Reduction of the Scope of Public Contracts During Their Performance

The article titled “Reducing the Scope of Public Contracts During Their Execution,” written by Mihai Băeșu, a teaching assistant at the Faculty of Law of the University of Bucharest and a member of the Bucharest Bar Association, was published in A.U.B.D. – Legal Forum No. 1/2026.

Based on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the public procurement directives and the national transposing legislation provide the criteria for identifying several scenarios in which the modification of a public contract during its performance is permitted. The scenario involving a reduction in the scope of public contracts is not one of the scenarios expressly regulated. As such, in this article, the author analyzes the reduction of the scope of public contracts in contrast to the expressly regulated scenarios for amending public contracts, with the aim of identifying the criteria under which the reduction of the scope of public contracts is permitted during their performance without undergoing a new award procedure.

Keywords: public contracts, amendments to public contracts, reduction of the scope of public contracts, permitted amendments, prohibited amendments, public procurement, works and services concessions.

Verification of Provisional Measures After the Court is Seized by Indictment. The Deadline for the First Verification in the Preliminary Chamber, the Nature of the Deadline, and the Sanction for Non-Verification Within the Deadline

The article titled “Review of Precautionary Measures Following the Filing of an Indictment with the Court. The Deadline for the First Review in the Preliminary Chamber, the Nature of the Deadline, and the Penalty for Failure to Review Within the Deadline,” written by Francisc-Gabriel Trache, an attorney with the Bucharest Bar Association.
The article examines the issue of reviewing precautionary measures after the court is notified by indictment, a matter that has generated doctrinal controversy and inconsistent judicial practice. The analysis aims to determine the applicable time limit for the first review conducted by the preliminary chamber judge, as well as its legal nature, in cases where the measure was ordered or maintained during the criminal investigation by the prosecutor’s order. In this context, the analysis examines both the immediate applicability of the one-year time limit specific to the trial phase and the argument that the first review must be conducted within the six-month period calculated from the date the measure was imposed or from the date of the last review conducted by the prosecutor.

Two Legal Orders for One Mental Disorder – Addressing the Legislative Parallelism in Romania’s Mental Health Framework

The article titled “Two Legal Orders for One Mental Disorder – Addressing the Legislative Parallelism in Romania’s Mental Health Framework,” written by Cătălin-Șerban Apătean, a doctoral candidate at the Faculty of Law, University of Bucharest, was published in A.U.B.D. – Legal Forum No. 1/2026. This article analyzes the conditions under which medical safety measures regulated by the Romanian Criminal Code and measures regulated by Law No. 487/2002 on mental health and the protection of persons with mental disorders may be ordered and enforced, along with the corresponding safeguards for fundamental rights existing in each procedure. The study examines the coexistence of these two distinct legal frameworks—criminal and medical—which are essentially based on the same criterion—the perceived social danger posed by a person with mental disorders—and lead to the same result: involuntary deprivation of liberty on grounds of mental health. This paper aims to assess the constitutional stability and respect for human rights in the regulation of similar institutions with distinct legal bases—one based on the commission of an act provided for by criminal law, and the other on the mental health status of the person in question. We argue that this legislative parallelism creates inconsistencies in terms of protection and procedure, undermining legal certainty, equality before the law, and respect for fundamental rights.

Considerations Regarding How Specific Rules of Matrimonial Regimes Influence the Rules of Civil Liability and Contractual Remedies. A Study of Particular Applications

Clear Search Considerations regarding how the specific rules of matrimonial regimes influence the rules of civil liability and contractual remedies. Study of specific applications In A.U.B.D. – Legal Forum No. 1/2026, an article was published titled “Considerations regarding how the specific rules of matrimonial regimes influence the rules of civil liability and…

La limitation de la liberté d’expression en ligne dans la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme

The article titled “Limitations on Freedom of Expression Online in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights,” written by Ștefan Bogrea, a doctoral assistant at the Faculty of Law of the University of Bucharest and a member of the Bucharest Bar Association, was published in A.U.B.D. – Legal Forum No. 1/2026.

This article examines how the European Court of Human Rights applies Article 10 of the Convention to online expression. The central thesis is that the case law from Strasbourg does not establish an autonomous regime for freedom of expression on the Internet, but rather adapts the classic criteria for restrictions—legality, legitimate aim, and necessity in a democratic society—to the particularities of the digital environment. The article examines, on the one hand, the continuity of the Convention’s framework and, on the other hand, the emergence of specific requirements regarding the scope of dissemination, the persistence of content, the role of technical intermediaries, procedural safeguards, and the risk of excessive restrictions. Finally, the paper highlights the tensions generated by platform moderation, the automation of decisions, and the search for a balance between freedom of expression and the protection of competing rights.

The transfer to the General Court of part of the jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings

In A.U.B.D. – Legal Forum No. 1/2026, a speech was published by Associate Professor Mirela Stancu, Ph.D., a judge at the Tribunal, entitled “The Transfer to the General Court of Part of the Jurisdiction to Issue Preliminary Rulings,” on the occasion of the events marking the conferral of an honorary doctorate upon Professor Koen Lenaerts, Ph.D., President of the Court of Justice of the European Union, held at the Faculty of Law of the University of Bucharest on March 27, 2026.

The speech highlights the fact that, following the 2024 amendment to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, jurisdiction over preliminary rulings in six specific areas was transferred to the General Court: the common system of value-added tax, excise duties, the Customs Code, the tariff classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature, compensation and assistance for passengers in the event of denied boarding, delays, or cancellations of transport services, and the greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme.

