In the case law of the Strasbourg Court, in the cases in which Romania has been convicted for the use of undercover investigators, it has been retained the violation of the right to a fair trial, not by the importance given to the statements of the investigators, the protected witnesses or collaborators, but by the omission of the judge examining the merits to take actual steps to hear them in the trial phase. These obligations, which are directly applicable in the Romanian law system, are established, on the one hand, so that the defendant and any other party can address questions to the witnesses, debate and contest their allegations, and, on the other hand, so that the judge can hear directly the depositions of the investigators or collaborators. Despite these clear and common-sense rules arising from the mandatory case law of the European Court, the current Criminal Procedure Code has provided, in Article 103 (3), that the statements of the investigators, collaborators and protected witnesses can not contribute decisively to proving crimes, thus the interdiction is valid whether they have been heard or not by the law court.

Medical malpractice is a subject that lately generates more and more and increasingly heated controversies. On the one hand, the patients are more and more dissatisfied with the medical services and the way they are cared for, the conditions existing in the hospital units, the quality itself of the medical act, and on the other hand, the doctors, besides the fact that they carry on their activity in poor conditions, in underfunded and understaffed hospital units, feel more and more harassed and fear that they can at any time be brought before the prosecutors as possible „criminals”. Within this article we intend to approach a quite delicate topic, namely the settlement of malpractice conflicts. Why is this a difficult problem? Why malpractice conflicts are more „delicate”? Why is it harder to solve such a conflict, as compared to a different kind of conflict? The answer is simple and widely accepted. The doctor-patient relationship is a special one. The doctorpatient relationship involves more than rights and obligations and the exercise thereof. This paper aims to draw attention and highlight the benefits of the settlement of the malpractice conflicts by using alternative methods. The results of the study can be used in the future both as a source for a possible future expansion of this study, but also as a starting point for a possible de lege ferenda amendment of the current legislation.

The anticipated legal capacity of the minor represents, together with the situation of the married minor, one of the exceptions of acquiring full legal capacity at the age of 18, expressly provided in Article 40 of the new Civil Code. Thus, for acquiring the „emancipation”, the minor can address the law court himself, by way of the non-contentious procedure, and with regard to the „reasonable grounds”, the legislator has not made an enumeration or an exemplification thereof, these remaining at the discretion of the guardianship courts. Given the implications which the measure of emancipation of the minor could have on himself and on others, this must be seen as an exceptional one, and although there is still no case law on the application of Article 40 of the Civil Code, de lege ferenda, the possibility to revert to the recognition of the anticipated legal capacity by the guardianship court would be, to the same extent, an appropriate measure of the higher interest of the minor.

This paper is mainly a semantic analysis of the definition of the offence of child pornography, included in Article 374 of the Criminal Code. It emphasizes the merits and the shortcomings of the current definition, as well as some solutions intended to remedy this definition.

In this article, the author discusses the issue of limitation of the exercise of certain rights and freedoms, as debated and regulated by the Constituent Assembly in 1991. There are analyzed in detail the theses for the draft Constitution that set out the constitutional conditions for which compliance is imperative, so that the Romanian State and the Romanian Parliament be able to make the decision of limiting some rights or freedoms of the citizens. The author gives a significant consideration to presenting the philosophy of the constitutional norm that recognizes the State’s right to limit under certain circumstances the exercise of some fundamental rights and freedoms of the Romanian citizens. It is noted that constitutional limitation of the some rights or freedoms of the citizens fully complies with the European doctrine of constitutional law and of the judicial practice of ECHR. The author analyzes in detail every case which may determine the Parliament to limit the exercise of some rights and freedoms, as well as the conditions for imposing the limitation.

In this article, the author analyzes the parliamentary procedure for the review of laws, pursuant to the request of the President of Romania, in the light of the case law of the Constitutional Court. In its judicial practice, the court of constitutional administrative disputes found that the provisions included in the parliamentary regulations of both legislative Chambers, which regulated the procedure of review of the laws on the initiative of the President of Romania, do not comply with the constitutional provisions. The author analyzes in detail the objections of unconstitutionality of the Constitutional Court and shows, in the end, that the elaboration of a clear, unambiguous parliamentary procedure is necessary in order to review the laws following the request addressed by the President of Romania, which reflects the letter and the spirit of the constitutional provisions.