The author carries out a detailed analysis of the legal content of the insurance fraud offense, as provided for in Art.245 of the new Criminal Code as an assimilated and aggravated version of the deception offense. Regarding the structure of this offense, the criminal protection object, the subjects, the objective and subjective side, the forms, procedures and sanctions provided by law are reviewed in detail. The explanations discuss the insurance deception links to other offences relating to insurance and certain procedural aspects. The preceding legislation of this indictment rule, the solutions to be followed in case of transitional situations and some elements of comparative law are subsequently presented. Also, the author does not hesitate to state his point of view with regard to the constituent content of this criminal act, its systematization, its character and to frame in this regard certain solutions and certain ideas of his own. In the end, this analysis gives several conclusions and proposals of future law to determine an appropriate protection of the values „and social relationships covered by this indictment, a uniform implementation of the text and thus a better criminal justice administration in Romania.

The author examines the concept of „seniority in magistracy according to the applicable laws (Law no.303/2004 regarding the statute of judges and prosecutors) by referring to the broader concepts of seniority at work, respectively, seniority in a specialty.

Analyzing the jurisprudence of the past three decades whereas tort law is concerned, one can easily find some gray areas, where the doctrinal principles developed so far seem to have fallen behind the realities of our modern society. Such a gray area is being analyzed by the author of this study, and it is attributed by modern doctrine to the jurisprudence applying the precautionary principle. Developed in the area of international public law, adapted to private law, and embraced by modern doctrine, the precautionary principle is a prominent figure in European legislation, as well as in our national laws, and lately also in court decisions.

Administrative jurisdiction on public procurement is carried out by the National Council for Solving Complaints and finalized with the pronouncement of certain administrative and judicial acts, called decisions. These can be attacked by complaint to the courts of appeal, whose decisions are final. The 2010 amendment to the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 34/2006 on awarding public procurement contracts, public works and services concession contracts introduced the obligation of those who make complaints to pay legal fee in an amount which even now raises some questions. Alpha The practice of all courts of appeal in the country is to accept to charge the complaints with either 4 lei or 2 lei. Constanþa Court of Appeal chose to break away from this unwavering practice of the courts of appeal which it itself promoted until recently and to require claimants to pay a value charge according to the amounts provided for in Art. 28717 paragraph 1 of the Ordinance, namely between 0,01 lei and 1,100 lei, and not fixed amounts of 4 and 2 lei. This study enounces the two different solutions found in courts of appeal case law and the arguments that they are based on, whilst the author tries to generate thoughts on the issue of charging the complaints not only to those involved in the judicial process of settlement of the latter and the litigants, but also to the legislative body, with an eye to prompt and definitive clarification thereof.

In this study the author analyzes the requirements for the admissibility of provisional release under judicial control and provisional release on bail from the point of view of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force and the new Code of Criminal Procedure, the internal doctrine and the (European) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Supreme Court’s case law and practice of the European Court of Human Rights. The general conditions for ordering judicial control and judicial control on bail are also presented - preventive measures stipulated in the new Code of Criminal Procedure, which no longer provides for the institution of provisional release.

In this study, the author examines the possibility of enforcing precautionary measures on the assets of third parties for the offense of money laundering; the analysis is carried out from the point of view of the doctrine, comparative law and the case law of the courts and the European Court of Human Rights. Alpha Having regard to the specificity of this offense and the special provisions in the field, the author considers that the goods of third parties, persons not subject to criminal prosecution or trial, must be frozen for special forfeiture.