The stages of the civil trial are: (i) the stage of referral to the court of law (written or initiating the civil trial), (ii) the stage of inquiry of the trial, (iii) the stage of debate on the merits of the trial, (iv) the stage of deliberation and (v) the stage of delivery. The accomplishment of the act of justice in civil matters is materialized through court sittings (which may be public, or in which only the parties participate, or not public, in the cases provided by law) and internal administrative stages carried out by the panel of judges (such as the checking and regularisation of the application). Publicity is a fundamental principle of the civil trial stated by the provisions of Article 17 of the Civil Procedure Code and by Article 12 of the Law No 304/2004, republished. The failure to ensure the publicity of the court sitting brings about the sanction of absolute nullity not conditioned by the existence of an injury under Article 174 (2) by reference to Article 176 point 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. The delivery of the judgment shall usually take place in public sitting, according to Article 402 of the Civil Procedure Code, or, as an exception, by making the solution available to the parties through the mediation of the registry office, pursuant to Article 396 (2) of the same Code, in the assumption that the delivery was postponed (premise condition) for justified reasons and the chairman of the panel has indicated expressis verbis this modality of putting the solution at the disposal of the parties. The delivery of the judgment, as the last processual stage, according to the Civil Procedure Code, can not take place otherwise than by means of a public court sitting, according to the principle of publicity, to which the chairman or a member of the panel of judges read the minutes, also indicating the means of appeal which can be exercised. The fact that the parties understand or not to make use of their right to appear in court (as in the case of other processual stages) does not in any way affect the obligation of the panel of judges to comply with the express provisions of the law in respect of the processual stage of delivery, since there is no such distinction in the law, and ubi lex non distinguit nec non distinguere debemus. In addition, the completion of this final stage of the civil trial is necessary for the parties to make use of their right to formulate orally the means of appeal provided by law, according to Article 126 of the Internal rules of the courts of law of 2015, concluding in this respect a minutes signed by the president of the panel and by the registrar of the sitting.

The provisions of Article 169 of the Law No 85/2014 on the procedures for preventing insolvency and for insolvency regulate the responsibility aimed at covering the debtor’s liabilities in case its assets do not satisfy all the claims of its debtors. The mentioned legal provisions regulate expressly determined cases in which either the members of the supervisory bodies, or the members of the management bodies of the legal person which is in a state of insolvency or any other person that has caused the state of insolvency may be obliged to cover a part of the liabilities of the insolvent debtor, provided that the activity they carried out has led to the insufficiency of the available cash funds from the patrimony of the debtor legal person. In relation to the provisions of Article 171 of the mentioned normative act, the responsibility of the specified persons may be engaged in any form of the procedure, either in judicial reorganization, or in bankruptcy. In case of judicial reorganization, the amounts of money obtained as a result of the responsibility of the mentioned persons are intended to supplement the funds necessary for the continuation of the debtor’s activity, and, in case of bankruptcy, those amounts must ensure that the debtor’s liabilities are covered. The regulation of the responsibility of the members of the supervisory/management bodies or of any other person that has caused the state of insolvency of the debtor legal person is an integral part of the procedure provided by the law on insolvency.

Cloud Computing is one of the most innovative technologies in the history of computing. It is radically changing the way how information technology services are created, delivered, accessed and managed. Cloud Computing enables the same services and user content to be delivered to any user device, whether a mobile phone, desktop or tablet computer. Cloud technology involves data storage at multiple data centers in different geographic locations. The evolution of computer technology is strongly related with the cybercrime phenomenon. Over the last decade, the number of crimes that involve computers and Internet has grown constantly. Criminal organizations try to be as efficient as possible and in order to make investigations difficult they are storing criminal data in foreign servers or in Cloud storage systems, and use cryptography and other data obfuscation techniques that hide their illicit activity. Cloud Computing offers criminals accessible means for committing cybercrime. In much the same way as cybercrime may be understood as a new way of committing traditional crimes such as fraud and theft, Cloud Computing presents criminals with new tools with which to commit these offences and many more. Researching this environment is a key element in understanding the new and more complex forms of cybercrime that occur today.

The extension of the preventive arrest is one of the instruments available to the judicial bodies in order to remove some threats to public order, undermining at the same time a fundamental right of the defendant, the right to freedom. The procedure of extension of the preventive arrest must respect the right to a fair trial, as regulated in the international conventions and the internal provisions. This article analyzes the possibility of breaching the principles of equality of arms and of equality of treatment in the procedure of judging the contestation against the decision to extend the preventive arrest measure.

The Law No 95/2006 on the health reform stipulates, in Article 653 (2), that: „ the medical staff shall be liable under the civil law for the prejudices caused by error, which also include negligence, recklessness or insufficient medical knowledge in the exercise of the profession, by individual acts within the prevention, diagnosis or treatment procedures”. The text of law finds its applicability in the cases that raise for discussion whether the doctor’s diagnosis was a correct one and the chosen therapeutic conduct was necessary to restore the patient’s health condition. However, even under the terms of subsistence of the situation of error of diagnosis, this does not unconditionally engage the legal liability, an approach that makes necessary a distinction between the guilty diagnosis error and the excusable diagnosis error. In this study the authors intend to identify and analyze the hypotheses in which the doctor’s legal liability can operate/intervene in case of an error of diagnosis.

The purpose of the author’s approach is to determine the real meaning of the contestation for annulment in relation to the other means of appeal regulated in the new Civil Procedure Code. In this respect, the author considers, in full agreement with the current case law and doctrine, that in the processual system in force the contestation for annulment has as a fundamental objective the correction of some procedural mistakes, and not of some substantive errors. In this study additional arguments are presented in favour of the thesis according to which the contestation for annulment regulated by Article 503 (2) point 2 of the new Civil Procedure Code can not have the meaning of envisaging the substantive mistakes, whereas such an approach does not have any support in the provisions of the legislation in force. The author expresses reservations also with regard to the establishment of an extraordinary means of appeal, of the sort of the former extraordinary recourse, which would make possible to remedy some substantive mistakes. In this respect, the author has noted that the trend of modern times is not one that would lead to the multiplication of the means of appeal, as it happened in our country in the last three decades, but to their rationalization and achievement of efficiency. However, an establishment of a new means of appeal could only be discussed in the context of a substantial reform of our judicial system.