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.

In this article, the author presents the procedure of individual complaint of the persons before the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Turkey. According to the Turkish Constitution and to the Law No 6216/2011 on establishing the procedures before the Constitutional Court, this procedure is an exceptional means of appeal which can be used after all the other legal means of appeal have been exhausted. The individual complaint before the Constitutional Court fulfils two basic functions: the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the persons and the protection of the national legal order.

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.

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.

Concluded on 12 December 2015, and entering into force on 4 November 2016, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change establishes the new international legal regime of the global response to threat of climate change. Contributing to the application of the Framework Convention of 1992, the Agreement adds the objective of adaptation and breaks the tradition of the Kyoto Protocol (1997), by imposing a new approach in this field, having in its center the limitation to 2°C and, whenever possible, 1,5°C of the growth of global average temperature, in relation to preindustrial levels, determined national contributions, and a transparency mechanism in ensuring the compliance of the self-assumed commitments. Accepting climate change as a „common concern of mankind” with scientific legitimacy of the conventional process and a specific legal value, being neither a „convention” nor a „protocol”, the Agreement has a universal nature, and it completes and transforms the international legal regime of the global climate action. Innovating principles are consecrated: intergenerational equity, climate justice or progression principle, new market mechanisms, with limited action, the facilitating mechanism, periodical evaluation, et al. An important role in imposing the new strategy and the new mechanism of action in climatic matters is held by the negotiations related to the post-2015 Conferences of Parties, designed to establish the „roadmap” and the proceedings for the preparation and enforcement, after 2020, of the Paris Agreement. Part of the new international conventional context regarding the new global challenges, the Agreement completes and updates the climate regime, as part of the international environmental law, bearing important specificities.

Although the European Union’s activities hardly integrate into the civilist logic of the „illicit legal act”, its non-contractual liability is triggered in particular for what the doctrine generically calls „behaviours” considered to be illegal. Even under this generous hypothesis, the Union liability can only be engaged under very strict conditions, less established by the Treaties and, rather, by the judge in Luxembourg, on the basis of some rules that discourage the litigants, limiting the possibility, in procedural and material terms, to bring such actions. The jurisdiction to settle the disputes concerning non-contractual liability of EU exclusively pertains to the European Unional jurisdictions, by applying Article 268 TFEU, which necessarily implies that the non-contractual liability of the Union must be engaged solely on the basis and under the conditions of EU law. Such an argument is fundamentally justified by the fact that engaging this liability very often implies that the scope of application is an appreciation of the Union’s policy, which is why the exclusion of the competence of any national jurisdiction appears to be natural.