The radical reformation of the criminal proceedings meant also the establishment of new legal institutions. One of them is the preliminary chamber, inspired by the Anglo-Saxon law systems, and by the continental law system. Conceived as a distinct phase of criminal proceedings, the preliminary verification raises real problems of constitutionality, being unable to fit into the mechanism of the judicial bodies stated in the Fundamental Law. In so far as it takes over functions of the judges and it excludes from debates the main subjects of criminal proceedings, it is also contrary to the requirements of the ECHR on the principles of equality of arms and equity.

The Decision No 641/2014 of the Constitutional Court has radically changed the preliminary chamber procedure, transforming it into a procedure much closer to which it must be, in the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, a criminal procedure conducted before a judge, even if it does not end in the ruling on the merits of the criminal charge, but it solves aspects of a particular importance on the merits concerned. The change has consisted in the overturning of the characters initially imagined by the legislator, overturning that has transformed the preliminary chamber procedure from a procedure conducted without the participation of the prosecutor, of the parties and of the injured party, with a limited contradictoriality between the prosecutor and the defendant and predominantly written, into a procedure involving the participation of the processual actors, completely contradictory and oral, in which it becomes possible to provide evidence on the main object of this processual phase (the legality of the evidence provided in the criminal prosecution phase and the legality of carrying out the acts by the criminal prosecution bodies). Unfortunately, the latest changes brought to the preliminary chamber by the adoption of the Law No 75/2016, although they represent a step forward in the attempt to make this criminal processual phase to comply with the elements of a fair procedure, do not follow precisely the spirit of the decision of unconstitutionality, as the legislator has still left question marks about the fairness of the procedure as regards the hypothesis that there have not been filed applications and/or pleas and as regards the limitation of the means of evidence.

The article analyzes the qualification of the appeal on law in civil disputes where the judicial remedy of appeal ex novo is not opened, such as the waiver of judgment and the waiver of the claimed right, where the judgment is only subject to the appeal on law. The appeal on law promoted in administrative disputes is also analyzed. The author comes to the conclusion that, even when the judicial remedy of appeal ex novo is suppressed, the appeal on law preserves its nature of extraordinary remedy.

Over time, the claim for awarding legal costs in the civil trial has not been paid due attention. Starting with 1959, following a decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Tribunal, in the practice of the courts, as well as in the specialized works has been taken over automatically, until it has been imprinted in the collective mind, the idea that the court costs can be claimed at any time until the debates are closed on the merits, and the court may even draw attention to this issue, or they may be claimed separately, even if they were initially requested within the dispute. The present study aims to analyze the legal status of awarding the claim for costs, while giving at the same time the correct legal classification of this claim by reference to the texts of the Civil Procedure Code. Thus, we will show that this claim brought to the justice can not be subject to the discretionary will of the parties, but must be circumscribed by the procedural rigors with regard to filing a claim before the court. In the first instance, the party must accordingly request court costs, respectively by way of introductory application, an objection, an intervention, etc. If it did not do it, as a rule, it will not be able to claim them within that litigation. If it did it, but then waives their request in the initial litigation, wishing to claim them separately, it will be subject to the consent of the opponent. In the redress or withdrawal means of appeal, claiming the court costs is conditionned twice, both in the compliance claim before the court of first instance and in the compliance claim before each court that has examined the case (by way of appeal, objection, etc.). The practical implications of the study are some of the most spectacular, since the party that does not comply with the procedural rigors of the claim for court costs will either be in a position to promote separate action for their recovery or in the event of a final impossibility to recover, in whole or in part, the advanced court costs.

Referitor la perioada de timp în care inculpatul poate fi tras la răspundere penală, potrivit art. 154 teza finală C.pen. anterior [art. 186 alin. (1) teza finală C.pen. actual], luna și anul se socotesc împlinite cu o zi înainte de ziua corespunzătoare datei de la care au început să curgă. Altfel spus, ceea ce se calculează potrivit art. 122 rap. la art. 154 C.pen. anterior este perioada de timp în care inculpatul poate fi tras la răspundere penală, ceea ce se situează ulterior acestei perioade urmând a intra pe domeniul prescripției speciale a răspunderii penale.

