The correlation between parliament and democracy is a classical one. It has been proven not only by the beginnings of parliamentarism, related to limitation of the omnipotence of the monarch, but also by subsequent developments, especially in the generalization of universal suffrage, but also by the historical experience of the previous century, when the collapse of totalitarian or authoritarian regimes has always been followed by the return to parliamentarism or to a political system in which Parliament’s role is essential. After joining the European Union, its role was enhanced by its involvement in the European decision-making process.

The amendment of the fundamental law of a State is an extremely complex political and legal act with major meanings and implications in the political and State social system, but also for each individual. This is the reason why such a process should be well justified, respond to well-traced political and legal social needs and particularly meet the principles and rules specific to a democratic constitutional and State system, by ensuring the stability and functionality that this system needs. This study reviews the need for such a constitutional reform in Romania, as well as certain provisions of the Presidential Commission’s Report analyzing the political and constitutional regime in our country. The study also words opinions about the justification of certain new constitutional regulations. Against this background, it is believed that there are arguments in favor of maintaining the bicameral parliamentary system, and a potential revision of the Fundamental Law should take into consideration the measures necessary to guarantee the political and constitutional institutions specific to the rule of law and to avoid the ultra vires exercise of the State authorities’ duties. According to the author of the study, the scope of the Constitutional Court’s duties should be extended.

The author considers, in this study, that, in case of medical malpraxis in the public health system, it is the Romanian state which has patrimonial liability to the victim patient (through the medical service provider – public institution), according to the Administrative Dispute Law no. 554/2004, and the doctor in default (employee of the medical service provider) shall have a patrimonial liability to such provider (his/her employee), as set forth by article 270 et seq. of the Labor Code.

The authors review in this study the legal regime of receivables’ discounting, both in the Civil Code (of 1865, still in force), and in other special laws, as well as in the Romanian new Civil Code (Law no. 287/2009) or in the Romanian new Civil Procedure Code (Law no. 134/2010, neither law has entered into force yet), also considering the opinions expressed in the doctrine and in the relevant decisions of the case law. In this context, the authors reach the conclusion that indexation is compulsory, as it is in line both with the provisions of the Constitution of Romania and with the (European) Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The more favorable criminal law principle was not implemented in a unitary manner in time. Doctrine-related conceptions were different, substantiating either the idea that only a law as a whole may be favorable, or the idea that favorable provisions of distinct laws may apply to a concrete case. The author defends the supremacy of more favorable criminal law over all the criminal law principles and believes that a more favorable rule may be corroborated with another rule regarding the content of the crime, without generating the lex tertia. The author also states that the more favorable criminal law principle should govern all the sequences of the criminal lawsuit, initiated upon the perpetration of a crime and extinguished by the perpetrator’s total rehabilitation.

The failure to fulfill the periodical financial or fiscal obligation consisting in source withdrawal taxes or contributions was qualified in time by certain authors, as a continued crime, and by others, as a successive continuous crime. Choosing the last version, the author of this study identified several criteria for making a distinction between the two forms of crime.