This study is devoted to a very present topic, namely that of the liability of the State and of the magistrates for the judicial errors produced in the criminal cases or other type of cases. After a brief introduction to the subject, the author makes an analysis of comparative law in the matter subject to examination, pointing out that, in most European countries, the dominant system is that of establishing the liability of the State and of the magistrates for the judicial errors. The author also presents us some of the solutions of the common law system, where the principle is that of impunity of the magistrates for the judicial errors. The author emphasizes that, in our law, the liability of the State is the dominant one and it has the character of an objective liability, founded on the provisions of Article 52 (3) of the Romanian Constitution. There are also analyzed in this article the procedural conditions of the liability of the State for the judicial errors. A special place in this study is devoted to the liability of the magistrates, particularly of the judges, for the judicial errors. It is emphasized, in particular, the subsidiary nature of the liability of the magistrates, as well as the fact that their liability may be engaged only under the subjective conditions specifically determined by the law, respectively in the situations where they have acted in their judicial function in „bad faith” or with „obvious negligence”. The author pleads for maintaining this solution in the future as well, the only one that, in his opinion, is meant to achieve the necessary balance between the independence of the judge and the necessary social and legal responsibility. At the end of the study there are also formulated some legislative proposals, such as those relating to setting some common time limits in civil and criminal matters, to establishing the obligation of the State to exercise the action for regress, to the professional liability insurance of magistrates etc.

The offences regulated by the Law No 31/1990 on companies form a domain relatively little explored by the criminal law specialists and quasi-unexplored by the civil law specialists. This study deals with those offences grouped within Article 273. These offences have a few specific elements. First, the active subject of the legal rule hypothesis is qualified, namely a person that holds a certain quality of company member. Secondly, the hypothesis of criminal rule contains elements of company law, which can be found in other articles of the Law No 31/1990. By the fact that the hypotheses of the offences provided in Article 273 are part of the company law, first it is the duty of the civil law specialist to decode the meaning of the material rule, because a rigid application of the purely criminal vision in a field of the private law can lead to wrong conclusions, with serious consequences on the subjects of the offences. But, in order to cover the entire interpretative area, the same consideration must be given to the criminal aspects as well, where the role of the criminal law specialist steps in, so that the reader – either a civil law specialist or a criminal law specialist – forms a proper idea about a far too little investigated field.

Faptul că, în cadrul acțiunii în revendicare promovate anterior intrării în vigoare a Legii nr. 10/2001, pârâții au invocat în apărare prevederile art. 45 alin. (2) din acest act normativ, precum și buna-credință de care ar fi dat dovadă la încheierea contractelor de vânzare-cumpărare, nu reprezenta un argument suficient pentru ca instanța să treacă la analiza fondului acestei apărări, după ce aceeași instanță stabilise că legea, în conținutul căreia se regăsește textul de care se prevalau pârâții, nu are incidență în cauză, având în vedere data promovării acțiunii și opțiunea reclamantei, de a continua judecata în condițiile dreptului comun, aspecte ce relevă caracterul contradictoriu al considerentelor hotărârii atacate, fiind astfel incidente dispozițiile art. 304 pct. 7 C.pr.civ.