The crime committed with two forms of guilt, as a form of the legal unit of the crime, has given rise over the time to different controversial debates due to its mixed structure. A special place is held by the possibility of the secondary party’s existence, this possibility being accepted by most of the authors, as well as unanimously in the judicial practice. The authors of this paper developed for the first time three conditions of the secondary party’s existence to the crimes committed with two forms of guilt for retaining this form of participation easily in the future judicial practice. The non-fulfillment of any of the described conditions produces different legal consequences for the participants; however, the detention of the secondary party to the crime committed with two forms of guilt shall be excluded.

Audit services is based on two premises: (i) companies must be able to choose their auditors according to their needs and at a reasonable cost and (ii) investors must be able to rely on an independent audit opinion based on an audit of high quality before investing in a company. It is in the public interest to ensure a sustainable audit function and, consequently, a competitive market for audit firms. Usually, a person invests in a company only once, in advance, has analyzed an audit report relating to the financial condition of that company. If, then, there is a failure of the enterprise (such as eg bankruptcy) that has earlier cases and unidentified audited by the auditor in place its civil liability issue. The question is to set a limit on the civil liability of auditors so that, on the one hand, to ensure fair compensation to those injured (investors), and on the other hand, auditors to take such risks reasonably.

In the regulations of the new Criminal Code, the legislator has not opted for a limited criminal liability of the legal entity, but for a general liability which may result because of the commitment of any criminal offence. Except the state, the public authorities and the public institutions which carry on any activities not representing the subject matter of the private field, the other legal entities may hold the capacity of active subject, no matter the nature and the seriousness of the committed criminal offence. The criminal liability shall be laid upon the legal entity only when the respective entity having a position of management, provision, decision etc. commits the deed set forth by the criminal law in carrying out the business line or in the interest or on behalf of the legal entity. In case of committing a deed set forth by the criminal law, both the criminal liability of the legal entity and of the natural person who contributed to its commitment or only of one of these two categories of persons.

The paper proposes to examine, based upon a comparison, the system of the appeal for annulment and of the motion for revision, according to the new Code of Civil Procedure and to the prior regulation, in the light of the principle of the right to a fair trial in due and foreseeable time. Considering the nature of the appeal for annulment and the motion for revision of the extraordinary remedies, also the principle of the legal relationships security is emphasized, which requires that the final and irrevocable court orders could not be put up for discussion, except in the presence of certain “fundamental flaws”, set forth by law expressly and in a restrictive manner. The paper describes the amendments and the supplements brought by the new Code of Civil Procedure and in so far as they meet the needs of the issues which received several interpretations in the practice under the regulation of the Code of Civil Procedure of the year 1865, such as the period for the exercise of the appeal for annulment or, on the contrary, they may generate a non-unitary practice, such as the obligation to assist/represent by a lawyer in the matter of the means of appeal related to the withdrawal.

This paper makes a detailed examination of certain essential provisions in relation to the preparation of the contract. The examination is focused especially on the novelty issues entered by the Law no. 287 of 17 July 2009 on the Civil Code which repealed the Civil Code of 1864 into force until 30 September 2011. The author proposed an examination based upon rigor and objectivity in his attempt to understand the true meaning of the provisions of the new regulations. To this end, the doctrine and the case law in the matter are taken into consideration, and especially the solutions for each issue under discussion are filtered by the domestic and external case law. Likewise, references are made to the legislations of other states, which represent sources of inspiration for the editors of the new Civil Code, for the purpose of understanding accurately the provisions related to the conclusion of the contract. At the same time, certain debates of the doctrine and case law are briefly examined as regards the interpretation given to certain provisions introduced in the new Civil Code and, as the case may be, a critical analysis is carried out as well, in relation to these issues.

Prin decizia Curții Constituționale nr. 190/2008, publicatã în „Monitorul oficial al României”, partea I, nr. 213/2008, dispozițiile art. 362 alin. (1) lit. a) teza a II-a C.pr.pen. – potrivit cãrora „apelul procurorului în ce privește latura civilã este inadmisibil în lipsa apelului formulat de partea civilã, cu excepția cazurilor în care acțiunea civilã se exercitã din oficiu” – au fost declarate constituționale. În consecințã, apelul declarat numai de procuror cu privire la latura civilã este admisibil, inclusiv în cazul în care motivele de apel referitoare la latura civilã au fost formulate oral în ziua judecãții, potrivit dispozițiilor art. 374 C.pr.pen. (Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, Secția penalã, decizia nr. 2755 din 11 septembrie 2012).

