At the same time with the entry into force of the Law No 286/2009 on the Criminal Code, the regime of judicial individualization of criminal sanctions has undergone significant changes both by introducing some new institutions, such as postponement of application of punishment, and by a different regulation of some old institutions, such as the suspension under supervision of execution of punishment. The author analyzes comparatively the two above-mentioned institutions of law, as well as by correlation with other provisions of the criminal law, in order to highlight their defining particularities, required to be known for a better judicial individualization of punishment.

Over time, the abuse of right has been interpreted in various ways: while the advocates of absolute rights have interpreted it literally, namely as the almightiness of individual rights, the advocates of relative rights claim that the rights of one person end where the rights of another person start, so that the person excessively using its own right commits an abuse of right. As regards the explanation of its punishment, the classical theory assimilates it to tort liability, based on the moral censorship of conduct. Meanwhile, more and more of its hypotheses have become detached from fault. The new Romanian Civil Code accepts these trends partially, still remaining the prisoner of fault, as a basis for civil liability. The above-mentioned study intends to examine in a critical manner the legal solutions provided by the new regulation, trying to explain the punishment of the abuse of right on other ideas than the requirement to punish the guilty conduct of the holder.

The author points out that article 77 of the new Criminal Code reassessed the circumstances having the ability to emphasize a high degree of social danger of the committed offence and of the offender. Thus, the scope of the circumstance relates to the perpetration of the offence by a person being in a preordinate intoxicated condition which may be generated besides the alcohol, by other psychoactive substances, whose consumption represents a breach of a legal or medical interdiction. The aggravation of the criminal liability has been waived in case the offence is committed for infamous reasons, as the content of this circumstance has never been precisely determined by the doctrine and jurisprudence. A new aggravating circumstance has been introduced consisting in the perpetration of the offence by taking advantage of the obvious vulnerable condition of the injured person due to his/her age, health condition, disability of due to some other grounds, as such a circumstance emphasizes a high level of gravity of the offence, but also a degree of increased injuriousness of the offender. Another novelty item is represented by the waiver to the category of judicial aggravating circumstances, because the imprecise manner in which they are regulated would be situated at the edge limit of the principle of the predictable nature of law.

After the adoption and the entry into force of the Law on the administrative disputes No 554/2004, subsequently to the constitutional revision of 2003, the problems of the special administrative jurisdictions are of particular interest, being one of the institutions of the public law meant to ensure the celerity of the settlement of disputes, doubled by the guarantee offered to the litigants, concerning the compliance with the constitutional principle of free access to justice, the right to a fair trial and to the settlement of cases within a reasonable time. In this context, the study intends to make an analysis of the constitutionality of the special administrative jurisdictions regulated by the Law No 554/2004 and in some special normative acts, adopted after the constitutional revision from 2003, in relation to the provisions of Article 21 (4) of the Romanian Constitution revised and republished.

The author’s approach to bring forward offenses against public safety on the roads in terms of the new regulation of the Criminal Code enacted by Law no. 286/2009 stands not only for a scientific approach, but also for a matter of letting those concerned in on the regulation and criminal approach of offenses in this area, against provisions of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 195/2002 on road traffic, regulations characterized by profound differences. These are some, though not all which justify, but renders our approach imperative, which, as one may note, shall prove useful in both teaching and practical terms, if it were to consider, on the one hand, the different legal matter of the two regulations, and, on the other hand, some new normative ways of achieving these facts. For the reader to better and easier understand the criminal indictments’ issue, we set ourselves to consider below separately, in two parts, offenses against public safety on the roads.