The author explores, in the study hereunder, an unusual provision in the matter of arbitration proceedings and that relate, essentially, to putting forth arbitration awards which ascertain or establish real rights to courts or the notary public. This provision was reintroduced in the new Code of Civil Procedure and is aimed at obtaining a court order or an authentic notarial instrument. The aforesaid regulation is criticized by the author, grounded by the fact that it flagrantly transgresses the procedural provisions that assign to the arbitration award the same effects as a court order, it being at the same time mandatory. Additionally, the author notes the theoretical and practical difficulties arising from the procedural rules under review. In the author’s view, such a regulation tends to turn the notary public into a jurisdictional authority. The author concludes that a more rational regulation would be to exempt actions relating to real rights from the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.

Transmiterea actului administrativ sancționator prin fax îndeplinește, în principiu, rigorile procedurale referitoare la comunicare, aceasta putând fi circumscrisã modalitãții la care se referã art. 86 alin. (3) teza finalã din Codul de procedurã civilã: „alte mijloace ce asigurã transmiterea textului actului și confirmarea primirii acestuia”.

The study deals with the directions of the very probable, and at the same time, the possible review of the Constitutional Court. The starting point in this analysis is to identify the Romanian specific in the control of constitutionality of the period before and after the Revolution of December 1989, compared to models offered by other member countries of the European Union. The review of criticisms that have been made ”to the Constitutional Court and the solution chosen by the Constituent Assembly of 1991 will lead in the final part of the study to the drafting of the possible solutions to be considered by the future constitutional review to make the constitutional justice in Romania more legitimate and more effective.

Along with punishments and educational measures, safety measures are part of the broad criminal sanctions category; however, the latter have a mostly preventive purpose, which is to prevent committing new crimes or other offenses provided by the criminal law. Special confiscation is a safety measure whose legal content is patrimonial, as it concerns certain assets related either to the committed deed or to the offender and which, if further left within the factual and legal circuit, could be used to commit new offenses provided by the criminal law. The mainly preventive aim of the special confiscation safety measure is achieved by the fact that, under the conditions and within the limits prescribed by law, property shall pass free of charge into State ownership so that any person may no longer possess or use them to commit other offenses provided by the criminal law.

Recent legislative interventions have brought important innovations on mediation, and one of them has promoted the sanction of dismissing the claim as inadmissible in case of claimant’s failure to observe the obligation to participate in the briefing on the advantages of mediation. The author determines the conditions for applying this procedural sanction, which he considers extremely severe and even excessive. Inadmissibility for not participating in the briefing is being also examined in the light of the provisions of art. 21 of the Romanian Constitution, regarding the free access to justice and the provisions of art. 6 of the (European) Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Secondly, the author notes that the sanction of inadmissibility applies only to the claimant. He believes, however, that the respondent may be subject to a judicial fine should he/she fail to appear in the briefing, according to Art. 187 item 1 letter f) of the new (Romanian) Code of Civil Procedure entered into force on February 15, 2013.

1. ALEXE, IRINA – Aspecte privind mobilitatea înalților funcționari publici reflectate de jurisprudenþa instanțelor din România, în „Revista de drept public” nr. 1-2/2012, p. 90-102. Autoarea, în urma analizei reglementãrilor în vigoare și a jurisprudenței în domeniu, face urmãtoarea propunere de lege ferenda: se apreciazã ca fiind judicioasã introducerea formulãrii “principiul mobilitãții”, cu consecințele de rigoare, în primul rând aceea de a stabili un cadru programat întemeiat pe criterii clare și coerente în aplicarea principiului mobilitãții.