When the court of judicial review is vested with the settlement of the recourse against the court order under which the legal and the solid nature of the preventive arrest has been reviewed ex officio according to the procedure set forth by art.3001 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the recourse should be settled before the expiry of the preventive arrest period, taken or extended by the judge subsequently. This review deadline is a bar period, not a recommendation one. In practice, it is found that the court decides in relation to the review of the legal and the solid nature of the preventive arrest upon the receipt of the file, many times on the last or penultimate day of the 30-day deadline of the preventive arrest. This situation occurs either due to the non-observance of the 5-day deadline by the prosecutor, or by the court itself, and consequently the court of appeal decides within a period of a few days following the expiry of the 30-day period.

In the interpretation and unitary application of the provisions of art.251 of the Law no. 32/2000 regarding the insurance activity and insurance supervision, as subsequently amended and supplemented, corroborated with those of art.24 of the Code of criminal procedure, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, in the judgment in the interest of the Law no. 3/2010, decided that “in the criminal trial, The street victims’ protection fund has the capacity of a liable party from the civil point of view and may be obliged solely, but not collectively with the defendant, to pay the civil indemnifications to the persons injured in non-insured car accidents”. In the attempt to answer the question whether, in a criminal trial, the defendant could be obliged to pay the civil indemnifications or whether the amounts paid as such shall be determined in the exclusive charge of The street victims’ protection fund, the author of the article promotes the idea according to which the main obligation to repair the damages shall belong, further, to the defendant, in his capacity as the offender of the illegal deed generating prejudices, and the existence of a special regulation set up for the purpose of protecting the victims of the car accidents, could not operate as a reason for holding harmless from the civil point of view. Considering that in the light of the present Civil Code the obligations of the defendant and of the above-mentioned fund keep their nature of in solidum obligations, the author considers that from the operative part and the considerations of the judgment in the interest of the Law no. 3/2010 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, it does not result that The street victims’ protection fund shall be exclusively obliged to pay indemnifications in the criminal trial, as the law-related questions which have generated a non-unitary practice pertain only to the capacity of a party in a lawsuit of this fund and to the possibility to oblige him, collectively with the defendant, to pay indemnifications.

The crime committed with two forms of guilt, as a form of the legal unit of the crime, has given rise over the time to different controversial debates due to its mixed structure. A special place is held by the possibility of the secondary party’s existence, this possibility being accepted by most of the authors, as well as unanimously in the judicial practice. The authors of this paper developed for the first time three conditions of the secondary party’s existence to the crimes committed with two forms of guilt for retaining this form of participation easily in the future judicial practice. The non-fulfillment of any of the described conditions produces different legal consequences for the participants; however, the detention of the secondary party to the crime committed with two forms of guilt shall be excluded.

Audit services is based on two premises: (i) companies must be able to choose their auditors according to their needs and at a reasonable cost and (ii) investors must be able to rely on an independent audit opinion based on an audit of high quality before investing in a company. It is in the public interest to ensure a sustainable audit function and, consequently, a competitive market for audit firms. Usually, a person invests in a company only once, in advance, has analyzed an audit report relating to the financial condition of that company. If, then, there is a failure of the enterprise (such as eg bankruptcy) that has earlier cases and unidentified audited by the auditor in place its civil liability issue. The question is to set a limit on the civil liability of auditors so that, on the one hand, to ensure fair compensation to those injured (investors), and on the other hand, auditors to take such risks reasonably.

In the regulations of the new Criminal Code, the legislator has not opted for a limited criminal liability of the legal entity, but for a general liability which may result because of the commitment of any criminal offence. Except the state, the public authorities and the public institutions which carry on any activities not representing the subject matter of the private field, the other legal entities may hold the capacity of active subject, no matter the nature and the seriousness of the committed criminal offence. The criminal liability shall be laid upon the legal entity only when the respective entity having a position of management, provision, decision etc. commits the deed set forth by the criminal law in carrying out the business line or in the interest or on behalf of the legal entity. In case of committing a deed set forth by the criminal law, both the criminal liability of the legal entity and of the natural person who contributed to its commitment or only of one of these two categories of persons.

The paper proposes to examine, based upon a comparison, the system of the appeal for annulment and of the motion for revision, according to the new Code of Civil Procedure and to the prior regulation, in the light of the principle of the right to a fair trial in due and foreseeable time. Considering the nature of the appeal for annulment and the motion for revision of the extraordinary remedies, also the principle of the legal relationships security is emphasized, which requires that the final and irrevocable court orders could not be put up for discussion, except in the presence of certain “fundamental flaws”, set forth by law expressly and in a restrictive manner. The paper describes the amendments and the supplements brought by the new Code of Civil Procedure and in so far as they meet the needs of the issues which received several interpretations in the practice under the regulation of the Code of Civil Procedure of the year 1865, such as the period for the exercise of the appeal for annulment or, on the contrary, they may generate a non-unitary practice, such as the obligation to assist/represent by a lawyer in the matter of the means of appeal related to the withdrawal.