Apărută sub egida Institutului de Cercetări Juridice „Acad. Andrei Rădulescu” al Academiei Române, sub semnătura a doi prestigioși cercetători ai săi și bine-cunoscuți specialiști ai temei, lucrarea este consacrată în mod evident centenarului tratatelor de la Paris din 1919/1920, în general, și al celui de la Trianon din 4 iunie 1920, în special. Dacă secolul a reprezentat adesea, în istoria omenirii, pe lângă un reper de marcare a scurgerii timpului, un instrument de stabilire a cronologiei faptelor și a evenimentelor și o veritabilă unitate de apreciere a progresului economico-social și cultural, cum se apreciază în prefața lucrării (plasată sub titlul O simplă punere în temă), cel al statului național și al dreptului internațional public ca drept al păcii și al cooperării interstatale se exprimă printr-o moștenire de concepte și experiențe juridico-istorice care au marcat inaugurarea și conferit conținut unei etape istorice majore.

If from a quantitative point of view the repressive (criminal) law of the environment is increasing, the criminal response as a tool to promote environmental protection is still far from rising at the level of the urgency and magnitude of the ecological problems to which it is called to answer. The causes are related to the insufficient conceptual-regulatory adjustment to the particularities of the field, the concurring strong interests of different nature and the complexity of the theoretical and practical approach to be undertaken. Bringing the repressive right to the level of the mission and current priorities implies a radical reform on the general conception and approach, the unitary and adequate register of incriminations, the particularization of the procedural framework for investigating cases and for applying sanctions and the professionalization and specialization of the jurisdictions. Assimilating the meanings of the precautionary principle, building one’s own criminal regime, by overcoming administrative dependence and consecrating the ecological finality, incriminating the ecocide, in a word the need for another penalty is the key to overcome the impasse and the way to a new, genuine and effective repressive environmental law. In Romania, there is a need for a general rethinking of the relevant normative system through a unitary regulation to include the essential aspects of an adequate incrimination, customized procedures and specialized jurisdictions.

The repeated conviction by the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter ECHR) of the Republic of Moldova for violating Article 1 of Protocol No 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter ECHR) was a mandatory invitation for national actors to harmonize their own legal system with the European case law, both by legislative, administrative way and by judicial way. Although there have been reported cases in which the European Court of Human Rights has pointed out some shortcomings with regard to harmonizing the Moldovan law with the European exigencies, however most judgments are based on jurisprudential shortcomings. Thus, in order to avoid new convictions by the Strasbourg Court in the sphere of Article 1 of Protocol No 1, in this study the techniques of compatibilization of the national case law with the European ones are researched. Starting from the stated purpose, in the present study it is realized a jurisprudential exercise of the notion of „good” from the perspective of the conventional judge and of the way in which the national courts received it in their own judgments. At the same time, this scientific approach identifies the positive and negative obligations of states and their margin of appreciation left by the ECHR in case of some issues concerning the right to respect for property, as well as the consequences for the state in case of a judgment of conviction.

Cauza Societatea Profesională Notarială „Etica” împotriva României, Cererea nr. 43190/10, Curtea Europeană a Drepturilor Omului (Secția a patra), Hotărârea din 24 iulie 20181 . La originea cauzei se află cererea din 17 iunie 2010 formulată de Societatea Profesională Notarială „Etica”, persoană juridică română, contra României, în temeiul art. 34 din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale („Convenția”).

La 16 decembrie 2021 se împlinesc 150 de ani de când a văzut lumina tiparului primul număr al revistei „Dreptul”. Anul 1871 a avut o însemnătate aparte pentru lumea juriștilor români de atunci, marcând, pe de o parte, fondarea Societății Juridice și, pe de altă parte, apariția revistei „Dreptul”.

The 150th anniversary from the issue of „Dreptul” magazine, edited by Societatea Juridică (1871), the first representative publication, with a „programme” in the matter, represents the occasion to review the evolution of the juridical literature as vector of the science and culture of law in Romania, to capture its current state and to prefigure the perspectives of development. The juridical press has emerged and developed in our country as a tool for promoting knowledge of law, through the dissemination of the case law, the affirmation of the doctrine and of the dialogue of ideas. After an initial period marked by the spirit of imitation related to the massive legislative import that characterized the establishment of the foundations of the Romanian juridical modernity after 1859, the interwar juridical unification (judicial, constitutional-legislative, at the level of the regime of juridical professions and of the juridical higher education) favoured the transition to its own literature in the field and a national juridical culture with strong original and identity accents. Marked by a certain eclipse and by a perspective „planned” between 1949–1989, it experienced a strong recovery after 1990 by resuming its issue in new editions, along with Dreptul, and of the other two landmarks genre: Curierul Judiciar (founded in 1892) and Pandectele Române (since 1921) and the issue of new ones, currently facing the low tide and the unexpected challenges of the accelerated digitalization and neoliberal globalization.