The relationship between the constitutional norms and the European Union law is interpreted differently, as there are several doctrinal conceptions and different case law solutions. A trend of thought affirms the supremacy of the Constitution, including over the European Union law, even though it accepts the priority of application of the latter, in its binding rules, over all the other rules of domestic law, and other trend affirms the priority of the unconditional application of all the provisions of the European Union law over all the norms of the domestic law, including over the constitutional norms. There are European constitutional jurisdictions which have established that they have the competence to conduct the control over the constitutionality of the European Union law, integrated into the domestic legal order, by virtue of the principle of supremacy of the Basic Law. In this study we analyze the interferences between the principle of priority of the European Union law and the principle of supremacy of the Constitution with reference to the doctrine and the relevant case law in the matter. Key words: principle of priority of the European Union law; principle of supremacy of the Constitution; obligativity of the legal norms of the European Union; control of the constitutionality of the legal acts of the European Union integrated into the domestic law; compliance of the domestic law with the European Union law.

The dilemma on the bicameralism or unicameralism of the EC/EU legislator has existed for a long time. Not a few times, given the name of Parliament, operating with relative similarities regarding the states as subjects of international law, it was considered that it was and remained the legislature of the EC/EU. Over time, primary law and practice were likely to clarify things. Thus, at the beginnings of the Community construction, the Council acted as genuine supreme legislator, which had been gradually joined, as an institution of political control, consultation, cooperation and co-decision, by the European Parliament, so that currently the two institutions are equally involved in the legislative process of a two-chamber system.

The authors present another opinion on the subject regulated by Article 132 of the Law No 78/2000, arguing that it constitutes a special legal aggravating circumstance for the offences of abuse of office and usurpation of the function provided by Article 297 and Article 300 of the Criminal Code. In the current regulation the abuse of office provided by Article 297 of the Criminal Code by reference to Article 132 of the Law No 78/2000 is not a criminal offence assimilated to corruption offences and, consequently, may not fall within the competence of the NAD unless the damage caused exceeds the ROL equivalent of one million euros. Drawing attention to the fact that the provisions of Article 132 of the Law No 78/2000 are not precise, predictable, they bring arguments in support of the thesis of the susceptibility of unconstitutionality thereof.

The question of law to which the present paper intends to provide an answer concerns the processual remedy whereby it is intended to put an end to the effects of a precautionary measure taken by the prosecutor in the course of the criminal prosecution, in the particular assumption that, in the course of enforcement of the criminal judgment, the prejudice caused by committing the offence is recovered otherwise than by the realisation of assets subject to that measure. From the legal regulation of the matter of precautionary measures in the criminal trial it follows that there are three processual remedies whereby it is intended to put an end to the effects of a precautionary measure, in general: the contestation against the act of taking the precautionary measure, the contestation against the manner of carrying out the precautionary measure, the application for lifting the precautionary measure. Among these, the application for lifting the precautionary measure is the processual remedy specific for the assumption which we are analysing. The former defendant must file an application having as object to lift the precautionary measure, legally grounded on Article 957 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code. It will be addressed to the civil court and will be solved according to the procedure provided by the legislative text to which we referred. The civil court is the one that will verify the fulfilment of the condition that the debtor (the former defendant) gives an satisfactory guarantee.

In this article the author intends to debate, from the perspective of the constitutional texts, developed in the Law No 303/2004, the complex problems of the status of prosecutors, especially since the legal nature of the Public Ministry is not definitively clarified, the legal texts, including the norms written down in the new Criminal Procedure Code, failing to configure the position of the prosecutor’s offices between the executive power and the judicial power. If, from the point of view of the constitutional role, the prosecutor is closer to the Executive (he permanently defends the general interests of society, the rule of law, as well as citizens’ rights and freedoms), from the point of view of the involvement of prosecutors in the activity of administration of justice of the courts of law, they share similarities with the judicial power, without being, however, part of it. From this perspective, the author analyzes, among others, the constitutional grounds of the status of prosecutors and their independence, shows why the prosecutors can not benefit from irremovability, presents the content and character of the authority of the minister of justice over the prosecutors, as well as the issue of incompatibility of the members of the Public Ministry.

