Este foarte dificilă cercetarea noțiunei de ordine publică și determinarea conținutului acestei noțiuni este cu totul anevoioasă. Nu există, poate, în drept și în sociologie, o mai confuză noțiune, dar care să-și găsească mai variate câmpuri de aplicație și de care să se facă uz mai des, mai ales în ultimele timpuri, atât în relațiile particulare dintre indivizi, cât și în legăturile și raporturile dintre Stat și individ de o parte sau dintre State, de altă parte. Stabilirea conținutului exact al ordinei publice și analizarea tuturor efectelor sale depășesc cu mult cadrul normal al unui articol, chiar mai lung, dintr’o revistă juridică. Vom căuta totuși, în cele ce urmează, a schița rapid datele problemei, fără a pretinde că, în acest fel, am epuizat subiectul; de altminteri, intenția noastră nu este decât de a face o sumară introducere în examinarea acestui subiect a cărui analiză poate face obiectul unui întreg tratat.

Competența materială de a judeca propunerea de arestare preventivă a inculpatului față de care s-a pus în mișcare acțiunea penală pentru infracțiunea de nerespectare a regimului armelor și munițiilor, prevăzută de art. 342 C.pen., aparține judecătorului de drepturi și libertăți din cadrul judecătoriei, chiar dacă în cauză s-a început urmărirea penală in rem pentru infracțiunea de constituirea unui grup infracțional organizat, prevăzută de art. 367 C.pen.

Starting with 25.05.2018 the Regulation (EU) No 679/2016, also referred to as Regulation on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data has entered into force. This regulation, although replacing the previous applicable directive in the matter, respectively Directive 95/46/EC, taking over from its functioning principles, brings significant novelties from the point of view of the general framework in the matter of protection of personal data, circumstantiating and detailing many of the mandatory rules in the matter. By proposing to create a common framework at unional level, the Regulation No 679/2016 provides the necessary clarifications on the background of the galloping technological evolution and the accelerated growth of cross-border personal data flows. To that end, the aim pursued by the mentioned Regulation is to create a coherent and sound framework in the matter of data protection in the Union, in the context of a climate of confidence which will allow digital economy to expand on the internal market. It is, thus, intended to ensure that individuals benefit by a greater control over personal data, as well as to consolidate legal and practical security for the natural persons, the economic operators and the public authorities. Likewise, the Regulation strictly stipulates the premises in which any processing of personal data may be considered as being lawful and, thus, allowed, at the same time with the circumstantiation of the conditions in which the person concerned may be considered to have given his consent to the forecast processing. Also, a central element of the new European legislative initiative is to provide the necessary measures to ensure the transparency of the processing of personal data. In this respect, there are configured the obligations devolving on the operators of such data to inform the persons whose data are processed, as well as the cases and conditions in which the natural persons are entitled to rectify, erase or restrict the use of data concerning them.

The evolution of technology has facilitated the development of the so-called collaborative economy. Through collaborative online platforms, which „remove” the borders between states, various services such as short-term housing rental (Airbnb type), urban transport (Uber type), pet-sitting (PetBacker type), and others are provided. In Romania, the activities specific to the collaborative economy are in full development, in the context of the absence of some regulations specific in the matter. The purpose of the paper is to determine the role of the service provider in electronic contracts concluded through collaborative platforms and to which rules they must be subjected, taking as reference system the service provider with the habitual residence in Romania. It is analysed only the situation of service providers – natural persons, which can be grouped into two categories: a category of persons providing various services on an occasional basis, in leisure time, in order to obtain additional incomes (the so-called prosumers), category which is the basis of the collaborative economy, and the second category, which includes the persons who provide services on a regular basis, on a continuous basis, on their own and aiming at obtaining profit. The distinction between non-professional and professional service providers is difficult to achieve; there are no criteria in the legislation in the field of services for this purpose. The quality of professional or non-professional must therefore be analysed on a case-by-case basis, using the rules of the common law. The legal regime depends on the classification of the service provider into one category or another. The contracts in the collaborative economy are concluded by means of online collaborative platforms. Those operating in Romania mostly have their headquarters abroad, which awards international character to the contracts concluded. Using the regulations in force, there are analyzed the modalities to determine the law applicable to contracts and the authority competent to solve the disputes, which may arise between the service provider and the platform or between the service provider and their user. The study captures only a small part of the collaborative economy phenomenon and seeks to clarify some day-to-day situations, which can give rise to some complex legal problems.

This article investigates how the postcommunist Romanian political regime was defined, with particular emphasis on the settlement of legal conflicts of a constitutional nature through the decisions of the Constitutional Court. Through this research we aim to identify the successive incarnations of the political regime, having as a reference the dynamics of the postcommunist Romanian political regime in relation to the continuous and varied relationship of the forces of political actors, as well as to the way in which they interpret and apply the constitutional norms. The originality of this research lies in the fact that in the analysis of the Romanian political regime we will combine the normative-institutional perspective with the perspective of the political and institutional practice, in order to obtain a complex picture, overall, on the way of formation and articulation of the Romanian political regime. The article highlights a permanent evolution of the political regime in relation to the continuous and varied relations determined by the forces relations of the political actors, as well as by the way in which the constitutional rules are interpreted and applied by them. The intrusion into the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence in settling legal conflicts of a constitutional nature confirms the analysis of the political scientist Giovanni Sartori, according to which the alternation of the nature of the post-communist Romanian political regime is determined by the political and institutional practice built in relation to the political relationship between the president and the parliamentary majority. Defining the nature of the Romanian political regime helps us to understand the dynamics and frequency of constitutional crises

The solution given by the Constitutional Court of Romania through its Decision No 358/2018 on the legal conflict of a constitutional nature between the Minister of Justice and the President of Romania, regarding the possibility of revoking the Chief Prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate, as a result of which it acknowledged a „power of decision” on the part of the Minister of Justice on prosecutors’ activity, is based on the interpretation of the constitutional text provided by Article 132 (1), according to which public prosecutors shall carry out their activity under the authority of the Minister of Justice. This particular legal provision was interpreted by the Constitutional Court by applying the historical interpretation method, by expressly referring to the will of the original constituent, from which it could not digress without exceeding the limits of its interpretation operation and thus interfering with the law making process, in the Court’s opinion. But what are the limits of legal interpretation? How did the Constitutional Court justify its option for the historical interpretation approach? Is this historical interpretation static or dynamic, evolutive kind? Could the constitutional text have been interpreted from an evolutive perspective? But even so, did the Court make a just historical interpretation of the constitutional text? What are the solutions envisaged and how can the Constitutional Court fulfil its rightful role in a rule of law state?