The study aims to present in a comparative manner the post-calculation clauses and the escalation clauses in international trade contracts, while presenting the main clauses of both categories, including the varieties of the well-known cost+fee clause. At the same time, the study gradually analyzes the structure of each type of clause, highlighting the main advantages and disadvantages that accompany the introduction of these clauses in trade contracts, both from the perspective of the owner and from the perspective of the contractor, who tries to transfer the risks to the owner, which in some situations may, paradoxically, even benefit from such a situation.

The premise of this study is that the current legislation uses two legal notions with relatively different names, that is the „legitimate interest” in the administrative contentious procedure, regulated by the Law No 554/2004, and the „interest to act”, used in the Civil Procedure Code, both representing conditions of admissibility of the judicial action (in administrative contentious and, respectively, civil action). The aim pursued by the author was to observe whether these legal notions are synonyms or they differ, in terms of their processual connotation, depending on the nature of the legal action promoted. In this regard, the author has compared the two legal notions, revealing the similarities and differences between them, and, at the end of the study, he has set out the theoretical and practical arguments for the purpose of recognizing their processual autonomy.

The article describes the common law system in terms of sources of law, in the British system, the term legislation being used to describe the statutes of Parliament and delegated legislation, and the formula case law to designate both common law and equity. Statute law or Acts of Parliament represents in the law system of Great Britain the equivalent of the laws adopted in the Romanian law by the Romanian Parliament, and the term delegated legislation describes all those rules adopted by authorities other than the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but under its authority. At the same time, it is characteristic of the British jurisprudential system to publish cases settled by the courts of law or to report them, this activity being carried out by lawyers, by a barrister or by a solicitor.

It is necessary in the Romanian criminal procedural law to differentiate the conditions for the exclusion of derivative evidence from the conditions for the irradiation of nullity in continental law and to move them closer to the criteria of the fruit of the poisonous tree originating from the United States of America. We adapt these criteria and other criteria from foreign law systems to the context of Romanian law through the standards of the European Court of Human Rights. One of the conditions for excluding the derivative evidence is that the infringement from which it derives requires the exclusion of the resulting evidence to ensure the fairness of the proceedings. The derivative evidence has the capacity to convey the effect of the violation of the rights of the defence, the right to privacy or domestic law on the fairness of the proceedings, but in such situations the unfairness of the proceedings must be established on a case-by-case basis. The unfairness can be automatic if the infringement concerns Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights or consists in entrapment by law enforcement officers. The consequence is the automatic, absolute or relative exclusion of derivative evidence, depending on the nature of the infringement. The derivative nature of the evidence is determined quasi-automatically in the case of entrapment. In other cases, it must be concretely established, on the basis of the conditions of the causal link between the infringement and the evidence: the effect of the primary evidence and the effect of the unlawfulness on obtaining the derived evidence. The conditions for the exclusion of derivative evidence have consequences for its applicability. The sanction is not applicable when the primary evidence is not obtained illegally, but is inadmissible by its nature, because in this case the unlawfulness is missing. This condition is met in the case of acts such as arrest, therefore the exclusion of derivative evidence is applicable. The effect of the infringement is transmitted by means of the stress test in the case of early exclusion, occurs directly in the case of a continuing infringement and must be analyzed, mutatis mutandis, in the case of alternative means of proof concerning the same evidence. Since in the case of the irradiation of nullity according to the continental model the effect of the primary evidence is irrelevant and the effect of the unlawfulness is established in the abstract by law, the sanction is distinct from the exclusion of derivative evidence.

Comentariu la Sentința penală nr. 1564 din 9 mai 2019 a Judecătoriei Timișoara și la Decizia penală nr. 903/A din 24 septembrie 2019 a Curții de Apel Timișoara

The active procedural quality in the direct guarantee action is one of the basic elements of the legal mechanism, regardless of whether we are talking about the active or the passive one. At first glance, we would say that the mechanism of direct action in general should not create too much discussion about its protagonists. However, in legal practice there has been a confusion about the subjects of the direct action, which has led to the questioning of the creditor’s active procedural capacity within the legal mechanism. Through this study, we are trying to shed some light on the practical application of direct collateral action, but also on the interest and procedural quality of the creditor and the debtor within the legal mechanism. Also, since the direct action in classic guarantee does not have a legal basis, unlike the direct action in payment, being derived from the notion of group of contracts, we will show why, in order to avoid contesting the procedural quality of the creditor within the legal mechanism of the direct action under warranty, the contracting parties must expressly insert a clause in the contract giving their consent to the transfer of the right of action to the sub-acquirer, in order to strengthen the transfer of the right of action under the guarantee for hidden defects. At the same time, as the direct action is an exception to the principle of relativity of the effects of the contract, the legislator is obliged to intervene, by introducing expressly some texts in the Civil Code, both in terms of the guarantee for eviction and in terms of the guarantee for hidden defects, so that the direct action in the guarantee finds its practical application. Only in this way will creditors be able to be protected from the effects of the exception of the lack of active procedural capacity, in terms of both guarantees provided by law (hidden defects and eviction).

This study aims to promote several solutions to ensure the accurate interpretation and application of certain provisions regulated under Law No 307/2006 on protection against fires, in order to determine whether the work performed by the employed personnel (holder of an employment agreement in private/voluntary emergency services) can be framed (qualified) as performed in special work conditions, under the legislation applicable to military personnel – professional firefighters under the emergency services.

As a result of the particular regulation of a long-standing principle of European Union law, as of 25 May 2018, data controllers have an express obligation to process personal data „lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject («lawfulness, fairness and transparency»)”. In the light of the arguments which will be presented in this article, it will follow that the principle of transparency gives data subjects the possibility to hold controllers and processors accountable and, in particular, to exercise concrete and effective control over their personal data, e.g. by giving or withdrawing informed consent, and by exercising regulated rights in favour of data subjects. In other words, by virtue of the principle of transparency, data controllers are obliged to take any measure necessary to ensure that data subjects – customers or other users – whose data are processed are fully and accurately informed. As regards the concrete way in which compliance with this fundamental principle can be ensured, the General Data Protection Regulation provides some guidance, stating in Article 12 (1) that the controller is obliged to take appropriate measures to provide the data subject with any information referred to in Articles 13 and 14 and any communications pursuant to Articles 15–22 and 34 relating to processing in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language, in particular for any information addressed specifically to a child. Therefore, the information shall be provided in writing, or by other means, including, where appropriate, by electronic means. When requested by the data subject, the information may be provided orally, provided that the identity of the data subject is proven by other means. Last but not least, information or communication should, as a rule, be provided free of charge. Throughout the article, on the basis of the doctrine and case law, the meaning of the notions used by the European legislator in Articles 5, 12, 13 and 14 of the General Data Protection Regulation will be explained.

The preventive measures are institutions of criminal law of a coercive nature, by which the suspect or defendant is prevented from engaging in certain activities that would adversely affect the conduct of the criminal proceedings or the achievement of the purpose of the crimin al proceedings. The preventive measures provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure in our country are: detention, judicial control, judicial control on bail, house arrest and pre-trial detention. Of these, pre-trial detention is the measure that generates the most important problems in judicial practice. In this study, we do not intend to make an exhaustive analysis of this preventive measure or to present in detail the conditions for its disposal.