The European Order for the Disclosure and Preservation of Electronic Evidence. Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 and the Limits of Equating European Orders with the Evidentiary Procedures Set Forth in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Comments on Draft Law No. L272/2026

The article titled “The European Order for the Disclosure and Preservation of Electronic Evidence. Regulation (EU) 2023/1543 and the Limits of Equating European Orders with the Evidentiary Procedures of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Comments on Draft Law No. L272/2026,” authored by Associate Professor Radu Slăvoiu, Ph.D., of the Faculty of Law, “Nicolae Titulescu” University in Bucharest, and Lecturer George Zlati, Ph.D., from the Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, “1 Decembrie 1918” University of Alba Iulia.
The article analyzes European orders for the disclosure and preservation of electronic evidence, as regulated by Regulation (EU) 2023/1543, effective as of August 18, 2026, and draft law L272/2026 regarding its implementation into domestic law. It examines issues left open by the Regulation, ranging from the foreign element to the regime governing cryptographic keys under the provider’s control. Of greatest practical relevance is the discrepancy between the classification of data under the Regulation and that under domestic law, where data requested solely for the purpose of identifying the user—treated as minimally intrusive—are classified as traffic data. The authors conclude that defining the European order through domestic procedural law imposes the limitations of national evidentiary procedures on an instrument of Union law, which may result in a conflict with similar domestic cases and a risk of illegality that only becomes apparent ex post.

The Government's Assumption of Responsibility—A Shaky Bridge Between the Two Palaces?

The article titled “Government Accountability—The Shaky Bridge Between the Two Palaces?”, written by Victor-Andrei Căzăceanu, a student in the Faculty of Law at the University of Bucharest, was published in A.U.B.D. – Legal Forum No. 2/2026.

Given the upward trend in the use of the Government’s assumption of liability since 2025, the author believes that an analysis of this atypical method of lawmaking is timely. Thus, the article includes an analysis of the relevant legal framework and constitutional case law, statistics on the 38 instances in which the government assumed responsibility for bills, as well as a brief overview of the similar legal frameworks in other legal systems.

The conclusion of the research is that there is a need for a potential revision of Article 114 of the Constitution to establish limits—both regarding the scope of social relations for which the Government’s responsibility may be invoked and the frequency with which the executive branch may resort to this constitutional procedure. In addition to these limits, the author concludes that, alongside the institution’s existing subjects—namely, the program, the general policy statement, and the draft law—the groundwork can be laid for a new subject—the legislative package—so that the mechanism can be refined.

Keywords: legislative-executive relations; parliamentary law; exceptional legislative procedure; comparative law; separation and balance of powers.