În versiunea originalã a Convenţiei (europene) pentru apãrarea drepturilor omului şi a libertãţilor fundamentale (în continuare denumitã Convenţia), moartea nu putea fi cauzatã unei persoane în mod intenţionat, decât în executarea unei sentinţe capitale pronunţate de un tribunal pentru o infracţiune sancţionatã prin lege cu o asemenea pedeapsã. Astfel, pedeapsa cu moartea nu era interzisã, cu condiţia respectãrii principiului legalitãţii, aceasta şi datoritã faptului cã în acel timp (data semnãrii, respectiv data intrãrii în vigoare a acestui document), în majoritatea statelor membre ale Consiliului Europei pedeapsa cu moartea era stipulatã în legislaţiile penale interne2.

Chile stands out in Latin-America because its economic growth has resulted in a progressive decrease in poverty and marginality levels. Chile’s unique strides in economic growth have made room for increasingly dignified lives for its people. Along with this improvement in the standard of living, there has been a more thorough exercise of human rights. The normative groundwork for this successful economic model is located in the Constitución Política de la República de 1980, the 1980 Constitution, which contains an economic public order based on two elements – 1) the exercise of personal liberty and 2) the subsidiary role of the State.

The criminal procedure rules according to which the „transfer of procedures in criminal matters” is carried out are comprised in the international treaties and conventions to which Romania is a party, which are supplemented by Law no. 302/2004 on international judicial co-operation in criminal matters, plus the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. „The transfer of procedures in criminal matters” entails two manners of performance, according to the capacity in which the Romanian State is involved in its carrying out, namely: - delivery of criminal procedure; - reception of criminal procedure.

Entities with administrative-jurisdictional activity, such as the National Council for Solving Complaints, have duties strictly delimited by the regulations establishing them and organizing their operation. According to the Law no. 554/ 2004 on administrative litigation, the special administrative jurisdiction represents the activity carried out by an administrative authority that has, according to the applicable special incorporating law, jurisdiction to solve a conflict regarding an administrative action, according to a procedure based upon the principles of adversary proceeding, ensuring the right of defense and the independence of the administrative-jurisdictional activity. In carrying out this complex activity, is sometimes possible that the notifications received by the jurisdictional authority exceed its scope of jurisdiction, a situation in which it has the obligation to establish whether there is a competent court of law or another competent entity with jurisdictional activity, to which it could forward the notification erroneously referred by the complainant. The fulfillment of this legal obligation supports and guarantees to the complainant effective access to the institution having jurisdiction to solve his/her claim, in agreement with the principles of any fair trial. Numerous times, after finding justified the exception of its lack of jurisdiction in trying certain cases, the Council ordered their declining towards the competent courts of law, subsequently referring such cases to the courts. Although most courts towards which the declining was ordered accepted the files received, according to the case law of certain Courts of Appeal, the legal institution of declining is not available to the administrative-jurisdictional entities, which should have dismissed the claims received, and not decline them. This study presents with criticism the latter solutions issued by the courts of law in the legal matter of declining, as well as the author’s arguments in supporting its resolution in agreement with the legal rules.

In this study, the two authors examine certain particularities of the commercial mandate contract existent between the managers of joint-stock companies and the given companies, with the specification that the term “managers”, in the above context, applies exclusively to the managers referred to under art. 143 paragraph 1 of Law no. 31/1990 regarding companies, republished on 17 November 2004 (those whom the Board of Directors delegated the management of the company and who, as the case may be, can be appointed among the directors or from outside the Board of Directors), and not to members of the directorate (existent in joint-stock companies organized in dual system) or to “specialized” managers, who are not representatives of the social will, but run certain specialized compartment.

In this study, the two authors examine certain particularities of the commercial mandate contract existent between the managers of joint-stock companies and the given companies, with the specification that the term “managers”, in the above context, applies exclusively to the managers referred to under art. 143 paragraph 1 of Law no. 31/1990 regarding companies, republished on 17 November 2004 (those whom the Board of Directors delegated the management of the company and who, as the case may be, can be appointed among the directors or from outside the Board of Directors), and not to members of the directorate (existent in joint-stock companies organized in dual system) or to “specialized” managers, who are not representatives of the social will, but run certain specialized compartment.