Pursuant to Art. 147, paragraph (4) of the Romanian Constitution republished on October 31, 2003, “Rulings of the Constitutional Court shall be published in the Official Gazette of Romania. As from their publication, rulings shall be generally binding and effective only for the future”, and pursuant to Art. 147 paragraph (1) of the said Constitution, the provisions of the laws, ordinances and regulations in force found to be unconstitutional shall cease their legal effects within 45 days of the publication of the decision of the Constitutional Court if, in the meantime, the Parliament or the Government, as the case may be, cannot bring into line the unconstitutional provisions with the provisions of the Constitution.. Under these constitutional requirements, the study’s authors comprehensively examine the casuistry these rules have generated, the Constitutional Court jurisprudence in the matters and so on, and the delicate situation arisen because neither the Constitution nor any other law expressly regulates the state of laws or Government ordinances (no longer existing) declared unconstitutional.

In this paper the author makes a comparative analysis of Art.72 (“notifying the enforcement of collective redundancy”) and Art. 74 (prohibition of new employment subsequent to collective redundancies, employees right to reemployment) of the Labor Code (Law no. 53/2003, republished on May 18, 2011), texts related to the Council Directive no. 98/59/EC of July 20, 1998. In this respect, the author concludes that although usually the said texts of the Labor Code are consistent with the aforementioned Directive, however, the amending / supplementing of the Labor Code is required to imperatively establish a mandatory form of employees representation outside the union organization, taking into account that the “employees representatives” institution (Articles 221 to 226 of the Labor Code) is currently optionally governed (and not mandatory), and only where the employer exceeding 20 employees had not constituted representative unions.

Through its varied meanings, “loyalty” is perhaps the noblest moral value. It is, in terms of law, a factor and a marker of legal relationships “moralization”, procedural relations including. Although unanimously accredited in the field legal relationships as well, including procedural relations, the loyalty principle is enshrined in terminis as a fundamental principle of civil proceedings. However, it is an implicit result of numerous provisions in the law of civil procedure, which finds appropriate forms of legal and judicial sanction. In our procedural civil regulatory climate, certain peremptory procedural exceptions having permanent effect make unnecessary the application of the praetorian “estoppel” rule established in common law and subsequently in other legal systems. Fundamental right of access to justice is not incompatible with assuming „duty of loyalty”.

Following the entry into force of the new Romanian Civil Code (on October 1, 2011) and the new Romanian Code of Civil Procedure (which will take place on February 1, 2013), in the Romanian civil law doctrine a controversy arose in the sense that divorce exclusive fault of the defendant State (that if the respondent spouse doesn’t file a counterclaim) is admissible only by way of exception, where the reason for divorce consists of a minimum 2-year de facto separation of spouses or, on the contrary in other situations as well. After a thorough analysis, the author opts for restrictive solution, i.e. divorce for applicant spouse’s exclusive fault (if the respondent spouse doesn’t file a counterclaim) is admissible only by way of exception, where the reason for divorce consists of a minimum 2-year de facto separation of spouses.

In this article, the author critically examines matters of criminal procedural guarantees for the injured person, the injured party or civil party, stressing their importance in the administration of criminal justice. In this context, topics on the rights of victims are depicted inspired from the principle of equality of arms, inferred from the (European) Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the author making some suggestions on repairing the damage caused as a result of the offense.

The author’s approach to bring forward offenses against public safety on the roads in terms of the new regulation of the Criminal Code enacted by Law no. 286/2009 stands not only for a scientific approach, but also for a matter of letting those concerned in on the regulation and criminal approach of offenses in this area, against provisions of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 195/2002 on road traffic, regulations characterized by profound differences. These are some, though not all which justify, but renders our approach imperative, which, as one may note, shall prove useful in both teaching and practical terms, if it were to consider, on the one hand, the different legal matter of the two regulations, and, on the other hand, some new normative ways of achieving these facts. For the reader to better and easier understand the criminal indictments’ issue, we set ourselves to consider below separately, in two parts, offenses against public safety on the roads.