This paper proposes an approach of the evolution in time of the Paulian action, from the origins to the current regulation. Underlining the historical reference points of this action contributes to a better understanding of the current form of legal regulation, which knows changes of substance as compared to the one we find in the Roman law.

In this study we intend to make an analysis of the contestation to the insolvency condition, namely the processual means that may be used by the debtor against whom an application for opening the insolvency procedure has been filed. In the light of a rich judicial practice in this area, we consider it appropriate to compare the legal provisions found in Article 72 of the Law No 85/2014, as amended and supplemented, with the jurisprudential interpretations, in order to better understand this means of defence made available to the debtor by the legislator. Thus, we will observe the nature and the conditions in which the debtor’s right to contestation may be exercised, the reasons which can be invoked and the evidence that he can use to demonstrate the lawfulness of his contestation, as well as the legal effects and consequences determined by this procedure.

In the absence of technical basis, the two criticized normative acts, through the refusal of the legislature to consider the reactions of all actors involved and relevant institutions, the legislature has transformed the principles of law and rules of law into abstract and worthless rules that can be violated at any time. The intervention of the Constitutional Court through its two decisions (Decision No 623/2016 and Decision No 62/2017) restored legal order, which was seriously violated by these acts.

The civil liability of judges and prosecutors for damages caused by torts related to their professional duties is a subject of actuality much debated by legal professionals, the media and the civil society as a whole. Problems such as judicial errors, arrest followed by exculpatory decisions, controls and other forms of discriminatory police abuse performed sometimes at the request of prosecutors are just some of the examples observed by many contemporary societies as dangers for the human rights and liberties. The constitutions, laws and case law provide for answers to the questions in connection with the tort liability of judges and prosecutors. Latest, it becomes visible worldwide a certain way of thinking which advocates for more restrictive rules regarding the subject. This phenomenon is noticeable not only in Romania but also in other countries, such as the United States and France. The paper proposes a synthesis of the constitutional, legal framework and case law in the United States of America, with a special focus on the Supreme Court of Justice cases regarding the civil liability of judges and prosecutors. Since the notions of absolute immunity and qualified immunity in this context are quite unknown to the Romanian legal readers, this paper should add some value to their knowledge of the way of thinking the relation between independence versus accountability of the judiciary specific to the legal traditions of the U.S. From the perspective of the U.S. case law, the paper presents some of the most relevant cases of the Supreme Court of Justice such as: Stump v. Sparkman, Griffith v. Slinkard, Yaselli v. Goff, Imbler v. Pachtman, Burns v. Reed and Buckley v. Fitzsimmons. Although quite old some of them, the majority of the conclusions resulted from this case law are still valid today, with nuances, mainly in the area of the qualified immunity for prosecutors.

This study deals from a theoretical point of view with the offence of conflict of interests in the light of its new regulation by the provisions of Article 301 of the Criminal Code. It also has in view some decisions of the Constitutional Court and of the High Court of Cassation and Justice which bring clarifications and simultaneously place on a constitutional path the legal text mentioned above. Within the paper it is also made a comparative analysis between the criminal incrimination of the conflict of interests and other provisions covering administrative aspects of this notion.

In this article the author intends to present from a constitutional perspective the legal nature of the institution of the Public Ministry, as it was configured in the texts of the Basic Law and analyzed in the specialized doctrine. There are analyzed, in detail, the place and the constitutional role of the Public Ministry as institutional structure of the judicial authority, as well as the role and attributions of the prosecutors’ offices in conducting the criminal investigation.

This study aims to both emphasize the specificity of employment law amidst other fields of law from Romania and also contribute to the promotion and support the thesis of its autonomy. The formula of conception and drafting of the paper privileged the development of a concrete and detailed analysis over the studies of several authors, regarding the question whether certain legal institutions, characterizing employment law, can be construed and applied in light of the contractualism principle, specific to civil law. Essentially, we argued that certain rights, belonging to workers, i.e. the rights regulated under the law and applicable collective labour agreements, are not negotiable in light of Article 38 of the Labour Code. In addition, we argued that the dismissal legal regime is imperative, thus forming part of „the public social order”, as French scholars define this concept. Consequently, this qualification impedes, from a legal standpoint, all waiver in relation to the employers’ obligations of invoking and proving the existence of a legal and valid dismissal ground.

