In a traffic accident resulting in numerous injuries there have been drawn up several forensic documents, the time limit for medical care being extended to 100 days because of the emergence of some post-operative complications. After numerous postponements and after the reinstatement of the case on the list of cases twice, the court requested that the acts be approved by the Superior Forensic Commission next to the National Institute of Forensic Medicine, although there were no contradictions between them. This body has decided that there is no causal relation between the accident and the extension of the number of days of medical care, invoking medical negligence and the failure of the injured person to go through the entire recovery treatment. Based on this advisory opinion the court has ordered the acquittal, ignoring the other evidence, without giving reasons. According to the author, the solution of the court is ungrounded and unlawful.

The absolutisation of the effects of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union or of the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in areas not falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the European Union (EU or the Union) or in areas of shared jurisdiction where EU no longer wishes to legislate on the basis of the principles of subsidiarity or proportionality can lead to mistakes in the application of the national law by the law courts of the Member States of EU. In this article the author identifies such a case in the field of access to the data stored by the suppliers of public electronic communications networks and by the suppliers of publicly available electronic communication services and brings arguments to remedy this situation.

The rule of exclusion remains one of the most controversial issues in the American constitutional doctrine in the field of criminal procedure. The American jurists constantly point out that the rule of exclusion is unique in the field of law, being specific to the American law. However, an increasing number of countries adopt in their legislative system provisions to exclude illegally obtained evidence. This study outlines a few remarks around Article 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code newly introduced in our legislation, trying to bring more clarity on the origin, purpose and ways to invoke the established principle.

This study is devoted to a very present topic, namely that of the liability of the State and of the magistrates for the judicial errors produced in the criminal cases or other type of cases. After a brief introduction to the subject, the author makes an analysis of comparative law in the matter subject to examination, pointing out that, in most European countries, the dominant system is that of establishing the liability of the State and of the magistrates for the judicial errors. The author also presents us some of the solutions of the common law system, where the principle is that of impunity of the magistrates for the judicial errors. The author emphasizes that, in our law, the liability of the State is the dominant one and it has the character of an objective liability, founded on the provisions of Article 52 (3) of the Romanian Constitution. There are also analyzed in this article the procedural conditions of the liability of the State for the judicial errors. A special place in this study is devoted to the liability of the magistrates, particularly of the judges, for the judicial errors. It is emphasized, in particular, the subsidiary nature of the liability of the magistrates, as well as the fact that their liability may be engaged only under the subjective conditions specifically determined by the law, respectively in the situations where they have acted in their judicial function in „bad faith” or with „obvious negligence”. The author pleads for maintaining this solution in the future as well, the only one that, in his opinion, is meant to achieve the necessary balance between the independence of the judge and the necessary social and legal responsibility. At the end of the study there are also formulated some legislative proposals, such as those relating to setting some common time limits in civil and criminal matters, to establishing the obligation of the State to exercise the action for regress, to the professional liability insurance of magistrates etc.

This study deals with the issues related to the regulation included in Article 262 of the new Criminal Code of Romania. The author notes that, as compared to the regulation prior to the entry into force of the new Criminal Code, the taking over in this Code of the norm of incrimination previously included in Article 70 of the Government Emergency Ordinance No 105/2001 on the state border of Romania has been preferred as a reflection of the importance given to the social value of the regime of the state border. At the same time, it is pointed out that the norm in the Code in force is subject to completion by provisions included in other normative acts, inferior to the law, as in the Government Emergency Ordinance No 194/2002 on the regime of foreigners in Romania.

This study is meant to analyse the provisions of Article 333 of the Civil Code regarding the preciput clause. Specifically, there are discussed issues such as: the relevant provisions; the definition of the analyzed institution; the subjects, the object and the legal nature of the preciput clause; the legal characters of the preciput; the effects of the preciput clause; inefficiency and enforcement of the preciput.