Prof. Dr. Koen Lenarts, President of the CJEU, Joins the Scientific Board of AUBD Journals

We are honored to announce the appointment of Professor Koen Lenaerts, Ph.D., to the Scientific Council of the AUBD journals. President of the Court of Justice of the European Union and one of the most influential figures in contemporary European law, Professor Koen Lenaerts is distinguished by his exceptional scholarly and judicial work, which has shaped the evolution of the European legal order. Professor Koen Lenaerts’s appointment to the journal’s Scientific Council is further evidence of his openness to European legal dialogue.
This collaboration comes at a special moment, as on March 27, 2026, the University of Bucharest conferred upon Professor Lenaerts the title of Doctor Honoris Causa, in recognition of his remarkable contribution to the development of European Union law and the training of generations of legal professionals and researchers. On this occasion, the professor delivered a lecture at the Faculty of Law, presenting to a large audience aspects related to preliminary questions referred to the Court of Justice. The written transcript of this presentation will be published in the coming weeks in the AUBD – Forum Juridic journal.

Acceptance of the Request to Recuse a Judge for Lack of Empathy. A Critical Note

The article titled “Granting a Motion to Recuse a Judge for Lack of Empathy: A Critical Note,” written by Lecturer Cristi Danileț, Ph.D., was published in A.U.B.D. – Legal Forum No. 1/2026.

The study critically analyzes the expansion of grounds for recusal of a judge beyond the strictly procedural sphere, with reference to axiological criteria such as empathy or the judge’s public discourse. The research is based on a ruling by the Bucharest Court of Appeals in which a motion to recuse a judge was granted on the basis of a reasonable suspicion of lack of impartiality, derived not from specific conduct during the proceedings but from public statements regarding the role of a judge’s empathy in criminal proceedings.

In our view, the decision creates a conceptual confusion between judicial empathy—as a professional virtue and a cognitive tool for deliberation—and procedural impartiality, as a verifiable legal guarantee. Equating the two transforms recusal from a mechanism for safeguarding a fair trial into a tool for the axiological selection of the panel of judges.

The methodology employed combines an analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court with doctrinal exegesis and a critical evaluation of judicial reasoning. The results highlight the lack of a concrete analysis of the recused judge’s statements, the existence of an unjustified logical leap, and the risk of using recusal as a tool against steadfast and outspoken judges, thereby inhibiting freedom of expression—contrary to European case law. The study concludes that empathy pertains to the quality of the judicial decision—which can be reviewed through reasoning and appeals—rather than to the realm of procedural incompatibilities.

Article 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Procedural Adaptability Versus the Imperative of Observing the Legal Deadline

The article titled “Article 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure—Between Procedural Flexibility and the Imperative to Comply with the Statutory Time Limit,” written by Gruia-Teodor Streinu, a judge on the Criminal Division of the Bucharest Tribunal, was published in A.U.B.D. – Legal Forum No. 1/2026.

This article analyzes the procedural sanctions applicable to preventive measures, with a focus on the 5-day deadline and the relationship between extension and substitution. It highlights the differences between the criminal investigation phase and the moment the case is brought before the court via an indictment, as well as the consequences of failing to comply with the statutory time limit. The time limits in this area serve as substantial safeguards against arbitrariness, having a constitutional and treaty-based foundation, and ensure periodic judicial review of the grounds for the measure. Failure to comply with the 5-day deadline results in the Public Prosecutor’s Office forfeiting the right to request an extension or review of the measure and renders the belated request absolutely null and void, with the measure ceasing by operation of law upon the expiration of its term. The institution of substitution provided for in Article 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is of an auxiliary nature and presupposes the emergence of new factual or legal elements; it cannot replace an extension when the original grounds still exist. The text cannot be interpreted in isolation but must be interpreted systematically, within the broader framework of the regulation of preventive measures, in order to prevent the circumvention of procedural discipline through the formal use of the substitution mechanism.

