In the last decades, administrative law underwent a phenomenon of didactic fragmentation which nobody can ignore today. Numerous monographies within the doctrine of public law, whose purpose – stated in their own titles – is to treat, from multiple perspectives and in a more or less profound manner, (very) narrow subjects of administrative law, have invaded the book market. It happened not only in Romania, but also in France, a country which reasonably claims to be the homeland of administrative law as a branch of law, and therefore as a teaching subject, in its current European continental approach. This literary explosion went hand in hand with an unprecedented proliferation of master studies specializations offered by higher education institutions, in the area of administrative law and/or public administration. Are these phenomena able to fragment the theoretical discourse of administrative law in such a way that this subject loses its unity and, hence, ideological identity? Most likely not. The model proposed by us – that of the five ideological foundations of administrative law – seems to have the ability to prevent the undesirable result hereabove mentioned. With these five ideological foundations – the public administration, the public authority, the public service, the public interest and the public power – almost all the defining and descriptive equations of the major institutions of administrative law (such as the civil service, the public domain, the public enterprise, the unilateral administrative act, the administrative contract, the administrative litigation and public authorities’ financial liability for damage caused by their illegal acts) are likely to be solved. And if this is possible, then the idea of ideological unity/identity of the administrative law is safeguarded, despite the didactic fragmentation previously envisaged.

The new legislative context was a strong argument, mainly, for reconfiguring the recourse, which is not a new legal remedy for our system of law, the cassation recourse being actually built on the structure of the recourse of the previous Criminal Procedure Code, with no fundamental differences in this regard. Article 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly provides the purpose of the cassation recourse, which seeks to subject to the High Court of Cassation and Justice the examination, under the terms of the law, of the conformity of the challenged judgment with the applicable rules of law. However, the cassation recourse aims at ensuring a uniform practice at the level of the entire country. There are expressly provided the judgments which can be challenged by means of the cassation recourse, as well as those that are not subject to this extraordinary legal remedy. In relation to the specificity of this extraordinary legal remedy, the code imposes strict conditions on the contents of the application for cassation recourse, the holders and the time limit for bringing this action, aspects presented within the paper, being followed up all the legislative amendments that have occurred so far.

This study, entitled „Harmonisation between tribunals. Some points of reference”, is dedicated to some considerations on the collaboration between the national tribunals, on the one hand, and the tribunals established at the level of the European Union – the Tribunal of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights –, on the other. The author starts from the finding that the European citizens can protect their rights both through the courts in their own country and through the previously mentioned European courts.

We mentally associate the first half of the nineteenth century with the affirmation of some ideas and projects of political and administrative reform of the two Romanian principalities connected to the most advanced spirit in Europe of those times. The national common sense watchword was, at that time, the modernization of the principalities in the spirit of the reforms stimulated and encouraged by the French Revolution in the late eighteenth century. Still under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire, Moldavia and Walachia were trying to receive European political and legal institutions and to place them into Romanian governance mechanisms, also preparing thereby the formation of a new legal thinking and practice, of a new government mentality, in the spirit of the Western Europe. From this perspective, the author analyzes the origins and the constitutional functions of the Legislative Council, using, for this, some prestigious doctrinal studies published in specialized magazines in the inter-war period of the twentieth century. Likewise, the author analyzes the role of the Legislative Council configured in Article 79 of the Constitution adopted in 1991 and its organic law.

In the regulation of the new Criminal Procedure Code the recourse in cassation is an extraordinary legal remedy exercised only in cases expressly provided by law and only on grounds of unlawfulness. The recourse in cassation is the extraordinary remedy through which the interested parties or the prosecutor may request the High Court, in the conditions and for the reasons expressly and limitatively provided by law, to reform the final judgements in certain cases provided by law. Practically, the recourse in cassation is designed as an extraordinary legal remedy or otherwise, as a last level of jurisdiction within which the parties can defend their rights, by removing the effects of the final judgments pronounced under the conditions of the five cases of unlawfulness provided by Article 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code and does not involve the examination of all aspects of the case, but only the review of the legality of the contested judgment, respectively its consistency with the provisions of the applicable substantive and procedural law. We intend to present the five cases of recourse in cassation by an extensive examination of the doctrine and practice of the High Court of Cassation and Justice.