At the beginning of this study, the author makes an exposition of the economic and contractual environment whose needs have determined the necessity of recognition by the legal doctrine and by the case law and then the legislative consecration of the existence of a general obligation of pre-contractual information as duty of the participants in the civil circuit. The legal basis for this obligation has been found and discovered, by way of interpretation, in the texts of the Civil Code that establish the principle of good faith in the negotiation, conclusion and execution of contracts. The author also points out that there are numerous provisions mostly in the legislation connected to the Civil Code, which pertains to the consumption law, where there are regulated specifically and in detail various obligations of pre-contractual information, in the matter of contracts concluded between professionals and consumers. In this context, it is also established the existence in the special legislation of what the legal doctrine calls „informative formalism”, which means that upon the conclusion of some contracts, where the law expressly provides so, the information which the professionals are required to provide to the contractual partners must take a certain form, which most often is the written form; the failure to comply with the requirements of informative formalism can lead to various sanctions, some of them administrative or contraventional and others of private law. The study concludes with an overview on the private law sanctions which can intervene in case of failure to perform or of the improper performance of the general obligation of pre-contractual information.

In this article, the author considers that the option of the legislator for the monistic system regulating the private law relations, adopted by the new Civil Code, following which the commercial relations have become civil legal relations, is an error. It is further submitted for analysis the proposal to repeal, within the normative acts implementing the Civil Code, the provisions by which the names specific to the commercial law have been replaced by names specific to the civil law.

The Law No 136/1995 on insurance and reinsurance in Romania did not expressly mention that the insurer acquires a right of regress against the person responsible for causing the prejudice, but only that the former is subrogated in all rights of the insured or of the beneficiary of the insurance. The wording has generated some different interpretations in practice as regards the action of the insurer to the reparation of the prejudice, this being classified either as special action, founded on the civil tort liability, or as action of common law, based on the civil contractual liability. These interpretations have led to the express regulation of the action for regress within Article 31 (6) of the Government Emergency Ordinance No 54/2016 concerning the compulsory motor vehicle insurance for civil liability for the prejudices caused to third parties by vehicle and tram accidents, which has repealed the Law No 136/1995, but which does not have a law for adoption yet.

Scurte observații privind istoricul cauzei. La data de 15 iulie 2013, Comitetul cetățenilor constituit pentru promovarea inițiativei cetățenești (în continuare Organizatorii) a prezentat Comisiei Europene propunerea de inițiativă cetățenească europeană1 (în continuare ICE), intitulată „Minority SafePack – one million signatures for diversity in Europe”, ce avea ca obiect invitarea Comisiei de a adopta acte la nivelul UE (regulamente, directive, decizii individuale, recomandări), având drept scop „îmbunătățirea protejării drepturilor persoanelor

The study deals with the manner in which the provisions of Article 227 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code should be interpreted. It emphasizes that, although it should have been a relatively easy activity, by reference to the historical perspective, to the evolution of the texts which regulated this matter over time and to the rules set by the ECHR case law with reference to the preventive deprivation of liberty, reality proved that the judicial practice had encountered serious difficulties in interpreting and applying the provisions in question, with important repercussions also on other institutions in relation to the preventive measures. This doctrinal approach intends to analyze the different interpretations of Article 227 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and to propose a thoroughly reasoned manner of interpretation and application.

This study deals with aspects related to the procedure of recourse in cassation, which involves two stages: the admissibility in principle, which plays the role of a filter of recourses in cassation, and the examination of the recourse in cassation after the admission in principle. There are presented the effects of the recourse and the solutions that can be given for its settlement, underlining their lack of correlation with the cases of recourse in cassation, where appropriate, in the light of the decisions of the High Court of Cassation and Justice. Likewise, the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the legislative amendments operated so far concerning the trial procedure of the recourse in cassation will be considered.