This study is devoted to a very present topic, namely that of the liability of the State and of the magistrates for the judicial errors produced in the criminal cases or other type of cases. After a brief introduction to the subject, the author makes an analysis of comparative law in the matter subject to examination, pointing out that, in most European countries, the dominant system is that of establishing the liability of the State and of the magistrates for the judicial errors. The author also presents us some of the solutions of the common law system, where the principle is that of impunity of the magistrates for the judicial errors. The author emphasizes that, in our law, the liability of the State is the dominant one and it has the character of an objective liability, founded on the provisions of Article 52 (3) of the Romanian Constitution. There are also analyzed in this article the procedural conditions of the liability of the State for the judicial errors. A special place in this study is devoted to the liability of the magistrates, particularly of the judges, for the judicial errors. It is emphasized, in particular, the subsidiary nature of the liability of the magistrates, as well as the fact that their liability may be engaged only under the subjective conditions specifically determined by the law, respectively in the situations where they have acted in their judicial function in „bad faith” or with „obvious negligence”. The author pleads for maintaining this solution in the future as well, the only one that, in his opinion, is meant to achieve the necessary balance between the independence of the judge and the necessary social and legal responsibility. At the end of the study there are also formulated some legislative proposals, such as those relating to setting some common time limits in civil and criminal matters, to establishing the obligation of the State to exercise the action for regress, to the professional liability insurance of magistrates etc.

The rule of exclusion remains one of the most controversial issues in the American constitutional doctrine in the field of criminal procedure. The American jurists constantly point out that the rule of exclusion is unique in the field of law, being specific to the American law. However, an increasing number of countries adopt in their legislative system provisions to exclude illegally obtained evidence. This study outlines a few remarks around Article 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code newly introduced in our legislation, trying to bring more clarity on the origin, purpose and ways to invoke the established principle.

Calea de atac a contestației poate fi exercitată, în condițiile art. 347 C.pr.pen., inclusiv atunci când niciun participant la procesul penal nu a formulat cereri sau ridicat excepții în procedura camerei preliminare. În acest scop, încheierea prin care judecătorul finalizează procedura de cameră preliminară trebuie comunicată participanților, eventuala omisiune putând fi revelată inclusiv în calea de atac a apelului, cu consecința regresării procedurii din faza judecății în faza camerei preliminare (cu notă aprobativă).

The new Romanian Civil Code contains references to the goodwill, but it does not regulate the legal regime of the goodwill. In the absence of a legal regulation of the goodwill, the legal nature of the goodwill is analysed on the basis of the new conception of the Civil Code concerning the patrimony of the natural person and of the legal person. According to the Civil Code (Article 31), the unique patrimony of the natural or legal person may be subject to a division in the cases and under the conditions provided by law. Allocation patrimonies are the fiduciary patrimonies and those allocated to practicing an authorized profession. In the light of this conception, the goodwill represents an allocation patrimony, namely a distinct fraction of the patrimony of the natural or legal person, intended for conducting the trading activity. Under the terms of the new Civil Code, which admits that the patrimony of a natural or legal person may be subject to a division or an allocation, it is fully justified to qualify the goodwill as „trading patrimony”, a name repudiated in the past.

In this article, the author discusses the issue of limitation of the exercise of certain rights and freedoms, as debated and regulated by the Constituent Assembly in 1991. There are analyzed in detail the theses for the draft Constitution that set out the constitutional conditions for which compliance is imperative, so that the Romanian State and the Romanian Parliament be able to make the decision of limiting some rights or freedoms of the citizens. The author gives a significant consideration to presenting the philosophy of the constitutional norm that recognizes the State’s right to limit under certain circumstances the exercise of some fundamental rights and freedoms of the Romanian citizens. It is noted that constitutional limitation of the some rights or freedoms of the citizens fully complies with the European doctrine of constitutional law and of the judicial practice of ECHR. The author analyzes in detail every case which may determine the Parliament to limit the exercise of some rights and freedoms, as well as the conditions for imposing the limitation.

The article presents the evidentiary standards in case of the extended confiscation, claiming the necessity to establish the difference between the legal income and the value of assets acquired, also taking into account the expenses made by the accused and their family members, mentioning the assets or sums of money subject to extended confiscation, based on an evaluation report drawn up by an expert, by the indictment.