To address this new type of case, the General Court has revised its Rules of Procedure, created a dedicated registry, established two specialized chambers, and appointed three Advocates General to assist the specialized chambers. In accordance with the “one-stop shop” principle, the Court of Justice first determines whether a case falls exclusively within the transferred areas and, if so, refers it to the General Court. The case is then assigned on a rotating basis to a reporting judge from one of the two specialized chambers, the parties are notified, and the proceedings are opened for written observations.

Between November 2024 and April 2026, 123 applications were filed with the one-stop shop, of which 101 were transferred. The Court issued its first ruling on preliminary questions on July 9, 2025, and by April 2026, it had issued 17 rulings, including two in which the questions were referred by courts in Romania.

Keywords: transfer of authority, preliminary questions, VAT, excise taxes, Customs Code, tariff classification, passenger compensation, trading in greenhouse gas emission allowances.

A Constructive Dialogue. The Court of Justice of the European Union and Romanian Courts

The article “A Constructive Dialogue. The Court of Justice of the European Union and Romanian Courts,” which draws on the academic lecture delivered by Professor Koen Lenaerts, President of the Court of Justice of the European Union, on the occasion of the events marking the conferral of the title of Doctor Honoris Causa, held at the Faculty of Law of the University of Bucharest on March 27, 2026.

This paper analyzes the preliminary ruling procedure, as provided for in Article 267 TFEU, a mechanism that serves as the cornerstone of the European Union’s judicial system, highlighting Romania’s significant contribution to judicial dialogue. It is divided into three parts: the role of the mechanism in ensuring the uniform interpretation of Union law; the prerequisites that referring courts must meet—in particular their independence—in order to engage in a dialogue with the Court of Justice; as well as the right and obligation to refer a case to the Court, including the duties incumbent upon courts whose decisions are no longer subject to appeal. Drawing on reference cases from Romania and other Member States, this paper argues that judicial unilateralism has no place in the legal order of the Union and that the appropriate means for resolving divergences between the Court of Justice and national courts is judicial dialogue, based on mutual respect and loyal cooperation.

A plea for studying (and loving) the EU Law

The speech delivered by Dr. Octavia Spineanu-Matei, President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union, entitled “A plea for studying (and loving) EU law,” was published in A.U.B.D. – Legal Forum No. 1/2026, on the occasion of the events marking the conferral of an honorary doctorate upon Professor Dr. Koen Lenaerts, President of the Court of Justice of the European Union, held at the Faculty of Law of the University of Bucharest on March 27, 2026.

The speech highlights, by referring to several cases pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union, the scope and diversity of situations in which Union law applies and calls for constant dialogue between national courts and the European court. Examples drawn from the fields of copyright law, family law, judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and competition law illustrate the cross-cutting nature of European Union law and its presence in a wide variety of legal fields. The central idea of the discourse is that European Union law should not be viewed as a secondary discipline in relation to the so-called “fundamental” legal disciplines, but rather as a structural component of contemporary legal education and practice. From this perspective, the author issues a call directed particularly at law students, emphasizing that, regardless of the legal profession they choose, a rigorous understanding of European Union law will, sooner or later, become indispensable.

What We (Don't) Want When Amending Criminal Law. A Preliminary Analysis of Amendments to Offenses Against the Person Through the Law on Preventing and Combating Femicide and Preceding Violence

The article titled “What We (Don’t) Want When We Amend Criminal Law. A Preliminary Analysis of the Changes to Crimes Against the Person Introduced by the Law on Preventing and Combating Femicide and Preceding Acts of Violence,” written by Associate Professor Andra-Roxana Trandafir, Ph.D.
The article analyzes the changes made to crimes against the person by the Law on the Prevention and Combating of Femicide and Precursor Violence, adopted in March 2026 by the Romanian Parliament.
The new aggravating circumstances in the context of aggravated homicide—which do not distinguish based on whether the victim is a woman or a man—are presented in detail, along with guidance on interpreting the new concepts used by the legislature, such as “control” and “domination,” guidelines on interpreting the gender-based aggravating factor and the new form of murder committed in the context of ending a relationship. Similar aggravating factors regarding offenses of inciting or aiding suicide and those against bodily integrity or health are also analyzed.
The article also identifies legislative errors, inconsistencies, or problems in the application of certain legal provisions, as well as difficulties in legal classification and the application of penalties through the system of successive aggravating factors that result in sentence increases by fractions of a penalty unit.
Without disputing the usefulness of the other provisions of the new law, the article emphasizes that the preventive effect of the amendments to the Criminal Code is debatable, given studies that show no real progress in hyper-repressive systems, and calls for caution when amending criminal law.
The article also presents the new rules regarding the initiation of ex officio criminal proceedings for domestic violence offenses involving physical assault, rape, sexual assault, and aggravated home invasion, as well as some issues raised by these regulations.

Primacy of European Union Law

The article titled “Primacy of European Union Law,” written by Ion Gâlea, a professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Bucharest, was published in A.U.B.D. – Legal Forum No. 1/2026.

The purpose of this article is not only to outline the main characteristics of the principle of the supremacy of European Union law, but also to highlight the difference—or the nuances—between “primacy” and “supremacy.”

The article also highlights the terminological difficulties in the Romanian language, where the same term, “supremacy,” is officially used. The author argues that the primacy of EU law is not a matter of a hierarchy of norms, nor is it inherent in a pyramid of norms, but rather is based on dialogue between courts through the preliminary ruling procedure, on the fact that national judges are the judges of EU law, and on the reality that EU law has direct effect in domestic law, regardless of the provisions of the latter.