The evolution of the Romanian society in the direction of consolidating the rule of law is accompanied, in some cases, by the amplification of negative phenomena, materialized in the increase in the number of persons committing antisocial actions and evading criminal liability, which requires the taking of actions directly aimed at these categories of persons who can continue to commit crimes, some of them of extreme violence. At present, together with the adoption of the Government Emergency Ordinance no.60/2006 for amending and supplementing the Criminal Procedure Code, the national legislative framework regulating the procedure of starting criminal prosecution is in compliance with the European legal norms and meets the standards imposed by the European Union. The powers provided by the legislation are able to meet the requirements in this field and, at the same time, to support the efforts made by the judiciary police bodies specialized in the activity of investigating and tracking down persons evading the enforcement of judgments, whose ultimate purpose is the achievement of justice.

In case the criminal prosecution is carried out by the hierarchically higher prosecutor’s office in the matter in which the preventive detention action is requested, according to art. 45, paragraph 1 with reference to art. 33-36 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when deciding the material jurisdiction for solving such a proposal, according to art. 1491 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the judge takes into consideration the whole criminal matter, namely all the facts and persons investigated in the criminal case in which the prosecutor makes such a proposal and the legal qualification of all these facts established by the prosecutor and valid as at the date of notifying the judge, and not by taking into consideration only the action (and the legal qualification established for such action) or the person in relation to which the proposal for taking such action was submitted.

Dealing with the issue of the Romanian judge, as a guarantor of the public international law enforcement, the author discusses: the issue of the Romanian judge’s power to interpret the conventional international law; issues regarding difficulties in the enforcement of the public international law by the Romanian courts due to the absence of similar internal rules; decisions of the international courts of justice and their effects on the internal legal proceedings (Romanian).

Law no. 230/2007 on the establishment, organization and functioning of the owners’ associations, stipulates in art. 15: “Subject to a 5-day notice, the owner is obliged to accept the access to its apartment or to its space of a representative of the association, when it is necessary to inspect, repair or replace elements in joint ownership, which can be accessed only from the given apartment or space. Emergency situations, when access is possible without notice, shall be exempted”. In the above study, the author initially examines this text in relation to art. 27 of the Constitution of Romania regarding the inviolability of the home. Further on, he examines the requirements imposed by the same text for its legal enforcement; the situations in which the owner’s refusal to allow access – although the legal requirements are met – is an abuse of right and, in the end, other legal possibilities for the association dealing with the owner’s unjustified refusal to allow access.