Explore the vast range of titles available.

Making the due observations regarding the legal content of Article 6 of the Law No 143/2000, republished in 2014, the authors came to the final conclusion that Article 6 of the mentioned law contains three distinct incriminations regarding the high-risk drug trafficking.Thus, Article 6 (1) of the Law No 143/2000, republished, includes the crime of high-risk drug trafficking, representing the medically unnecessary prescription of such substances by a doctor.In paragraph (2) of Article 6 of the same law it is incriminated the high-risk drug trafficking, by releasing such substances from pharmacies on the basis of a recipe that includes a prescription that is not medically necessary or is falsified. In paragraph (3) of Article 6 of the same law, the high-risk drug trafficking is incriminated, by obtaining such substances from a pharmacy based on a fictitious medical recipe.In conclusion, the authors state, if a drug addict doctor prescribes to himself high-risk drugs on a recipe without being medically necessary and obtains them from a pharmacy, he will commit two crimes in real concurrence, namely the one provided in Article 6 (1) and the one provided in Article 6 (3) of the Law No 143/2000, republished.

The offence of international illicit trafficking in risk drugs is provided in Article 3 (1) of the Law No 143/2000 on preventing and combating illicit drug trafficking and consumption, and, following the amendment brought by the Law No 187/2012 for the implementation of the new Criminal Code, is currently punished by imprisonment from 3 to 10 years and the interdiction to exercise some rights. Prior to the amendment, the punishment was imprisonment from 10 to 20 years and the interdiction to exercise certain rights.

The authors analyze, making comments on two cases of judicial practice in the field of risk drug trafficking also on performing operations with products likely to have psychoactive effects. Commenting on the first case, the authors observe the rarest that can be found in the judicial practice in the matter of drugs, namely the existence of a putative deed consisting in the transportation of a supervised delivered parcel in which all the drugs were replaced with other materials, and the person who carried the parcel without drugs was accused of trafficking of risk drugs in the modality of transportation of drugs without right.Commenting on the second case, the authors criticize a solution given by Tribunal of Brăila and the Court of Appeal of Galați, on the ground that the convicted defendant was, in fact, in a factual error with regard to the fact that in the small envelopes he traded as ethnobotanical products there have been identified fragments of cannabis plant mass.

This study deals with the problems related to the offence provided in Article 9 of the Law No 143/2000 on preventing and combating illicit drug trafficking and consumption. The interpretation of the legal text is made by comparison with the previous regulation, but also by the literal interpretation of the indicated rule. Moreover, the author studies the modality of application of the text of law to concrete situations which may arise in the judicial practice.

The authors discuss a guideline given to the prosecutor's offices through a Minutes of non-unitary practice concluded on 30.07.2020. The guideline refers to the way in which the legal classification must be made, in case of committing the deeds provided by Articles 2 and 3 of the Law No 143/2000 on preventing and combating illicit drug trafficking and consumption, in reference to the Decision No 3/2017 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, in the case of international drug trafficking, when the act of bringing into or taking out from the country without right is committed in different circumstances of place and time. The authors, analyzing the given guideline, conclude that it is unrealistic.

Making the due observations regarding the legal content of Article 6 of the Law No 143/2000, republished in 2014, the authors came to the final conclusion that Article 6 of the mentioned law contains three distinct incriminations regarding the high-risk drug trafficking. Thus, Article 6 (1) of the Law No 143/2000, republished, includes the crime of high-risk drug trafficking, representing the medically unnecessary prescription of such substances by a doctor. In paragraph (2) of Article 6 of the same law it is incriminated the high-risk drug trafficking, by releasing such substances from pharmacies on the basis of a recipe that includes a prescription that is not medically necessary or is falsified. In paragraph (3) of Article 6 of the same law, the high-risk drug trafficking is incriminated, by obtaining such substances from a pharmacy based on a fictitious medical recipe. In conclusion, the authors state, if a drug addict doctor prescribes to himself high-risk drugs on a recipe without being medically necessary and obtains them from a pharmacy, he will commit two crimes in real concurrence, namely the one provided in Article 6 (1) and the one provided in Article 6 (3) of the Law No 143/2000, republished.

The authors discuss a guideline given to the prosecutor’s offices through a Minutes of non-unitary practice concluded on 30.07.2020.The guideline refers to the way in which the legal classification must be made, in case of committing the deeds provided by Articles 2 and 3 of the Law No 143/2000 on preventing and combating illicit drug trafficking and consumption, in reference to the Decision No 3/2017 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, in the case of international drug trafficking, when the act of bringing into or taking out from the country without right is committed in different circumstances of place and time.The authors, analyzing the given guideline, conclude that it is unrealistic.

The present paper examines the possibility for the courts of law to order, in case of medical malpractice, the safety measure of prohibiting to exercise the profession of doctor in the wider sense, or only the specialty that occasioned the committing of the offence provided in the criminal law, analyzing the judicial practice regarding this issue. In accordance with Article 450 paragraph (2) of Law no. 95/2006, \"disciplinary liability of doctors does not exclude criminal, tort or civil liability\". Between the regulation contained in Article 450 paragraph (2) of Law no. 95/2006 and the safety measure of prohibiting to exercise the profession of doctor, as criminal penalty, there is a close connection, within the meaning that the special law, in particular Law no. 95/2006 derogates from the general criminal law, in particular Article 111 of the Criminal Code in connection with the prohibition of exercising the medical profession. The disciplinary penalties that may be imposed against doctors for mal praxis are listed in Article 455 of Law no. 95/2006. Article 455 letter (e) sets out, as disciplinary penalty which may be imposed against doctors \"the prohibition to exercise the profession or certain medical activities\" for a period ranging between one month and one year. Comparing the provisions of Article 455 letter (e) of Law no. 95/2006 with the provisions of Article 111 of the Criminal Code, it may be noticed that the scope of disciplinary accountability of the doctor having committed the civil mal praxis is more comprehensive than the scope of the safety measure imposed by the criminal court.

These considerations are brought about by Decision no. 9 of 12 April 2016 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the Panel for the settlement of matters of criminal law. The panel was called to rule on the following matter of criminal law: \"whether the material element of the objective side of the criminal offence of public order and tranquility disturbance provided for in Article 371 of the Criminal Code needs to be directed at several individuals and whether, in the case where the action described above referred to only one person, de-criminalization operates in accordance with Article 4 of the Criminal Code. \"

The authors analyze, making comments on two cases of judicial practice in the field of risk drug trafficking also on performing operations with products likely to have psychoactive effects. Commenting on the first case, the authors observe the rarest that can be found in the judicial practice in the matter of drugs, namely the existence of a putative deed consisting in the transportation of a supervised delivered parcel in which all the drugs were replaced with other materials, and the person who carried the parcel without drugs was accused of trafficking of risk drugs in the modality of transportation of drugs without right. Commenting on the second case, the authors criticize a solution given by Tribunal of Brăila and the Court of Appeal of Galaţi, on the ground that the convicted defendant was, in fact, in a factual error with regard to the fact that in the small envelopes he traded as ethnobotanical products there have been identified fragments of cannabis plant mass.