Prin decizia Curții Constituționale nr. 190/2008, publicatã în „Monitorul oficial al României”, partea I, nr. 213/2008, dispozițiile art. 362 alin. (1) lit. a) teza a II-a C.pr.pen. – potrivit cãrora „apelul procurorului în ce privește latura civilã este inadmisibil în lipsa apelului formulat de partea civilã, cu excepția cazurilor în care acțiunea civilã se exercitã din oficiu” – au fost declarate constituționale. În consecințã, apelul declarat numai de procuror cu privire la latura civilã este admisibil, inclusiv în cazul în care motivele de apel referitoare la latura civilã au fost formulate oral în ziua judecãții, potrivit dispozițiilor art. 374 C.pr.pen. (Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, Secția penalã, decizia nr. 2755 din 11 septembrie 2012).

The paper proposes to examine, based upon a comparison, the system of the appeal for annulment and of the motion for revision, according to the new Code of Civil Procedure and to the prior regulation, in the light of the principle of the right to a fair trial in due and foreseeable time. Considering the nature of the appeal for annulment and the motion for revision of the extraordinary remedies, also the principle of the legal relationships security is emphasized, which requires that the final and irrevocable court orders could not be put up for discussion, except in the presence of certain “fundamental flaws”, set forth by law expressly and in a restrictive manner. The paper describes the amendments and the supplements brought by the new Code of Civil Procedure and in so far as they meet the needs of the issues which received several interpretations in the practice under the regulation of the Code of Civil Procedure of the year 1865, such as the period for the exercise of the appeal for annulment or, on the contrary, they may generate a non-unitary practice, such as the obligation to assist/represent by a lawyer in the matter of the means of appeal related to the withdrawal.

“Vague” legal concepts are inevitable, these proving their usefulness not only for covering some varied and virtually unlimited legal situations, impossible to imagine by the legislator, but also for ensuring the transition from the “the written law” to the experienced law” – given the evolution of the regulatory legal system background, while stimulating the updating of the written one. Conventional rules, primary and secondary, excel through the use of such concepts, called “autonomous”, but these are not foreign to any constitutional standards either, although one could say that, by definition, these must single out by the rigor and perfect predictability. Therefore, recognizing their indispensability and usefulness, we shall bring into focus some of the peculiarities of the review in terms of the way of interpretation and implementation of such concepts.

Departing from the constitutional basis underlying the relations between the Constitutional Court of Romania and the European Court of Human Rights, this study examines the judicial dialogue between the two courts and the effects thereof. The conclusion of this study, based on numerous examples from case-law, is that the dialogue between the constitutional judge and the European Judge serves to develop common standards for the protection of fundamental rights, as well as to enriching those existing at national level, with effects in terms of law-making and law-enforcement.

Extensive confiscation safety measure has a narrow enforcement scope, as it can be ordered only for the crimes expressly provided by law. On the other hand, extended confiscation can cover only property or the equivalent thereof, obtained by the convicted person whilst committing, in a specified time period, other crimes for which the law provides for such safety measures. Prerequisite to be met for the enforcement of extended confiscation is the existence of an obvious disproportion between income earned lawfully by the person convicted and the value of goods obtained through criminal activity for which the law provides for this safety measure.

The role of the notary public is very important in today’s society. Notary services must be performed in good faith, conscientiously and in compliance with all incidental legal norms. Moreover, the assessment made by the Constitutional Court that notaries public are public officials imposes a more rigorous selection on objective criteria, after some tests that may be organized at national level, also given the invalidation cases of locally organized competitions1. However, the notary public profession requires careful attention on behalf of the national guardianship authority in overseeing their careers, so that sanctions are to be imposed to those less prepared, or having reputation problems or incursions into committing criminal acts, and thus the Romanian notary system to be more reliable and increase its quality.