Unpaid community work has received multiple valences in the Romanian criminal law system, representing either an obligation in the content of the probation measures or a way of executing the penalty of the fine or an obligation that accompanies the abandonment of the criminal prosecution. The complexity of the institution, together with its novelty, has generated a series of difficulties including in respect of the performance of the unpaid community work, this article emphasizing some of these difficulties and proposing solutions for their removal.

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.

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.

Paulian action represents, alongside oblique action and direct action, one of the most important means of protecting creditors in general. However, unlike direct actions, this legal mechanism provides general protection to all creditors, not just a few that are mentioned by the law. Against this backdrop, in the light of economic development and the many contracts concluded lately, especially in recent years, the knowledge of rights and the means of creditor protection should be of interest to all creditors. Unfortunately, although the paulian action is expressly provided for by law, creditors rarely resort to this legal mechanism to ensure the protection of their own claims. This reluctance is likely to arise from the fear of a long and cumbersome move to promote a litigation in the form of a paulian action. From this point of view, we hope that the present study will provide practitioners, theorists, and creditors with detailed information about this legal mechanism, to encourage the promotion of a paulian action whenever borrowers act against patrimony in order to avoid enforcement.

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.

The modality of enforcement through garnishment involves the existence of a legal relationship, in which the pursued debtor has the quality of creditor, and the garnishee has the quality of debtor, a legal relationship used by the pursuing creditor in order to realize the claim from the writ of execution. The garnishment knows two phases, the one of establishment and the one of validation, the second one intervening only if the garnishee fails to fulfil its obligations as a result of communicating the address for establishment of garnishment. The application for validation of the garnishment is a veritable application for summons, its finality being to obtain a writ of execution by the executing creditor against the garnishee. The study examines the defences which the garnishee can invoke in the court of validation, having regard to the legislative solution provided by the current Civil Procedure Code, according to which a garnishee is forbidden to file a contestation to the enforcement against the acts establishing the garnishment, the latter being able to use his defences only before the court of validation [Article 787 (5) of the Civil Procedure Code]. Therefore, the processual means of invoking the defences before the court of validation are analyzed, being questioned the admissibility of the garnishee’s filing of a counter claim aiming at the cancellation of the juridical act from which the relationship between him and the debtor arose. The defences of the garnishee are analyzed starting with the distinction between defences on the merits and the processual and procedural ones, in relation to the possibility conferred to the third party to invoke against the creditor all the pleas and defences that he may oppose to the debtor, to the extent that they are prior to the establishment of garnishment [Article 790 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code].

Cloud Computing is one of the most innovative technologies in the history of computing. It is radically changing the way how information technology services are created, delivered, accessed and managed. Cloud Computing enables the same services and user content to be delivered to any user device, whether a mobile phone, desktop or tablet computer. Cloud technology involves data storage at multiple data centers in different geographic locations. The evolution of computer technology is strongly related with the cybercrime phenomenon. Over the last decade, the number of crimes that involve computers and Internet has grown constantly. Criminal organizations try to be as efficient as possible and in order to make investigations difficult they are storing criminal data in foreign servers or in Cloud storage systems, and use cryptography and other data obfuscation techniques that hide their illicit activity. Cloud Computing offers criminals accessible means for committing cybercrime. In much the same way as cybercrime may be understood as a new way of committing traditional crimes such as fraud and theft, Cloud Computing presents criminals with new tools with which to commit these offences and many more. Researching this environment is a key element in understanding the new and more complex forms of cybercrime that occur today.

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 stages of the civil trial are: (i) the stage of referral to the court of law (written or initiating the civil trial), (ii) the stage of inquiry of the trial, (iii) the stage of debate on the merits of the trial, (iv) the stage of deliberation and (v) the stage of delivery. The accomplishment of the act of justice in civil matters is materialized through court sittings (which may be public, or in which only the parties participate, or not public, in the cases provided by law) and internal administrative stages carried out by the panel of judges (such as the checking and regularisation of the application). Publicity is a fundamental principle of the civil trial stated by the provisions of Article 17 of the Civil Procedure Code and by Article 12 of the Law No 304/2004, republished. The failure to ensure the publicity of the court sitting brings about the sanction of absolute nullity not conditioned by the existence of an injury under Article 174 (2) by reference to Article 176 point 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. The delivery of the judgment shall usually take place in public sitting, according to Article 402 of the Civil Procedure Code, or, as an exception, by making the solution available to the parties through the mediation of the registry office, pursuant to Article 396 (2) of the same Code, in the assumption that the delivery was postponed (premise condition) for justified reasons and the chairman of the panel has indicated expressis verbis this modality of putting the solution at the disposal of the parties. The delivery of the judgment, as the last processual stage, according to the Civil Procedure Code, can not take place otherwise than by means of a public court sitting, according to the principle of publicity, to which the chairman or a member of the panel of judges read the minutes, also indicating the means of appeal which can be exercised. The fact that the parties understand or not to make use of their right to appear in court (as in the case of other processual stages) does not in any way affect the obligation of the panel of judges to comply with the express provisions of the law in respect of the processual stage of delivery, since there is no such distinction in the law, and ubi lex non distinguit nec non distinguere debemus. In addition, the completion of this final stage of the civil trial is necessary for the parties to make use of their right to formulate orally the means of appeal provided by law, according to Article 126 of the Internal rules of the courts of law of 2015, concluding in this respect a minutes signed by the president of the panel and by the registrar of the sitting.

The application of ancillary intervention submitted in favour of the authority that has issued the individual administrative act is admissible in the actions in administrative disputes having as object the suspension of this type of acts, to the extent to which the third party intervening in a trial between the original parties is able to prove the practical benefit which he obtains as a consequence of pronouncing a solution favourable to the party in whose favour it intervenes. The necessity to prove that the condition of imminent damage is fulfilled by the applicant who considers himself injured, by the individual administrative act whose suspension is requested, does not confer this action a personal nature, in such a way as to be incompatible with the institution of ancillary intervention.

The most controversial aspect in the criminal judicial practice, in the situation of invoking the plea of relative nullity of a criminal processual act, is to prove the existence of a processual injury and, related thereto, to prove the sufficient seriousness of the injury caused to the party or to the main processual subject which justifies the cancellation of the act. Most of the times, the party or the subject that invokes the nullity is put in the extremely difficult position to persuade the judicial body that processual injury is sufficiently serious to justify the drastic sanction of nullity. That is why we have considered that it is required a thorough assessment with regard to the standard of probation of injury, of proving the sufficient seriousness of the injury suffered in order to bring about the sanction of nullity. The conclusion we have reached is that the processual injury suffered is sufficient to bring about the sanction of nullity when the violation of the processual rights or guarantees of the parties or of the subjects puts them in the position to no longer be able to defend themselves with the same chance they would have defended themselves if their processual rights had not been infringed.

Înscrierile în cartea funciară nu au caracter constitutiv/translativ, ci numai efecte de opozabilitate față de terți (art. 25 din Legea nr. 7/1996 arată că „înscrierile în cartea funciară își vor produce efecte de opozabilitate față de terți...”). Astfel, această lege asigură publicitatea imobilului și nu are efecte constitutive/translative ale dreptului de proprietate. (...)