The Crime of Aggression in the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Aspects of Criminal Procedural Law

The article titled “The Crime of Aggression under the Statute of the International Criminal Court: Aspects of Criminal Procedural Law,” written by Dragoș-Enrico Dediu, Legal Advisor at the Ministry of Justice, was published in A.U.B.D. – Legal Forum No. 1/2026.

This study is a continuation of the previous paper on substantive law issues related to the crime of aggression and aims to further the analysis by presenting the criminal procedural implications arising from the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction over this crime, in particular, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 15bis and 15ter of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The study examines the distinct procedural rules regarding jurisdiction over the investigation of the crime of aggression, as well as the various forms of international cooperation concerning this crime that have begun to take place in the context of the Russian Federation’s war of aggression against Ukraine. At the same time, the study also analyzes aspects related to the prosecution, adjudication, and international cooperation regarding the crime of aggression from the perspective of national criminal procedural law.

Driving a Vehicle Under the Influence of Psychoactive Substances. The Effects of Decision 25/2025 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice

The article titled “Driving a Vehicle Under the Influence of Psychoactive Substances: The Effects of Decision 25/2025 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice,” written by Prof. Cristina Rotaru Radu, Ph.D., was published in A.U.B.D. – Legal Forum No. 1/2026.

The article is based on the premise that, with regard to driving a vehicle under the influence of psychoactive substances, the Panel for the Resolution of Legal Issues in Criminal Matters of the High Court of Cassation and Justice issued Decision 25/2025, in which it established that, for the offense to exist, it is necessary to establish both the presence of the psychoactive substance in biological samples and its ability to impair the offender’s capacity to drive.
Not only does the Decision fail to offer any prospects for unifying judicial practice—which, incidentally, was not divergent to begin with—but it also introduces considerable confusion into the process of interpreting and applying the law, leading to a heterogeneous practice lacking predictability, since in the recitals, when establishing the conditions for the offense to be established, it refers to an objective criterion—exceeding the cut-off limits—a concept to which it does not, however, assign a concrete meaning, while in the operative part it refers to the psychoactive substance’s ability to impair the offender’s capacity to drive, that is, a subjective criterion.
Furthermore, the decision raises issues of unconstitutionality, as well as concerns regarding the courts exceeding their role in the context of the separation of powers.

Between Charlie and Charlie. On Freedom of Expression in the Era of Global Rebels

The article titled “Between Charlie and Charlie: On Freedom of Expression in the Age of Global Networks,” written by Prof. Radu-Alexandru Rizoiu, Ph.D., was published in A.U.B.D. – Legal Forum No. 1/2026.

The article examines the new dimensions of freedom of expression in today’s world, where messages are communicated instantly to large audiences online via social media. Furthermore, this mass communication can be tailored to reach specific individuals where it may find a receptive audience, and the same message can be conveyed in different ways to maximize its impact on different groups of people. Despite the concerns of states (especially in Europe) regarding the use of manipulation through algorithms, the article seeks to propose maintaining the old liberal principle of the “free market of ideas,” with minor adjustments dictated by new technologies. The main thesis is that ex ante censorship of any kind is a greater evil than allowing non-conforming messages. Civil and constitutional law arguments are used to explain the legal limits of censorship in the current regulatory context. Finally, a series of solutions are proposed that could be the subject of further discussion regarding the ex post filtering of prohibited messages.

The Crime of Aggression in the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Aspects of Substantive Criminal Law

The article titled “The Crime of Aggression in the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Aspects of Substantive Criminal Law,” written by Dragoș-Enrico Dediu, Legal Advisor, Ministry of Justice.
The purpose of this study is to analyze the crime of aggression as set forth in Article 8bis of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. An examination of this crime under international criminal law highlights certain problematic aspects regarding, for example, the active subject and the material element, which arise directly from the wording of the incrimination provision adopted at the Conference of the States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on June 11, 2010. At the same time, through an analysis of the relevant comparative law, the study also puts forward some proposals de lege ferenda for the implementation of the crime of aggression in national legislation.

