article 24 of the Basic Law. The right to defence is a universal right enshrined in the most important international documents that have guaranteed, after the end of the Second World War, the suite of human rights and freedoms inherent and essential to human dignity. There would be no right to defence if there wasn’t a corollary right, the right for everyone to go to court, asking for justice when another person has violated their legitimate rights and interests. The society, the State has the same indictment right when a person violates the social values protected by a criminal law. In addition to the traditional justification for the regulation and protection by the State of the right to defence, its guarantee in a democratic society is also a requirement to respect a fair trial, in which the parties (plaintiff and defendant) must enjoy equal conditions for supporting their claims or defence. In other words, every accused person is entitled to defend itself and prove to the judge the inconsistency of the accusing evidence against him.

The problems of compulsory licences in the matter of patents has received a unitary regulation with the signing of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights – TRIPS Agreement. Likewise, the Doha Declaration (Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health) is an important legal reference point because it clarifies a number of practical aspects relating to the compulsory licences in the matter of new medicines both in terms of the production for the domestic market and the import of such products. In the context of the sharp rise in the prices of new medicines, as well as of the constant pressure on the public health insurance budgets, the mechanism of compulsory licences may represent for the patients a new way of access to the new innovative medical therapies. This article discusses the international and European legal framework, with a special focus on the legal regime of compulsory licences in Romania. There are also examined the experiences of other countries in this field, the way of determining the remuneration due to the patent owner, as well as the usefulness of these practices for Romania.

The article analyzes the changes brought in the matter of approval of the application for enforcement. In the Civil Procedure Code of 1865, the enforcement court had jurisdiction over the approval of the application for enforcement. By the Law No 459/2006, this jurisdiction has been changed and the power to approve the application for enforcement has been recognized to the court executor. By the Decision of the Constitutional Court No 458/2009, this change was declared unconstitutional and it was restored the approval of the application for enforcement by the enforcement court. By the Law No 134/2010, that is the new Civil Procedure Code, it has been preserved the approval of the enforcement by the enforcement court, however, by the Law No 138/2014, it was restored the form declared unconstitutional. Therefore, we have considered as being predictable the admission of the plea of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 666 of the Civil Procedure Code, by the Decision of the Constitutional Court No 895/2015. Following the Decision of the Constitutional Court No 895/2015, it has been adopted the Government Emergency Ordinance No 1/2016, which reinstated to the jurisdiction of the enforcement court the approval of the enforcement applications. In our opinion, the legal and correct solution is the approval of the enforcement by the enforcement court.