The purpose of this article is to assess the crime of violation of the secret of correspondence from the perspective of the New Penal Code of Romania. While taking into consideration the guidelines emerging from the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the author separately analyses the constituent elements of this crime, emphasizing on certain issues generated by the case records of the Romanian courts of law. De lege ferenda proposals are also advanced for the purpose of emendating the system of penal protection of a person’s right to freedom of communication.

In this study, the author presents first the main reasons that led to the development of the 2009 Criminal Code and the objectives pursued by its wording. Subsequently, the author presents the main novelties brought by the regulations contained in the General Part and the Special Part of the new Criminal Code. Presentation of the characteristic features and innovations introduced by the 2009 Criminal Code compared to the Criminal Code of 1969 is achieved whilst revealing both the merits and some shortcomings of the new criminal law. These explanations are accompanied by numerous examples, own ideas and suggestions to improve the texts analyzed. In a final section, the author presents, in a reasoned manner, his own conclusions drawn in relation to the study of the new Criminal Code.

The author analyzes the condition of existence of common property for granting legal personality to an owners’ association in the light of the provisions included in the Law No 230/2007, starting from a solution of the judicial practice, reaching to the conclusion that the establishment of an association can not take place unless there is a common property of all members of the association.

The practice of the constitutional jurisdiction court points out that the exercise of the constitutionality control does not lead only to the ruling of some simple solutions, by which the criticized text or texts of the law are found to be or not in compliance with the rules of the Fundamental Law. The complexity of this control, in close connection with the growing complexity of the regulations, but also with the desideratum of legal security, which must be equally considered in exercising the constitutionality control, makes that the solutions of the Constitutional Court be also expressed in different forms. This study makes an analysis of the decisions of the Constitutional Court pertaining to the category circumstantiated by the term „interpretative decisions”, in order to emphasize their importance and their role in the process of constitutionalization of law. Certainly, the achievement of constitutionality control involves, in itself, a process of interpretation and comparison of the constitutional rules and, respectively, of the infraconstitutional ones. Within the interpretative decisions, however, this comparative examination has a greater complexity, constituting an emphasis of more possible interpretations and the identification of the one which complies with the provisions of the Constitution. Such an analysis also raises for discussion the role of the Constitutional Court in the process of interpretation of the legal infraconstitutional rules, an interpretation facilitated by the provisions of the Fundamental Law, its basis and the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court.

În spațiul public românesc din ultimii patru ani, discuțiile referitoare la revizuirea Constituției au devenit atât de uzuale, încât riscă să bagatelizeze nu doar ideea de revizuire a Constituției, ci chiar conceptul de lege fundamentală. În marea lor majoritate, dezbaterile publice referitoare la necesitatea modificării Constituției au stat sub semnul unor viziuni personale și personalizate cu privire la rolul instituțiilor fundamentale ale statului. Cel mai adesea, opțiunile formulate de maniera cea mai vocală au avut ca punct de pornire situațiile conflictuale în care au fost implicate diferite autorități publice. În sine, această abordare, eminamente din perspectivă conflictuală, deși utilă și poate chiar necesară, este incompletă și insuficientă.

The scientific approach of the authors starts from the fact that, when it comes to concepts such as, for example, resilience or victimology, which can not be understood or applied without a multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary or even transdisciplinary approach (see the conclusion which the authors have reached with regard to the possibility of appearance of a new discipline, namely legal resilience), the competences of the legal science specialists, in general, and of those in the field of criminal law, in particular, together with the competences of the specialists in psychology, psychiatry, and others, are extremely important. The authors place the above-mentioned concepts on the law – psychology – psychiatry interface and they analyze them from the perspective of the criminal justice and of the relationship between the persons involved, respectively the victims of crimes (minors and adults to the same extent), with society, but also with the aggressor, both before committing the criminal act and thereafter. Moreover, with respect to resilience and victimology, after it is pointed out that they do not have unique definitions, generally-accepted, there are also revealed the essential points on which those involved in the research of these matters have agreed upon, as well as the exchange of information and of procedures performed at the the boundary between resilience and victimology. At the same time, the criminal justice is not treated under a retributive aspect, but more from the point of view of a reparative, restorative justice, of the means by which it contributes to the mental health of the victims, of the populations that live in traumatized societies, to repairing the social trauma, to establishing the causes and the prevention of victimization, etc. At the same time, the authors also present the guarantees of the right to a fair trial granted to the victims of crimes, as well as some regulations intended to prevent victimization and to grant legal protection to the persons in precarious situations, such as: refugees, mentally ill, abandoned children and others.