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.

Under the old civil law, the registration of a property right in a land registry was a follow-up phase to the fulfilment of the obligation to give, that is, to transfer the property. In that sense, the registration thus carried out was only intended to ensure to third parties the publicity of the legal transaction transferring the right of property, making the new owner known, similarly to other law systems in Europe. Currently, under the Civil Code in force, things have remained relatively under the same conditions. The Civil Code regulated the constitutive system of registration rights in the land registry, but the implementing law postponed those provisions until the completion of the cadastral measurements. However, we consider an apriorical analysis of the constitutive system of rights to be helpful in anticipating and clarifying the legal issues that may arise in the future, but also in determining the legal nature of the interim period between the conclusion of the contract and the time of registration in the land registry, that is to say, until the time of complete fulfilment of the obligation to give. Last but not least, we will analyze aspects of the eventual liability that could be committed because of the faulty fulfilment of the obligation to apply for registration in the land registry, therewith identifying the persons who can apply for the registration and the persons who have to apply for it.

The attenuating circumstance of the challenge is provided by the Criminal Code in force in Article 75 (1) a). By the challenging act of illegitimate nature it is affected the physical integrity or dignity of the person, so that, although punished by the criminal law, the offender’s deed is merely a reaction, a disproportionate response to an illegitimate action or inaction. The challenge can only be retained if the conditions relating to the offence committed under the auspices of a powerful disorder or emotion, respectively the conditions relating to the challenging act are cumulatively met. Without claiming to exhaust the subject, the paper aims to emphasize also some controversies regarding: the proportionality and the time interval between the challenging act and the offence; the distinction between the challenge and some justificative causes or causes of non-imputability; the possibility of retaining the challenge concurrently with the premeditation.

What we intended on this occasion is to discuss the rules that are used to determine in the concrete situations, related to the case, the legal inheritors of de cuius and the meanings of these rules. The topic seems interesting to us, because on the way in which it is dealt with, on the answers given to some questions, which are raised or can be raised in this regard, depend the adequate theoretical perspective and the rigor of determining of the inheritors in a given case, not only of the lawful ones, but also of the testamentary successors, each category of heirs being able, either alone or with the other, to access the inheritance.

This study starts from a case settled in the preliminary chamber by a court that has proceeded to the exclusion from the probative material of some illegally obtained evidence, but also of those derived therefrom. In the analyzed situation in the context of the preliminary chamber it was found that there had been a confusion which led to obtaining data on a person’s financial transactions in an unlawful manner, namely by an ordinance that had not been validated by a judge of rights and freedoms, as the provisions of Article 138 (9) of the Criminal Procedure Code would have required.

The Decision of the Constitutional Court of Romania No 405/2016, referring to the plea of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 246 of the Criminal Code of 1969, of Article 297 (1) of the Criminal Code and of Article 132 of the Law No 78/2000 on preventing, discovering and sanctioning of corruption acts (hereinafter referred to as „Decision No 405”)1, is not a mere interpretative decision2 whereby, following the admission of a plea of unconstitutionality, it is established that a text of law is constitutional only provided that a certain wording has a certain meaning3. The recitals of the Decision No 405, to which there have been added, shortly after, those included in the Decision No 392/2017, referring to the plea of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 248 of the Criminal Code of 1969, of Article 297 (1) of the Criminal Code and of Article 132 of the Law No 78/2000 on preventing, discovering and sanctioning of corruption acts4 (hereinafter referred to as „Decision No 392”), have emphasized the fact that the current rules of incrimination of the deeds of abuse of office, once clarified the meaning of the phrase „defectively fulfils”, still establish a criminal liability that rather acts with priority, and not according to ultima ratio principle, and the constitutive elements of the offence do not meet the standards of drafting of such legal norms identified in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as „ECHR”), the United Nations Convention against Corruption5, as well as in various reports and positions assumed by the European Union bodies on this subject. For the assumption that these observations of the Constitutional Court would determine the legislator to reflect on the necessity to reconfigure the legal provisions in question, the Court has indicated certain points of reference that should be considered in order to ensure a regulation compatible with the international and European standards mentioned.