The increase of the volume of regulations influences the activity of the companies and of the administrators, implying the risk of the latter being liable to the company for legally non-compliant business decisions. Part I of the study examines the legal regime of the obligation of the administrators to comply with the law and the implications of intentionally making business decisions contrary to the law. The conclusion is that the obligation to comply with the law can be seen as an independent obligation or explained through the doctrine ultra vires, but it can also be associated to the obligations of loyalty, good faith and diligence. Part II of the study analyzes whether there are potential exceptions that may justify the making of some legally non-compliant decisions and whether the liability of the administrators could be excluded or limited in certain situations. In principle, the making of profit, the attainment of other interests for the company or the ratification of the decision by the shareholders are not able to justify and exclude the liability of the administrators for making decisions contrary to the law. These decisions also exclude the application of some guarantees against liability, such as business judgment rule, the liability clauses and liability insurance. However, the social, economic and technological transformations accompanied by the inefficient legislation and by the phenomenon of regulatory entrepreneurship can provide sufficiently convincing arguments to change the paradigm in respect of the obligation of compliance. Although the proposed problems and solutions seem obvious, the study raises for discussion some aspects not addressed in the local doctrine, but which do not lack theoretical and practical importance.

By this study we aimed to proceed to a configuration of the notion of „criminal case”, used by the legislator in Article 29 (1) i) of the Government Emergency Ordinance No 80/2013 on the judicial stamp duties, taking into account in our approach in a correlated way, on the one hand, the case law of the Constitutional Court, of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and of the other courts of law, on the other hand, the doctrinal considerations on the mentioned article, and of the institutions with which the notion necessarily interacts. The approached topic has an inter-institutional nature, because it is necessary, for its correct approach, to resort to legal institutions dealt with by the criminal procedural law (the criminal action, the solutions pronounced in a criminal file, the subjects of the criminal proceedings, etc.), but, of course, the civil procedural law (the civil action, the establishment of judicial stamp duties, the cause of the application for summons, etc.). We consider that the present article presents first of all a practical interest, because, in the activity of the courts of law, the interpretation of Article 29 (1) i) of the Government Emergency Ordinance No 80/2013 is divergent and non-unitary, due to an acute lack of terminological unity, and this deficiency can be reflected in an impairment of the quality of the act of justice and, further, in a decrease of the citizen’s trust in justice. The article is structured in two essential parts, the first with a general character that includes the sections „Introductory Considerations”, „Arising the questioning” and „Interpretation Tools”, and the second with a special, applied character, that includes the sections „The situation in which the civil action is exercised separately before the civil court after the criminal file has been solved in the criminal investigation phase by a solution of dismissal or abandonment of the criminal prosecution”, „The situation in which the civil action is exercised separately before the civil court without having ordered a solution within the criminal file” and Conclusions”. It should be emphasized that, in order to formulate the answer to the approached subject, our thought was oriented, first of all, to those for whom the act of justice is done – the citizens –, proposing solutions that in our vision correspond to some requirements of fairness and equality before the law. Likewise the topic subject to discussion was not approached in an exhaustive way, being only the starting point in the debates on this topic that are taking place and, of course, that will further take place. We have tried to prove that there is a „criminal case”, within the meaning of the mentioned text, only when the basis of legal actions, be they civil or criminal, is a deed provided by the criminal law (essence condition) for which the initiation of the criminal action was ordered (condition of nature). Finally, we consider that the variant of the proposed interpretation will also have the effect of discouraging processual or abusive conduct, reflected in the purely formal notification of the criminal prosecution bodies only in order to benefit from an exemption from the payment of the judicial stamp duties before civil courts, which thus diverts the analyzed legal provision from the purpose considered by the legislator at the time of its enactment.

After a summary examination of the mechanisms that develop the unilateral and conventional resolution, the author finds that the specific formalism established by the Civil Code for achieving the objectives of the pacts agreed by the parties is – in some situations – difficult to fulfil, in the context in which the partners do not know or cannot rigorously follow the steps required by the delay procedure. The uncertainties that the mechanism can produce in special conditions are observed and, then, practical solutions are suggested, starting from the premise – generally accepted – that the commission pact is itself a subsequent and accessory convention to the fundamental contract.

Potrivit art. 335 alin. (1) C.pr.pen., dacă procurorul ierarhic superior celui care a dispus soluția constată, ulterior, că nu a existat împrejurarea pe care se întemeia clasarea, infirmă ordonanța și dispune redeschiderea urmăririi penale. Dispozițiile art. 317 se aplică în mod corespunzător. Conform art. 280 alin. (2) C.pr.pen., actele îndeplinite ulterior actului care a fost declarat nul sunt la rândul lor lovite de nulitate, atunci când există o legătură directă între acestea și actul declarat nul. Articolul 346 alin. (3) lit. a) C.pr.pen. prevede că judecătorul de cameră preliminară restituie cauza la parchet dacă rechizitoriul este neregulamentar întocmit, iar neregularitatea nu a fost remediată de procuror în termenul prevăzut la art. 345 alin. (3), dacă neregularitatea atrage imposibilitatea stabilirii obiectului sau limitelor judecății (cu notă aprobativă).

Cauza nr. 2205/16, Keskin c. Olandei. Hotărârea din data de 19 ianuarie 2021 Cauza privește imposibilitatea reclamantului de a interoga, în calitate de acuzat într-un dosar privind infracțiunea de înșelăciune, martorii ale căror declarații, consemnate într-un raport al poliției, au fost utilizate ca probe pentru condamnarea sa.

The present study aims to present to the general public information about the reform process of the European Court of Human Rights, in general, and about the entry into force of Protocol No 15 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in particular. Given the very large number of applications submitted for settlement to the Strasbourg Court, over time an attempt has been made to outline a process of reform of this international jurisdiction, including short, medium and long-term measures. Thus, although opened for signature by the High Contracting Parties on 24 June 2013, Protocol No 15 entered into force recently, on 1 August 2021,following the deposit by Italy of the instrument of ratification of the Protocol. We intend to analyze in this study what are the important amendments brought to the Convention by this protocol of amendment, meant to ensure the effectiveness of the European Court of Human Rights. We consider that the dissemination of the provisions of Protocol No 15 to the Convention will help the interested parties to become aware of the latest amendments to the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in particular to the provisions regarding the reduction of the time limit for bringing the matter before the Court.