According to Article 19 of the Government Emergency Ordinance No 20/2021, the doctors, regardless of specialty, acquire or lose by a Government decision which declares or terminates the state of alert, without any training, evaluation or sanction, a special professional competence to treat persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, for which they would not be liable with their patrimony if they complied with the guides and protocols approved by the order of the Minister of Health. The regulation represents a violation of Article 34 (3) of the Romanian Constitution, generating an uncertainty regarding the existence and extent of the doctors’ rights and violating the fundamental right to the protection of citizens’ health. First, the criteria for exercising the medical profession (acquisition and loss of a professional competence) are delegated by emergency ordinance by the exceptional legislator (the Government) to the executive (the Government), in order to be established by a legal act with inferior force than the law, in violation of Article 1 (4) and (5) of the Constitution. Secondly, the fundamental rights to Life, provided by Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and, respectively, to Health care, regulated by Article 34 of the Constitution, guaranteed by the control of the medical profession (embodied in legal provisions imposing some strict conditions for acquiring professional competence and liability for the medical act), are eluded by the permission granted to non-specialists to intervene, apparently without liability, on the human body.

Principiul suveranității naționale consacrat în art. 2 alin. (1) din Constituție se reflectă la nivelul Parlamentului prin suveranitatea acestuia. Un prim efect direct al suveranității forului legislativ este independența acestuia și a membrilor săi, precum și autonomia organizatorică, funcțională, financiară și disciplinară a Camerei Deputaților și Senatului. ...

In this article we shall present the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the right to entry and to stay of the third-countries nationals members of the family of the Union citizens, as it evolved from the beginning to the present day, with its incoherences and inconsistencies, but also with its advances. The Court of Justice has contributed to the European integration, through the freedom of movement, more than the political institutions of the Union (the Council, the Parliament and the Commission) , so that the new legislation adopted in this area has incorporated the jurisprudential acquis. The institution of the European citizenship, which transforms the Community and the Union into a more political organization, has also contributed to open the freedom of movement to the third-countries nationals in cases in which they couldn’t benefit of it and to transform the national legislation on immigration under the influence of the Union law as interpreted by the Court of Justice. Of course, the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice is often criticizable and, indeed, has encountered much criticism both from the part of the States and of the scholar literature for its openness to the third-countries nationals, which puts in danger the national legislations on immigration. We also gave our own opinion on the solutions of the Court, not only when we didn’t agree with them, but also when they has been criticised, in order to defend them because we considered that they are correct. As Romania is a member of the European Union, the implications of the jurisprudence in the area of the freedom of movement are of a great importance, so our study may contribute to inform the national jurisdictions in this respect.

Recognizing the climate emergency, and officially assuming the objectives of limiting the temperature growth up to 2 ° C and carbon neutrality work as an impulse for the establishing the constitutional basis of an adequate juridical and political reaction and for the institutionalizing the State’s and public authorities’ obligation to act against climate change. The presen ce of express referrals to climate in 10 fundamental laws and the ongoing initiatives for their modification and update in the sense of „climatizing” the pertinent provisions, reflect a vigorous process of constitutionalizing of the eco-climatic issues. Until then, assimilating climate to the enveloping concept of environment allows the extensive interpretation of existing dispositions, but the consolidation of the trend and the expression of the demands of the environmental transition impose inserting express constitutional provisions, well-articulated to the juridical and constitutional system as a whole. In this context, a special part is to be played by case law that by creative interpretation of existing text, supplies the directly regulated means of expression and suggest its apparition and its meanings. Regarding the Constitution of Romania, by interpreting the existent provisions (Article 35 which recognizes the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, Article 44 (7), and Article 135 (2) E and F), one can apprehend the general duty of any person, of the State, and of the public authorities, to protect and improve the environment, including climatically, the principle of non-regression and of constant progress in the field. The case law of the Constitutional Court of Romania, as well as the ECHR, is predisposed to „acclimatizing” developments, even if, for the time being, it has not had the chance to manifest itself notably in this direction. Under the impulse of international developments and of the strategic EU context (the Green Deal, the Climate Pact), more and more propositions come to life, in the sense of inscribing climate within the contents of the fundamental law.

The study brings to attention the distinction, but also the relation between the operation of trust and the contract of trust, as a means of achieving an autonomous patrimonial property with character of destination. After analyzing the substantive, form, content and registration requirements of the contract, as well as the opposability of the assets in the trust property, the study focuses on the significance of the acceptance of the contract of trust by its beneficiary, as well as the acceptance mechanism, when one of the contracting parties is beneficiary. In the analysis of the prerogatives of the trustee’s property right as an effect of the contract, it is emphasized that this right is limited by the achievement of the purpose of the trust, found in the contract clauses and the duration of the contract, after which the trust property is subject to retrocession. The study tends to mark the distinction between the mandatary, term used or suggested by the regulation, and the position of the trustee in the configuration of the contract of trust, given that it concludes legal acts in the interest of the beneficiary and with an impact on the trust property. In regard to the trustee’s obligation to return the trust property at the expiration of the term or the achievement of the purpose of the trust, it is analyzed the distinction between this legal obligation of the trustee and the sale contract with repurchase agreement. The study also focuses on the acts of disposition that the trustee can make on the basis of a proxy, in the process of exploiting the trust property, stating that this right can be exercised only on the components of this property, individually or as a whole, and not on the trust property, which must remain intact, as a fraction of a universality.

Puțini sunt termenii din vocabularul științelor politice care să fi primit atât de multe definiții și caracterizări, de-a lungul timpului, cum este democrația. Fragmentul din Declarația Universală a Democrației pe care vi-l propun reflecției surprinde două aspecte ale termenului de democrație: unul instituțional, raportat la constituirea prin proceduri electorale democratice a instituțiilor reprezentative ale unui stat, la nivel național și local, și altul funcțional, raportat la puterea reală a poporului și mijloacele eficiente de care acesta poate dispune pentru a contribui, desigur, prin reprezentare, la activitatea legislativă și de control asupra acțiunilor Guvernului. Dacă primul aspect este relativ ușor de realizat, deși cunoașteți dovedite fraude electorale la nivel central și local, cel de-al doilea merită o atenție mai specială, întrucât nu cred că există un cetățean-alegător, grupuri de cetățeni-alegători, care să fie pe deplin convinși că sunt reprezentați, în mod real, în activitatea legislativă și, mai ales, în exercitarea funcției Parlamentului de control parlamentar.