One of the main innovations introduced by the new Criminal Procedure Code is the possibility of concluding a plea bargaining agreement between the defendant and the prosecutor. Where there is evidence to confirm that the defendant is the perpetrator of the deed subject to the criminal trial, and he admits the allegations against him, it is possible for the defendant and the prosecutor to mutually agree on the punishment, the method of execution of punishment, as well as on all other aspects related to the criminal side of the case. In this case, the role of the court will be limited only to verifying whether the concluded agreement fulfils or not the conditions provided by law and to confirm it or to reject it. Through this new institution it will decrease the duration of trials where the evidence produced during the criminal prosecution phase proves almost unequivocally the commission of acts by the defendant, allowing the courts to concentrate their resources on the really complex cases.

In this article there are examined comparatively the time limit and the grounds for appeal provided in the current legislation and the previous legislation, as well as the regulation in force. Likewise, within this paper there have been formulated a series of critical remarks, as well as de lege ferenda proposals, which have in view the amendment of the provisions of Article 410 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The paper can be useful for the academic environment, for the practitioners, as well as for the legislator.

The Ombudsman is a fundamental institution of the state of law, meant to ensure the protection of natural or legal persons against the abusive manifestations of the public authorities. In this context, this study aims to analyze the main problems arisen in the practice of exercising the powers of this autonomous administrative authority, envisaging, in particular: the scope of public authorities and of the administrative acts falling within the scope of activity of this authority; the procedure for exercising the action for administrative disputes by the Ombudsman. Likewise, following the analysis of these aspects, there are formulated de lege ferenda proposals.

In this paper the author examines the legal regime of the plea of illegality regulated by Article 4 of the Law on administrative disputes No 554/2004, as this text has been rather recently amended by Law No 76/2012 for the implementation of Law No 134/2010 on the [new] Civil Procedure Code. In this regard there are examined: the definition and the legal nature of the plea of illegality, its features, as well as the conditions of admissibility of the plea of illegality.

The pre-contractual obligation to inform is one of the ethical instruments meant to ensure the durable and effective maintenance of the contract (contractual durability principle), a requirement which has acquired a considerable development owing to its functions: preventing a possible failure as concerns the maintaining of the durability and the effectiveness of the contract and building a contractual relation based on the active presence of the contracting parties. The provision of sufficiently accurate information will lead to making a decision to conclude or not the contract in full awareness of the facts. It is designed to extend also to the phase of contract performance, allowing the parties to think more deeply about the commitments they will make. But, in the pre-contractual phase, of negotiations, the future contracting parties only begin building a durable trust, which is achieved through dialogue and collaboration and which has normally extended also to the phase of performance of the contract. The pre-contractual obligation to inform tends to engage other legal means as well in order to come to decision-making in full awareness of the facts and in order to build, at the same time, a „bond of trust” intended to extend in time. Therefore, it is obvious the need to generalize this obligation, thus strengthening the coherence of rules (principle of coherence), this being achieved both by way of extending the application of the requirement of „good faith” and by special express rules specific to each category of contracts.

This study falls within the so much present problems of civil liability of professionals for malpractice. Starting from the arguments of a jurisprudential solution concerning the lawyer’s liability for the damage caused to the clients or to the third parties, the article intends to present the regulation, the special conditions, the legal nature and the foundation of this hypothesis of liability. By her conclusions the author supports the idea that the civil liability of the lawyer is a separate and autonomous professional civil liability.