Recognition of the adherence of leniency to the legal phenomenon or its inclusion in the extrajuridical field is determined by the nature of philosophicalmaterialist or idealist conceptions. Amnesty and pardon are based on the socio-political grounds and have as foundation the feelings of gentleness, magnanimity, compassion. Justice is the ideal state of society, achievable by ensuring, for each separately and for everyone together, the enjoyment of legitimate rights and interests. The fundamental components or values of the notion of justice are: righteousness, social utility, legal certainty. The concept of leniency is related to all the three elements. By its very name, its functions and its purpose, the law must be based on the idea of righteousness. The essence of the idea of righteousness is to treat similar cases equally and different cases in distinct ways. The exercise of leniency is closely related to the principle of justice. Social utility means to organize a community to ensure the good of everyone and of each separately. The same social utility claiming punishment sometimes justifies the abandonment of punishment or forgiveness thereof. Legal security designates that state of safety of individuals and of society as conferred by the legal normativity by complying with its prescriptions. Although it is sometimes considered that leniency means bankruptcy in criminal justice, the legal certainty will never be affected if leniency acts are consistent with a rational legal conscience and does not harm the rights of the injured parties by committing the offence. Amnesty and pardon are not directed against legal certainty, but, on the contrary, they are put to the service of the common good, which is a proof of trust and a means of protecting the citizens. The three components of the idea of justice – righteousness, social utility and legal certainty – are in a tensed state. Amnesty and pardon are called to detension and harmonize these relations. Leniency is not in antithesis with the law, but it is inevitable for its completion.

The interpretative solution provided by the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Panel for the settlement of some matters of criminal law by the operative part of the Decision No 15/2018, according to which „after the transfer of the person convicted by the foreign judicial authorities, in order to continue the execution of the punishment in Romania, the length of the punishment considered by the state of conviction as executed on the basis of the performed work and of good conduct, granted as benefit in favour of the convicted person, by the foreign judicial authority, must not be deducted from the punishment which is executed in Romania”, has lost its validity and binding effect both as a result of delivery of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union – Grand Chamber of 8 November 2016 in the Case C-554/14 and as a result of the entry into force of the amendments brought to the provisions of Article 144 (1) of the Law No 302/2004 by the Law No 236/2017.

This study is an analysis of how the direct judicial control is exercised over the problems arisen in the execution of the custodial sentences, through a new institution, the one of the judge of supervision of deprivation of liberty, as well as an analysis of the limits of his competences. Likewise, the study also analyzes the juridical dimension of the administrativejurisdictional complaints filed by the persons deprived of liberty in order to defend their rights and interests. The study is based on the conclusions drawn from the activity of the author, as registrar, at the office of the judge of supervision of deprivation of liberty.

Fraud is perhaps the cornerstone of the Paulian action. In this sense, there is no right to action without there being a fraud in the interests of one or some of the creditors. Therefore, it is very important to know the elements that characterize the Paulian fraud. This is because the damage caused to the creditor is a consequence of the fraudulent attitude of the debtor who concludes an act with a third person with the sole purpose of hiding from the pursuit of certain goods. So, the first element to be determined in order to formulate a Paulian action is the existence of fraud that has caused the creditor’s prejudice. Through this study, we have tried to highlight some of the most important judgments in the French judicial practice that have created principles for the application of the Paulian action. Although many of them have been pronounced many decades ago, their effects are still occurring at present, and the courts which have pronounced them have shown wisdom and clarity in setting out principles that ultimately shaped a unitary judicial practice in French law. Finally, the study also presents the regulation of the Paulian fraud in the sense of the new Romanian Civil Code, with references to the new French Civil Code.

Principiul Separațiunii Puterilor Statului, care a avut o influență considerabilă în viața și organizarea constituțională a tuturor Statelor moderne, și-a avut și el – ca și oricare alt așezământ omenesc – viața și destinul lui.

The study proposes the analysis of a jurisprudential solution from the perspective of the regulations on the tort civil liability for the prejudices caused by things in order to signal the recognition of the reparable nature of some new categories of prejudices. The arguments exposed are substantiated on the regulation of the Civil Code, but also on the opinions expressed in the classical and contemporary doctrine, supporting the need to ensure the full reparation of all prejudices caused to the victim.