Electoratul este o funcțiune politică, iar nu un drept. Indivizii au un drept anterior legei pozitive, și anume acela de a fi considerați ca cetățeni politici sau, cum spune Aristot, „omul este un animal social”, zoon potitikon1. Începând dela germanul Altusius, după cum stabilește Gierke, și până în timpurile noastre, doctrinarii politici consideră pe individ ca făcând parte integrantă din marele suveran, consideră voința lui ca alcătuind voința colectivă a corpului social, numit Stat. Locke, Rousseau, Blakstone, Barclay, Loyseau și alți cugetători, fiecare cu elementele ce le sunt personale, au format școală, și un corp de doctrină, susținut de o literatură vastă, întemeiază dreptul primar al indivizilor pe conceptul suveranităței legale. Suveranitatea, în accepțiunea ei juridică, „dă, după Esmein, opiniunei publice o forță superioară, o expresie precisă, o valoare juridică, o autoritate legală”.

Soluția legislativă cuprinsă în art. 345 alin. (1) din Codul de procedură penală, care nu permite judecătorului de cameră preliminară, în soluționarea cererilor și excepțiilor formulate ori excepțiilor ridicate din oficiu, să administreze alte mijloace de probă în afara „oricăror înscrisuri noi prezentate”, este neconstituțională. (Curtea Constituțională a României, Decizia nr. 802/2017 – cu notă aprobativă)

This study emphasizes that, from a substantial point of view, the criteria required to be fulfilled for cataloguing a deed as pertaining to the criminal domain are: the qualification of the deed in the domestic law, the nature of the deed and the purpose and the severity of the sanction. Formally, an official report of finding and sanctioning the contravention which represents at the same time also a criminal charge in the conventional sense must cumulatively include the description of the deed and the presentation of the legal classification. The effect of classifying the report of finding and sanctioning the contravention in the category of the criminal charge in a conventional sense is given by the fact that to the procedure for finding and sanctioning the contravention there are attached its own guarantees of a fair trial. The presumption of lawfulness of the report is compatible with the presumption of innocence only if it respects certain limits, taking into account the gravity of the stake and protecting the rights of the defence. The limits of the presumption of lawfulness of the official report, in the context of protecting the rights of the defence, are: the imperative that the deed be perceived directly, through its own senses, by the fact-finding agent and the exigence not to impose on the person concerned an impossible task, as regards the administration of the proof to the contrary.

The article proposes solutions in the case of concurrence between the reopening of the criminal trial in case of judgment in the absence of convicted person and the resumption of the time limit for appeal, and after an analysis of the two procedures and a comparative analysis of the ordinary and extraordinary means of appeal, it concludes that the reopening of the criminal trial is an extraordinary means of appeal.

In this study, the author brings back to memory a doctrinal discussion, inspired by the decision of a tribunal (seized as a court of judicial control), published by the „Romanian Journal of Law”, in two issues, in the period between 1983 and 1984, a discussion in which its protagonists, accepting the idea of an extensive interpretation of the provisions of the old Civil Procedure Code regarding the procedure of verification of scripts, concluded that this procedure may also cover the application for summons, in case that one of the applicants claims that he did not initiate the trial, the signature on the application is not his, nor did he mandate his brother (the co-applicant) to initiate the trial in his name. The doctrinaires have reached, in illo tempore, to the conclusion that the denial of the signature on the application for summons by the person to whom the document is attributed, in fact challenging of the quality of party to the trial, as an applicant, may be invoked, for the first time, also in the means of appeal, the court of judicial control following to submit the application for the procedure of verification of scripts. The tribunal has appreciated that the verification of the signature on the application for summons could only be made by its indictment as false and sending the case to the prosecutor. This point of view was not accepted by the person filing the recourse who considered that the proof of his statements could also be made through a procedure of verification of scripts of the document, before the civil court (which could order, if necessary, a graphological expertise to be made), not wanting to expose his brother, or himself, to criminal investigations. The fact that the second author involved in the discussion claimed the lack of consistency of the claim that the person filing the recourse has not acquired the quality of party (namely of appellant), since he could only exercise the recourse as a party (and not as a third party), has offered the occasion to the last two authors participating in the doctrinal discussion to make the distinction between the quality of party to the trial and the processual quality.

In this article, the authors analyze the legal rules of the Romanian law, with reference to those of the European Union and having regard to the national and European judicial practice, as well as the legal provisions in the comparative law on the interdiction to dismiss the pregnant employees. They point out to the inconsistencies in the national law and to the insufficient regulation, which creates confusions in the practice of the employers and of the courts, they note that our legislator did not make a full transposition of Directive 92/85/EEC and, unlike the law of other countries, it does not indicate all (exceptional) situations where the dismissal of the pregnant employees might still occur.