The provisions of art.1538 para. (1) of the new Civil Code define the criminal clause as being that according to which the parties set forth that the debtor undertakes to pay a certain allowance in case of the non-performance of the main obligation, and para. (4) of the same article sets forth: “the creditor may request the performance of the criminal clause without the obligation to prove any prejudice.” In order to grant the criminal clause, it is necessary to meet the following conditions: the existence of a criminal clause validly established, the non-performance, the inadequate performance or the delay performance of the contractual obligation, the debtor’s fault and his putting in default or being in default de jure. At the same time, the penalty cannot be requested if the performance of the obligation has become impossible for grounds which are not imputable to the debtor, such as the force majeure, the act of God, the deed of the victim or of a third party.

In the regulations of the new Criminal Code, the legislator has not opted for a limited criminal liability of the legal entity, but for a general liability which may result because of the commitment of any criminal offence. Except the state, the public authorities and the public institutions which carry on any activities not representing the subject matter of the private field, the other legal entities may hold the capacity of active subject, no matter the nature and the seriousness of the committed criminal offence. The criminal liability shall be laid upon the legal entity only when the respective entity having a position of management, provision, decision etc. commits the deed set forth by the criminal law in carrying out the business line or in the interest or on behalf of the legal entity. In case of committing a deed set forth by the criminal law, both the criminal liability of the legal entity and of the natural person who contributed to its commitment or only of one of these two categories of persons.

This paper makes a detailed examination of certain essential provisions in relation to the preparation of the contract. The examination is focused especially on the novelty issues entered by the Law no. 287 of 17 July 2009 on the Civil Code which repealed the Civil Code of 1864 into force until 30 September 2011. The author proposed an examination based upon rigor and objectivity in his attempt to understand the true meaning of the provisions of the new regulations. To this end, the doctrine and the case law in the matter are taken into consideration, and especially the solutions for each issue under discussion are filtered by the domestic and external case law. Likewise, references are made to the legislations of other states, which represent sources of inspiration for the editors of the new Civil Code, for the purpose of understanding accurately the provisions related to the conclusion of the contract. At the same time, certain debates of the doctrine and case law are briefly examined as regards the interpretation given to certain provisions introduced in the new Civil Code and, as the case may be, a critical analysis is carried out as well, in relation to these issues.

The article aims to review a recent and very controversial decision of the Appellate Division within the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, dated November 16th, 2012, under which were acquitted two Croatian generals, notorious figures of the civil war in the former Yugoslavia, for several war crimes and crimes against humanity, in a surprising manner since it abolished entirely the decision passed by the Court of First Instance, that had indicted these defendants, and gave special interpretations to a number of institutions of law, in respect of which was already crystalized a constant judicial practice of this Court.

The author analyses the regulation of the legal relationship emerged from the creation of a topography of semiconductor product, both from the viewpoint of compliance with the norms of legislative technique and from the perspective of the shades of interpretation of the legal norms in the respective space. The study systematizes the issue of the moral and patrimonial rights of the limits of making use of these rights and of the specific obligations of the owners of the topographies of semiconductor products. There should be noted the multiple de lege ferenda proposals meant to eliminate the chaotic image of settling the norms and to help at establishing a legal physiognomy that should induce rigour and balance in the field of the legal relationship emerged from the registration of the topographies of the semiconductor products.

In the study hereunder, the author makes some considerations regarding the patrimonial liability of public law legal entities for their offence of issuing injurious administrative instruments. In this regard, it is concluded that the identification of public law legal entities is essential, since only these may be liable against the prejudiced creditor, the public authorities issuing the injurious administrative instrument lacking legal personality cannot being patrimonialy held liable against the prejudiced person. As for the legal nature of liability, this is a special subjective liability (if the administrative instrument is illegal) and, respectively, unbiased liability, if the instrument causing prejudices was issued through an illegal administrative instrument.