The rule of issuing urban planning permits (building or demolition permits) under the reserve of respecting the civil rights of third parties has two important consequences. First, it makes it clear that this sort of administrative permit does not affect the rights of the third parties; second, it means that the subsequent civil right is not taken into consideration in the management of the file and the issuing of the permits. The said permits solely assure the respect of urban planning law, excluding private law obligations and servitudes.

In this article the author intends to debate, from the perspective of the constitutional texts, developed in the Law No 303/2004, the complex problems of the status of prosecutors, especially since the legal nature of the Public Ministry is not definitively clarified, the legal texts, including the norms written down in the new Criminal Procedure Code, failing to configure the position of the prosecutor’s offices between the executive power and the judicial power. If, from the point of view of the constitutional role, the prosecutor is closer to the Executive (he permanently defends the general interests of society, the rule of law, as well as citizens’ rights and freedoms), from the point of view of the involvement of prosecutors in the activity of administration of justice of the courts of law, they share similarities with the judicial power, without being, however, part of it. From this perspective, the author analyzes, among others, the constitutional grounds of the status of prosecutors and their independence, shows why the prosecutors can not benefit from irremovability, presents the content and character of the authority of the minister of justice over the prosecutors, as well as the issue of incompatibility of the members of the Public Ministry.

The study presented by the author is a subject matter of acute timeliness, especially from the perspective of the fact that the immovable assets do not fall within the scope of some unique rules on their sale, since there are specific legal provisions in relation to different categories of immovable assets and the place where these are located. The paper analyzes the contract of sale of different categories of real estates, such as the lands, the buildings and related land, the lands located inside built-up area, the agricultural land located outside built-up area, as well as the forestry lands, emphasizing the particularities of each type of sale. A special place within the study is occupied by the examination of the legal rules applicable to the sale of the lands located outside built-up area, the conditions in which such real estates can be acquired through sale, the persons who may act as buyers, including the foreigners, the stateless persons and the legal persons of the nationality of other state than Romania. Likewise, there are emphasized the specific phases of exercising the pre-emption right of the co-owners, lessees, neighbouring owners and of the state in case of the sale of the types of real estates analyzed, as well as the sanctions applicable in case of the violation of the rules for the exercise of the pre-emption right in this matter. The study outlines the field of action of the future research, based on the legal doctrinal opinions expressed in the researched space and on the personal views of the author, wishing to form a bridgehead for further developments.

In this study we intend to make an analysis of the contestation to the insolvency condition, namely the processual means that may be used by the debtor against whom an application for opening the insolvency procedure has been filed. In the light of a rich judicial practice in this area, we consider it appropriate to compare the legal provisions found in Article 72 of the Law No 85/2014, as amended and supplemented, with the jurisprudential interpretations, in order to better understand this means of defence made available to the debtor by the legislator. Thus, we will observe the nature and the conditions in which the debtor’s right to contestation may be exercised, the reasons which can be invoked and the evidence that he can use to demonstrate the lawfulness of his contestation, as well as the legal effects and consequences determined by this procedure.

Rațiunea vulgară ne spune că judecătorul espus electivităței timpurare nu poate avea principala sa însușire, aceea a independenției, garanția imparțialităției sale. Temerea și dorința, aceste două mobile cari au o înrâurire atât de mare asupra acțiunilor noastre, vor aduce o egală atingere libertăței morale a judecătorului, vor fi o piedică stăruitoare a îndeplinirii misiunei sale sociale.

The civil liability of judges and prosecutors for damages caused by torts related to their professional duties is a subject of actuality much debated by legal professionals, the media and the civil society as a whole. Problems such as judicial errors, arrest followed by exculpatory decisions, controls and other forms of discriminatory police abuse performed sometimes at the request of prosecutors are just some of the examples observed by many contemporary societies as dangers for the human rights and liberties. The constitutions, laws and case law provide for answers to the questions in connection with the tort liability of judges and prosecutors. Latest, it becomes visible worldwide a certain way of thinking which advocates for more restrictive rules regarding the subject. This phenomenon is noticeable not only in Romania but also in other countries, such as the United States and France. The paper proposes a synthesis of the constitutional, legal framework and case law in the United States of America, with a special focus on the Supreme Court of Justice cases regarding the civil liability of judges and prosecutors. Since the notions of absolute immunity and qualified immunity in this context are quite unknown to the Romanian legal readers, this paper should add some value to their knowledge of the way of thinking the relation between independence versus accountability of the judiciary specific to the legal traditions of the U.S. From the perspective of the U.S. case law, the paper presents some of the most relevant cases of the Supreme Court of Justice such as: Stump v. Sparkman, Griffith v. Slinkard, Yaselli v. Goff, Imbler v. Pachtman, Burns v. Reed and Buckley v. Fitzsimmons. Although quite old some of them, the majority of the conclusions resulted from this case law are still valid today, with nuances, mainly in the area of the qualified immunity for prosecutors.