Dispozițiile art. 9 lit. b) din Regulamentul CE nr. 44/2001 aratã cã un asigurator care are domiciliul pe teritoriul unui stat membru poate fi acționat în justiție în alt stat membru, în cazul acțiunilor intentate de cãtre deținãtorul poliței de asigurare, asigurat sau un beneficiar, în fața instanțelor de la locul unde este domiciliat reclamantul.

The author highlights the manner in which the observance of fundamental rights enshrined and guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is ensured by the national constitutional rules and the main provisions of the Civil Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as by domestic judicial courts that interpret and apply the domestic or European law, on a case-by-case basis. At the same time, the study also presents the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union relevant in the matter of ensuring access to justice, the right to a fair trial, as well as the relationship between EU law and the national law relating to judicial organization. In this regulatory and jurisprudential framework, the author considers that compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union moves toward being enforced by national courts, along with the (European) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

This study addresses, from the comparative perspective, the regulation set forth under Article 386 in the new Criminal Code. Its introductory part includes an overall assessment of the new regulations on electoral offences in the new Criminal Code which systematize rules corresponding to those which are currently included in the special legislation, namely in five regulations. The comparison of the incrimination text covered by Article 386 in the new Criminal Code aimed at checking correspondence with all the other 4 rules of incrimination of the same title currently active.

The study reveals, in its introductory part, some shortcomings of Law No. 8/1996 on copyright and rights related to copyright, in the field of audio-visual works, such as the contested definition thereof or the absence of definition of the audio-visual production contract definition, and puts forth its own points of view, likely to lead to the settlement of such cases. On the merits, the work depicts the characteristic features of the audio-visual production contract, its delimitation as to other types of contracts, analyses the Contracting Parties as well as the purpose and wording thereof, in terms of legal regulations and doctrinal interpretations.

When the court of judicial review is vested with the settlement of the recourse against the court order under which the legal and the solid nature of the preventive arrest has been reviewed ex officio according to the procedure set forth by art.3001 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the recourse should be settled before the expiry of the preventive arrest period, taken or extended by the judge subsequently. This review deadline is a bar period, not a recommendation one. In practice, it is found that the court decides in relation to the review of the legal and the solid nature of the preventive arrest upon the receipt of the file, many times on the last or penultimate day of the 30-day deadline of the preventive arrest. This situation occurs either due to the non-observance of the 5-day deadline by the prosecutor, or by the court itself, and consequently the court of appeal decides within a period of a few days following the expiry of the 30-day period.

In the interpretation and unitary application of the provisions of art.251 of the Law no. 32/2000 regarding the insurance activity and insurance supervision, as subsequently amended and supplemented, corroborated with those of art.24 of the Code of criminal procedure, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, in the judgment in the interest of the Law no. 3/2010, decided that “in the criminal trial, The street victims’ protection fund has the capacity of a liable party from the civil point of view and may be obliged solely, but not collectively with the defendant, to pay the civil indemnifications to the persons injured in non-insured car accidents”. In the attempt to answer the question whether, in a criminal trial, the defendant could be obliged to pay the civil indemnifications or whether the amounts paid as such shall be determined in the exclusive charge of The street victims’ protection fund, the author of the article promotes the idea according to which the main obligation to repair the damages shall belong, further, to the defendant, in his capacity as the offender of the illegal deed generating prejudices, and the existence of a special regulation set up for the purpose of protecting the victims of the car accidents, could not operate as a reason for holding harmless from the civil point of view. Considering that in the light of the present Civil Code the obligations of the defendant and of the above-mentioned fund keep their nature of in solidum obligations, the author considers that from the operative part and the considerations of the judgment in the interest of the Law no. 3/2010 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, it does not result that The street victims’ protection fund shall be exclusively obliged to pay indemnifications in the criminal trial, as the law-related questions which have generated a non-unitary practice pertain only to the capacity of a party in a lawsuit of this fund and to the possibility to oblige him, collectively with the defendant, to pay indemnifications.