Freedom of expression as a limitation on the incrimination of acts committed in cyberspace

The article titled “Freedom of Expression as a Limitation on the Criminalization of Acts Committed in Cyberspace,” written by Assistant Professor Dorel Herinean, Ph.D., was published in A.U.B.D. – Legal Forum No. 1/2026.

This article examines the intersection between freedom of expression and criminal laws that may apply in cyberspace, as well as the general limits, from a criminal, social, and logistical perspective, that freedom of expression imposes on the criminalization, detection, and punishment of committed offenses—and vice versa—that the latter’s objectives impose on the right to freedom of expression. The article includes both an analysis of the criminalization rules that may apply and an analysis of ECHR case law regarding the intersection between criminal law and freedom of expression.

Extended Judicial Intervention in Protection Orders: The Possibility of Ex Officio Issuance of Protection Measures and Supplementing Victim Consent for Wearing Electronic Surveillance Devices

The article titled “Extended Judicial Intervention in Protection Order Matters: The Possibility of Ordering Protective Measures Ex Officio and Substituting the Victim’s Consent for the Use of an Electronic Monitoring Device,” written by Drd. Maria-Giovanna Rossi.

In light of the rise in cases of domestic violence and family violence in Romania, this article aims to analyze, on the one hand, the general legal framework governing protection orders, with particular reference to the limitations on the court’s authority to order protective measures without a request from the victim and, in particular, the possibility of waiving the victim’s consent to wear an electronic monitoring device and, implicitly, of fitting the abuser with an electronic monitoring bracelet if the court finds that there is a real and imminent danger to the victim’s life.