In a period of significant turmoil in the judicial system, both at the institutional and at the conceptual level, marked by severe controversy rather than by the unity of opinion, re-discussing the constitutional positioning of the Prosecutor has become a common theme. Hierarchy is interpreted as a by-product of the political influence, and independence as a form of undermining the unity of action. The study seeks to demonstrate that the principles of subordination and independence are consistent with the organisation and functioning of the Public Ministry system and that these are not antithetical, but antinomical principles. Their concurrent operation is a dominant trait in other judicial systems in European countries.

The central part of this study is dedicated to the comparative review of the provisions in Title I (“The Criminal Law and the limits of its scope”) of the Criminal Code in 2009 as compared with the provisions of Title I (“The Criminal Law and its scope limitations”) of the Criminal Code in 1969, the author highlighting both the merits and the shortfalls of the new Criminal Code, explanations accompanied by numerous examples, own ideas and suggestions to improve the texts under review. These explanations are accompanied by a thorough analysis of the provisions relating to the implementation in time of the criminal law, referred to in Title I of Law No. 187/2012 for implementing Law No. 289/2009 on the Criminal Code. In a final section, the author puts forth his own findings learned in connection with the matter investigated to which are added, in a synthetic form, the main proposals de lege ferenda aiming to improve the new criminal legislation.

In the study hereunder, the author makes some considerations regarding the patrimonial liability of public law legal entities for their offence of issuing injurious administrative instruments. In this regard, it is concluded that the identification of public law legal entities is essential, since only these may be liable against the prejudiced creditor, the public authorities issuing the injurious administrative instrument lacking legal personality cannot being patrimonialy held liable against the prejudiced person. As for the legal nature of liability, this is a special subjective liability (if the administrative instrument is illegal) and, respectively, unbiased liability, if the instrument causing prejudices was issued through an illegal administrative instrument.

The choice made by the Romanian pouvoir constituant in 1991 in favour of the European model of constitutional review does not seem to have been followed by legal terminology. Most probably in order not to break with a tradition that still enjoys good reputation among legal scholars and practitioners, the label of „exception of unconstitutionality” has been preferred to the one of „preliminary reference”. This apparently minor semantic detail managed to have a lasting impact on the admissibility of this procedure to the point where the very legal institution has been completely transfigured: from a preliminary question it has become a defensive procedural tool.

Legal issues of the contribution of spouses’ joint property to company’s establishment, the legal regime of shares acquired as consideration for this contribution, as well as the impact of the (Romanian) Family Code (effective during the period February 1st, 1954 - September 30th, 2011) and the Companies’ Law No. 31/1990 generated lots of controversy in the Romanian doctrine and jurisprudence between 1990 and 2011. With the enactment of the new Civil Code (Law No. 133/2009, republished, effective since October 1st, 2011) some of these controversies have been fully clarified. However, a good portion of them still exist today, generating further such debates and controversies. Such being the case, through this extensive study, the author examines, globally, the current legal regime of spouses’ joint property upon its impact with the Law No. 31/1990, examining, therefore, a series of questionable and controversial issues arising from the interference of legal regulations on the spouses’ joint property in light of the Romanian new Civil Code with the provisions of the Companies’ Law No. 31/1990, ultimately advancing several de lege ferenda proposals, for the settlement of all controversies arising from the impact of the two laws in question (the new Civil Code and Law No. 31/1990).

The author explores, in the study hereunder, an unusual provision in the matter of arbitration proceedings and that relate, essentially, to putting forth arbitration awards which ascertain or establish real rights to courts or the notary public. This provision was reintroduced in the new Code of Civil Procedure and is aimed at obtaining a court order or an authentic notarial instrument. The aforesaid regulation is criticized by the author, grounded by the fact that it flagrantly transgresses the procedural provisions that assign to the arbitration award the same effects as a court order, it being at the same time mandatory. Additionally, the author notes the theoretical and practical difficulties arising from the procedural rules under review. In the author’s view, such a regulation tends to turn the notary public into a jurisdictional authority. The author concludes that a more rational regulation would be to exempt actions relating to real rights from the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.