This study proposes a comparative analysis of the main economic and financial offences from their regulatory perspective, given the significant amendments of the Romanian criminal legislation occurred starting with 1 February 2014. The author makes a presentation of how the incrimination of these criminal acts has been amended, regardless of the relevant provisions, the Criminal Code or the special laws. He insists on the situations where amendments of substance occurred and it is analyzed their opportunity, as well as the effects reflected by the judicial practice. Similarly, critical notes are exposed, with the necessary arguments on some of these legislative amendments.

The new Romanian Civil Code contains references to the goodwill, but it does not regulate the legal regime of the goodwill. In the absence of a legal regulation of the goodwill, the legal nature of the goodwill is analysed on the basis of the new conception of the Civil Code concerning the patrimony of the natural person and of the legal person. According to the Civil Code (Article 31), the unique patrimony of the natural or legal person may be subject to a division in the cases and under the conditions provided by law. Allocation patrimonies are the fiduciary patrimonies and those allocated to practicing an authorized profession. In the light of this conception, the goodwill represents an allocation patrimony, namely a distinct fraction of the patrimony of the natural or legal person, intended for conducting the trading activity. Under the terms of the new Civil Code, which admits that the patrimony of a natural or legal person may be subject to a division or an allocation, it is fully justified to qualify the goodwill as „trading patrimony”, a name repudiated in the past.

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.

By a thorough critical study of the provisions of the Law No 8/1996 on copyright and neighbouring rights, the author notes that this Law does not provide an explicit definition of the notion of „work” (of intellectual creation). That being so, in this study, after a legal and linguistic analysis, the author gives in advance his own and complete definition of the notion of „work” (of intellectual creation). The following are further examined: the categories of intellectual creations which do not constitute, however, „works” within the meaning of the Law No 8/1996 and, finally, the substantive conditions for the legal protection of „work” (of intellectual creation), concluding that, under the mentioned aspects, it is required the improvement of some wordings and regulations included in the mentioned law. Key words: work (of intellectual creation); legal regulation; definition of the notion; intellectual creations which do not constitute „works” within the meaning of the Romanian legislation; substantive conditions for the legal protection of the „work”.

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.

In the new Criminal Procedure Code, the function for verification the sending to trial legality is conducted by a judicial body independent of the Court, the judge for preliminary chamber. In the preliminary chamber procedure, the judge checks the regularity of the referral, the legality of the administration of evidence and of prosecution acts, as well as the jurisdiction of the Court. The Criminal Procedure Code does not provide expressly the type of the act by which the Prosecutor can remedy the deficiencies of the referral. The jurisprudence is not unitary, sometimes recognizing, sometimes penalizing the remedy of the deficiencies of the indictment through different types of procedural acts. The article achieves analysis of doctrine with regard to this issue. The authors motivate the solution that preserves the unity of the sending to Court act, respectively the remake of the indictment. Consequences of the types of solutions adopted in practice are explored from the perspective of the right to defence of the accused person.