This article emphasizes the specific elements of the repurchase agreement as regulated in the new Civil Code. In order to achieve this goal, the author first engages in a general characterization of the type of contract under examination, in the light of specific elements concerning the contracting parties, the object of contract and the time of fulfilment of some obligations undertaken by the parties. The study further defines the concepts „repurchase” and „reverse repurchase” and delimits the repurchase agreement from other types of similar contracts, thus configuring more clearly the analyzed convention. Another specific element of the contract under scrutinity is its sui-generis legal nature, which the author explains since there isn’t an unanimous opinion on this issue in the doctrine. At the same time, the specificity of the repurchase agreement is emphasized by dealing with its main effects: the double transfer of property, the transfer of ancillary rights, the obligation of the buyer to exercise the option, as well as the obligations of the seller to make available to the buyer the funds necessary for exercising the right of option and for making the payments. Last but not least, the specificity of this type of contract is also revealed by reflecting the differences among the liquidation, the prorogation and the renewal of the convention under debate. The study presents the points of view expressed in the specialised literature on the studied matter, as well as the author’s opinions on the controversial legal issues in the reference space.

The new Criminal Code of Romania brings numerous novelties within the scope of incrimination in the Romanian criminal law and, as compared to the previous regulation, it provides, in the text of Article 276, the sanctioning of the deed of a person who, during ongoing judicial proceedings, makes false public statements concerning the commission, by the judge or by the criminal prosecution authorities, of an offence or a serious disciplinary misconduct related to the processing of that case, in order to influence or intimidate such authorities.

1. Principiul nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. Reguli generale. Drepturile fundamentale fac parte integrantã din principiile generale de drept a cãror respectare este asiguratã de cãtre instanțele europene în cauzele de concurențã, ținând cont în special de Convenția (europeanã) pentru apãrarea drepturilor omului și a libertãților fundamentale (în continuare denumitã Convenția) ca sursã de inspirație.

Meeting the practical needs and views expressed in recent doctrine of constitutional law, amendments to the Code of criminal procedure under Law no. 177/2010 stand for an important step in streamlining the justice process in Romania and its harmonization with EU standards. In this article, the authors review amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure under Law no. 177/2010, in terms of effects arising from repeal of paragraph 6 of Art. 303 C. Cr. Pr., wording stipulating mandatory suspension of trial proceedings in the case of referral to the Constitutional Court to settle the constitutional challenge. Simultaneously, in this article there are also set forth and considered issues of novelty arising from the introduction within the two procedure codes of a new review case, aiming at restoring legality, just for the cases where the final decision in a case was grounded upon a statutory provision subsequently deemed unconstitutional.

In 2010, considering the deadline for the entry into force of new procedure codes, there arose the need to establish procedural rules with immediate effect, under way for the implementation of codes and consistent with legislative solutions established thereupon, so as to smooth efficient enforcement of court proceedings and expedient settlement of cases. The Law regarding some measures aiming at the celerity of cases’ settlement no. 202/2010 frames a series of specific legislative measures, mainly pointing to simplify and increase the celerity of cases’ settlement, with direct impact on the execution of judgments, as well. In the study hereby, the authors analyze, from an applied perspective mainly, amendments and completions to the Code of Criminal Procedure under Law no. 202/2010 on the celerity of cases’ settlement. As regards the general part domain of the Criminal Procedure Code, there have been highlighted a series of situations, resulting from the introduction of the mediation agreement as basis for settling the criminal or the civil case, from the rethinking of the material competence of courts or from express regulation of specific cases on conflict of jurisdiction arisen during the criminal prosecution. Other comments concern completions brought in the field of evidence management, application of the institution of preventive measures’ cessation by right, or relating to enforcement of peremptory writ of mandate, payment of court fees and court fines. As a general observation, since legal provisions under review are at the beginning of their application, and the subject covered is very wide ranging, the work developed by the two authors could not set its purpose neither on their exhaustive analysis, nor on the issue, in all cases, of conclusions claimed as legal certainty, but rather attempted to bring to the attention of practitioners working hypotheses, problems that may arise and their possible solutions.