In the study hereby, the author makes a comparative analysis of the problematics of conflict between freedom of the press and reputation in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the United States Supreme Court, respectively, managing to capture a number of differences regarding the deviation of the litigious issue.

According to art. 20 para. 2 in the Criminal Code, it is called tentative also in the case where „due to the fact that when the acts of execution have been committed, the object was missing from the place the offender believed it were”. This case is defined by the means and the material object, because these two entities are considered the effect’s agents. In the absence of the material object from the place where the offender believed it were, the criminal doctrine concluded two assumptions: first, called the relative impossibility, implies that the material object was absent from the scene while performing acts of execution by the author, while, in case of absolute impossibility, the material object was absent. For a complete image of the role the material object plays within the attempt, the author introduced also some references on the Italian, German and Anglo-American criminal law.

The article hereby reviews the arguments on the need for detention of the presumption of innocence in contravention and, therefore, the proper application of the provisions of art. 6 of the (European) Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Arguments are the result of uniform and consistent theories and practices of the European Court of Human Rights and the provisions of the Constitution of Romania, republished. Given these arguments, the author considers that the presumption of innocence in contravention is mandatory for the Romanian courts when a complaint of contravention is submitted for trial against a sanctioning act. In conclusion, it urges that the High Court of Cassation and Justice order by an appeal, in the interest of the law, guidance for uniform practice in contravention and / or the legislator to amend laws on this issue, to that effect.

The author’s approach to bring forward offenses against public safety on the roads in terms of the new regulation of the Criminal Code enacted by Law no. 286/2009 stands not only for a scientific approach, but also for a matter of letting those concerned in on the regulation and criminal approach of offenses in this area, against provisions of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 195/2002 on road traffic, regulations characterized by profound differences. These are some, though not all which justify, but renders our approach imperative, which, as one may note, shall prove useful in both teaching and practical terms, if it were to consider, on the one hand, the different legal matter of the two regulations, and, on the other hand, some new normative ways of achieving these facts. For the reader to better and easier understand the criminal indictments’ issue, we set ourselves to consider below separately, in two parts, offenses against public safety on the roads.

The principle of loyalty of evidence is a jurisprudential principle of the European Court of Human Rights. The author intended to provide an overall presentation of its evolution, both from the case law perspective and from the legislative point of view.

This study is designed to carry out a general examination of the provisions established in Law no. 202/2010 regarding certain measures to accelerate the resolution of trials. The author presents the most significant amendments and supplements brought to the current civil procedure code in various fields: the judgment before the trial court, the appeal, the second appeal, the special procedure and the enforcement. The author also formulates opinions regarding some of the new legislative interventions. However, some “innovative” solutions are also emphasized in relation to the provisions of the new Civil Procedure Code itself, some of them being considered by the author questionable.