Law No. 221/2009 regarding political convictions and their related administrative measures issued in the period comprised between March 6, 1945 – December 22, 1989 established, inter alia, that the victims of such convictions shall be entitled, within an interval of 3 years from the enforcement of this law (June 14, 2009) to request the Romanian State to pay moral damages (without any ceiling in terms of value) for the suffering caused by such convictions. The law was subsequently amended, in the sense that a ceiling was established for the value of such damages. In its first two decisions (No. 1358/2010 and No. 1360/2010), the Constitutional Court stated that both the original and the amended text of the law are unconstitutional, without denying, however, in principle, the fairness and lawfulness of granting such moral damages in the given situation. Until the present time, the Romanian State did not proceed to enact Law No. 221/2009, in consideration of the mentioned decisions issued by the Constitutional Court, although it was bound by the Constitution to proceed as such. Taking this situation into account, the author sets forth the idea that, at present, although we are apparently in the presence of a legislative void, the injured parties may claim, however, such damages in court, even at this time, on the strength of certain principles from the Constitution of Romania, from the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The development of the legal framework for public procurement in the European Union represents a very important issue which presents numerous challenges. The starting point of the evolution of legal aspects in public procurement was the year of 1962, when the institutions of the European Community at that time underlined the importance of the regulation of this aspect for making the common market operational. In this respect, they militated for eliminating commercial restrictions inside the Community among the member states by making operational the freedom to establish and the free movement of services. Originally, public procurement represented a non-tariff barrier in the development of the common market, thus opening the way toward the harmonization of this field by the European Commission among its member states, including Romania. The previously mentioned legislative process was divided by the doctrine of the public procurement law in 4 stages which describe the evolution of public contracts for goods, works and services.

On the strength of Art. 322, item 4 of the current Romanian Civil Procedure Code, the review of a decision that remained final in the appeal court or through the fact that no appeal was submitted against it, as well as the review of a decision issued by a recourse court (when the merits of a case is invoked) may be requested, inter alia, also if “a judge, witness or expert who took part in the lawsuit received a final conviction for any crime regarding a case or if a decision was issued on the strength of a writ that was declared false during or after the lawsuit or if a magistrate received a disciplinary penalty for exercising his office in bad faith or with gross negligence in that case”. The author is discussing in this study the manner in which a civil court must proceed if, at present (for the reasons provided by the criminal law), the perpetration of the abovementioned crimes can no longer be ascertained under a criminal decision.

Fidejussion represents a form of personal guarantee, an accessory contract, particularized, in essence, by its purpose, commitment procedure and legal effects. When it comes to determining the identity and legal regime of fidejussion, there must be taken as a point of reference the triangular relation within which its three protagonists act: fidejussor, creditor and main debtor. The present work will be analyzing the conclusion and the effects of the fidejussion from the perspective of the Romanian Civil Code and the New Romanian Civil Code, with the purpose of establishing the elements of continuity and novelty brought by the new regulations.

In Romania, the Civil Procedure Code in force shall be repealed and replaced by the new Civil Procedure Code, which was published on July 15, 2010, but has not come into force yet (the time when it comes into force has not been legally established yet). Until such time, Law No. 202/2010 regarding certain measures to accelerate disputes resolution (The “Small Reform” Law) was enacted and came into force in October 2010. In this study, the author makes a comparative examination of the following issues: the exception of the lack of competence, competence conflicts and the transposition to the current Civil Procedure Code, by taking into consideration Law No. 202/2010 and, respectively, the new Civil Procedure Code. The author reaches the conclusion that, sometimes, in law, the regulations of the current Code are better than the regulations of Law No. 202/2010 or of the new Civil Procedure Code; also, there are contradictions between the new laws (Law No. 202/2010 and the new Civil Procedure Code). Given these facts, certain de lege ferenda proposals are laid down.

On 10 December 2009, the Parliament of Romania passed the Law no. 381/ 2009 regarding the introduction of the preventive concordat and the ad-hoc mandate. This paper examines the main features of these preventive instruments, designed to be used by the debtor in order to avoid the opening of the insolvency procedure, while restructuring its undertaking and its debts, as to provide satisfaction to the creditors. The author analyzes the categories of debtors that are eligible for such procedures, the role played by the judicial bodies, the proxy and the conciliator and the mechanism of implementation and the effects of the preventive concordat and the ad-hoc mandate. The final part is critically addressing the chances of these preventive instruments to satisfy the interests of both the debtor and the creditors.