Contestația în anulare împotriva deciziilor rămase definitive în recurs, prin care a fost invocată încălcarea principiului non bis in idem, se judecă în conformitate cu dispozițiile noului Cod de procedură penală în materia contestației în anulare. Cazul de contestație în anulare, prevăzut în art. 426 lit. i) din noul Cod de procedură penală, referitor la ipoteza în care „împotriva unei persoane s-au pronunțat două hotărâri definitive pentru aceeași faptă”, nu este incident, dacă faptele cu privire la care s-au pronunțat două hotărâri definitive de condamnare sunt diferite, neexistând identitate de faptă, indiferent dacă încadrarea juridică a faptelor este aceeași. (Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, Secția penală, Decizia nr. 1479 din 29 aprilie 2014)

The entry into force of the EU Regulation No 1215/2012 brings an important element within the process of evolution designed to ensure the free movement of judgments on the territory of the European Union: suppression of the exequatur. Given that, under the influence of the Regulation No 44/2001, the first judgment delivered in the Member State of enforcement was precisely the declaration of enforceability (or the exequatur), changing the enforcement procedure within the Regulation No 1215/2012 has also brought, necessarily, a reform of the system of legal remedies. Without studying thoroughly the fundamental conditions which can lead to the refusal of enforcement, this paper aims at analyzing the main amendments which the new regulation brings in the matter of legal remedies which are available to the debtor in the Member State of enforcement, trying to make an adjustment of the case law of the European Court of Justice in the matter, to the new wording within the Regulation No 1215/2012, as well as an analysis of the compatibility of the measures adopted by Romania in view of applying the Regulation No 44/2001 on the declaration of enforceability in relation to the new system proposed by the European legislation now in force.

This study focuses on the difficulties identified in the practice of the law courts which establishes the processual remedy made available by the criminal processual law assuming that two or more criminal judgments, on the same subject, were pronounced at different times. Thus, the judicial practice has outlined different visions in the qualification of the legal remedy given the proximity that may be encountered between the case of review on the irreconcilability of the judgments and the case of appeal for annulment on the infringement of the authority of res iudicata.

The non-unitary practice of some courts and public prosecutor’s offices in the district of the Court of Appeal of Oradea, generated by the different interpretation of some legal provisions in the criminal and criminal processual matters, gives the author the opportunity for some comments and de lege ferenda proposals. This study deals with the controversial aspects referring to the following institutions of criminal law and of criminal processual law: the jurisdiction of the judge of rights and freedoms in the matter of preventive measures in case of joining some cases; the complex offence or the formal concurrence of offences in case of committing some acts of outrage or judiciary outrage; the solutions of the preliminary chamber; the territorial jurisdiction of the criminal prosecution bodies under the terms of unique referrals; the concurrence of qualifications (of texts, of rules) or ideal concurrence of offences; the legal nature of the institutions of waiver of application of the punishment and the postponement of the application of punishment.

The study reiterates, in other aspects, the previously conducted analysis of the autonomy of the labour law, having in view the preamble of a civil decision of the 7th Division for cases concerning labour and social insurance disputes, within the Court of Appeal of Bucharest. This preamble also states: „The provisions of the Civil Code have nature of general law, representing the common law in the matter of civil legal relations in a broader sense, a matter where the labour relations are also included.” This study shows that, if such a statement would be retained, this would mean to accept implicitly the inexistence of autonomy of the labour law. As a result, it briefly analyzes the main specific features of the labour relations compared to the civil ones, reiterating that the labour law is a mixed branch of law, autonomous, but not independent from the civil law, a component of the private law. The rules of the civil law apply, as rules of common law, only subsidiarily, in the absence of some specific regulations of labour law and unless this is contrary to the particularities of the legal labour relations.

The following study concerns the causes of inadmissibility in the Romanian constitutional jurisdiction. Thus, after a series of preliminary considerations, the authors examine, in detail, in the light of the case law of the Constitutional Court of Romania, the following: – the causes of inadmissibility regarding the legality of the referral; – the causes of inadmissibility in connection with the authors of the referral; – the causes of inadmissibility referring to the motivation of the referral; – other elements related to the legality of the referral; – the causes of inadmissibility concerning the extent of the control; – the causes of inadmissibility referring to the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.