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.
The aim of this paper is to identify how and if cultural diversity, as a fundamental and moral value of the EU, is effectively protected by EU law. I will start from the EU competences on cultural matters and try to find out if, while dealing with cultural issues, the EU is actually protecting its “unity without uniformity” and its “diversity without fragmentation”. The recent and stronger intervention of the EU in cultural matters, after Lisbon, raises questions as to its real aims, be it the building of a stronger and stronger “small common denominator” in cultural issues as well, by means of uniformity or the real protection of cultural diversity of its Member States.