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.

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.

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.