Annals of the University of Bucharest – Law Series, 2025

Analele Universității din București – Seria Drept, 2025
Număr dedicat dialogului dintre drept, tehnologie și evoluțiile recente ale ordinii juridice europene
Volumul din 2025 al Analelor Universității din București – Seria Drept reunește studii originale semnate de profesori, cercetători și practicieni ai dreptului, oferind o perspectivă complexă asupra unor teme de interes pentru evoluția dreptului național și european. Noile tehnologii, noile forme de organizare socială și economică, precum și evoluțiile normative la nivel european și internațional sunt analizate prin metode riguroase, cu accent pe relevanța lor practică.
Acest număr aduce împreună teme de actualitate majoră – de la impactul tehnologiilor blockchain asupra dreptului civil, la câmpul tensionat al formelor controlului de constituționalitate, la limitele suveranității fiscale a statelor membre UE, la provocările scrierii juridice într-o epocă dominată de cerințe de accesibilitate și limbaj clar, până la reevaluarea unor instituții clasice precum perioada de probă, răspunderea administratorilor sau statutul juridic al concepției in vitro.
Doamna prof.univ.dr. Adriana ALMĂȘAN și domnul drd. Eduard FLOREA analizează în profunzime premisa integrării Smart Contracts în dreptul român, evaluând compatibilitatea acestora cu teoria obligațiilor și impactul reglementărilor europene precum Data Act și AI Act. Autorii subliniază necesitatea unei legislații dedicate, capabile să armonizeze inovația tehnologică cu principiile fundamentale ale dreptului civil.
Domnul prof. univ. dr. Ion GÂLEA examinează statutul dreptului intern ca „sistem de referință” în cauzele privind selectivitatea măsurilor fiscale, analizând jurisprudența recentă a CJUE, precum și două ipoteze privind poziția dreptului național în fața instituțiilor europene.
Doamna prof. univ. dr. Simona GHERGHINA și domnul drd. Mihai BĂEȘU analizează vulnerabilitățile cadrului normativ privind garanțiile publice locale în contextul insolvenței unităților administrativ-teritoriale, propunând teste și criterii ce pot fi aplicate de către judecătorul-sindic, atât cu scopul de a proteja creditorii, cât și cu scopul de a asigura continuitatea serviciilor publice esențiale pe plan local.
Doamna prof. univ. dr. Lavinia-Valeria LEFTERACHE propune un ghid indispensabil pentru studenți și cercetători, care clarifică structura unei teze de doctorat, criteriile de originalitate, formularea ipotezelor și limitele rezonabile ale propunerilor de lege ferenda.
Doamna prof. univ. dr. Claudia-Ana MOARCĂȘ examinează telemunca, munca pe platforme digitale și noile instrumente de monitorizare, subliniind necesitatea unui echilibru între flexibilitatea muncii, protecția datelor și dreptul la viață privată.
Domnul prof. univ. dr. Corneliu-Liviu POPESCU arată că utilizarea de către Curtea Constituțională a expresiei „obiecție de neconstituționalitate” pentru a desemna o modalitate de sesizare a judecătorului constituțional, este neconstituțională, atât în raport cu conținutul acestei instituții juridice atunci când ea exista, cât și în raport cu abrogarea normei juridice în materie și cu inexistența juridică actuală a acestei instituții..
Domnul prof. univ. dr. Radu RIZOIU, pornind de la un caz de practică judiciară, analizează momentul de la care se nasc drepturile copilului ce se va naște după decesul tatălui biologic în cazurile în care embrionul a fost criogenat anterior acestui deces, precum și limitele libertății contractuale în materia dreptului persoanelor.
Doamna lect. univ. dr. Marilena CRĂCIUN (ENE) explică tensiunea dintre autonomia fiscală a statelor membre și constrângerile impuse de legislația unională și jurisprudența CJUE, evidențiind echilibrul necesar între interesul național și integrarea europeană.
Doamna lect. univ. dr. Mihaela-Augustina NIȚĂ și doamna lect. univ. dr. Oana-Mihaela SALOMIA analizează efectul direct orizontal al unor dispoziții din Carta Drepturilor Fundamentale a Uniunii Europene în litigii între particulari, prezentând cauzele Egenberger, Bauer, Willmeroth, IR și Cresco, precum și implicațiile lor pentru instanțele naționale.
Doamna lect. univ. dr. Raluca PAPADIMA propune o viziune coerentă asupra predării scrierii juridice, prezentând principiile fundamentale și cadrul conceptual necesar profesionalizării acestei competențe în mediul juridic românesc.
Doamna asist. univ. dr. Mihaela GHERGHE explică impactul Directivei privind Accesibilitatea (EAA) asupra contractelor destinate consumatorilor și oportunitățile aduse de utilizarea limbajului clar, fără a pierde rigoarea juridică.
Domnul asist. univ. dr. George-Alexandru LAZĂR, pornind de la hotărârea Fabbri și alții c. San Marino, analizează condițiile în care art. 6 din Convenția Europeană a Drepturilor Omului, în componenta sa civilă, devine aplicabil atunci când victima alege să se constituie parte civilă în cursul procesului penal.
Domnul asist. univ. dr. Alexandru-Șerban RĂȚOI analizează trecerea responsabilității sociale de la voluntariat la obligație juridică în cadrul CSRD (Directiva privind Raportarea Durabilității Corporative) și CSDDD (Directiva privind Diligența Necesară în Materie de Durabilitate), prin prisma teoriilor economice privind externalitățile, părțile interesate și eficiența reglementării.
Doamna asist. univ. dr. Valentina-Lidia ZĂRNESCU explorează rolul perioadei de probă ca mecanism de flexibilitate, dar și limitele sale juridice, inclusiv posibilitatea constatării abuzului de drept în încetarea contractului de muncă.
Domnul drd. Andrei-Nicolae POPA examinează ordonanțele de urgență adoptate pentru îndeplinirea jalonului PNRR și critică efectele lor retroactive, imprevizibile și contrare principiilor constituționale, însă și ingerința excesivă a Comisiei Europene în această materie.