The Competition Law no. 21/1996 and the secondary regulations issued for its enforcement advise the parties involved in a merger, assessed as having serious doubts with a normal competitive environment, to propose to the Competition Council a number of commitments aimed at removing these doubts and ultimately lead to achieving a decision authorizing the notified transaction. The purpose of this article is to analyze, on the one hand, the current legal framework of the commitments which may be undertaken by the parties in the context of certain mergers, the procedure for the proposal, the undertake and the approval of the commitments and, on the other hand, the practice of the Competition Council on this topic.

The field of contractual freedom has raised a permanent interest and continues to cause numerous discussions in the doctrine, and the practice of the courts emphasizes the importance of applying this principle to the specific civil legal relations. The undeniable importance of the contract as source of law involves inclusively the investigation of the manner in which the good faith and the abuse of right influence not only the formation, but also the performance or cessation of the contractual legal relations.

În primul meu articol, publicat în Dreptul dela 8 Decembrie 1913, arătam că unul dintre cele mai mici și mai sărăcăcioase bugete, în care spiritul de exagerată economie, de adevărată sgârcenie, se arată la fiecare pas, este acel al Justiției. Nu știu cum s’a făcut, că aproape toți miniștrii de justiție, deși avocați prin meseria lor obișnuită, deci cunoscând în deaproape pe magistrați și situațiunea lor materială mai mult decât precară, nu au intervenit până acum de a schimba normele și alcătuirea acestui buget sărăcăcios și nedrept. În adevăr, acest buget, care până mai eri era de 10 milioane, azi, după atâtea secțiuni noui de Curți și tribunale înființate, abia se ridică la 11 milioane și jumătate. Iar salariile magistraților și ale celorlalți funcționari judecătorești, de acum 24 ani, dela legea organizărei judecătorești din 1890, a d-lui Teodor Rosetti, au rămas aceleași! Și cât de mult s’a schimbat în 24 ani situațiunea economică a țărei! Banul s’a eftenit, iar prețul obiectelor de prima necesitate s’a întreit și împătrit chiar.

In this article the author presents the journalistic portrait of a prominent representative of the Transylvanian intellectuals’ elite – Camil Velican, whose biography belongs to the model of Transylvanian Romanian intellectual from the turn of the 19th century to the 20th century. Following his family’s tradition, Camil Velican opted for legal studies, heading at first for the Hungarian capital, where he attended, at the Royal Hungarian University, the classes of the Faculty of Law and Political Sciences (1897–1900). The model of the best Romanian students in Budapest attracted him to the Academic Society „Petru Maior”, where the talents of the national literature were formed. He continued his studies starting from 1900 at the „Ferenc József” University in Cluj, where he obtained his Ph.D. in Law in 1902, after which he dedicated himself to the profession of lawyer. Camil Velican was acknowledged as a prominent representative of the Romanian lawyer profession, a profession he practiced at the Bar of Alba, whose member he has been since 1903. With a rich political activity, he was the first Romanian Mayor of Alba Iulia after the Union of Transylvania with Romania on 1 December 1918. He had a successful career, both in administration and in the legal field, and he contributed, through his knowledge, to the economic and cultural development of the community to which he was fully committed. It must be noted that Alba Iulia was the first city where, on 20 November 1918, it was installed a Romanian administration, in which Camil Velican served as mayor. The activity in the role of mayor was a special one and contributed to the development of the city, which had become a very important one for the whole country, given the historical event which took place here. On 12 June 1937 it was prematurely interrupted the thread of a life during which he could have continued a prodigious activity in the most diverse areas of public life: politics, administration, economy, culture. Subsequently, under the communist regime, the name and activity of Camil Velican were intentionally forgotten, as well as of other achievers of the Great Union. Moreover, his family has been subject to some political persecution, specific to those regrettable old times. Even the change of paradigm in the Romanian society after 1989 did not change the old state of facts, the memory of the one who was Camil Velican being still ignored. Moreover, the house of the Velican family, which was one of the main places established for the reception of delegates and for assembly of the Transylvanian leaders in order to organize the day of 1 December 1918, continues to be nowadays in an unjustified and unjust state of decay.