My aim is to analyse the meaning of private life focusing on the clauses which, in the terms of the Romanian Criminal Code, make some intrusions into private life aspects not to be qualified as crimes. Within my analysis, in order to create an eloquent comparison, I will draw your attention to some meaningful solutions given by the Romanian Courts of Law and by the European Court of Human Rights.Nowadays, it can be easily noticed that people have a big appetite for information. Having this in mind, it is clear that there is a high risk of intrusions into private life. The doctrine has found that there is no dull or negligible information for the human curiosity (Pavel & Turianu, 1996, pp. 10-11). I like to start by mentioning that this crime is provided for in the Article 226 of Romanian Criminal Code, and it has no correspondent in the previous Code.

According to Article 2 of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, ‘States […] shall respect and ensure the rights […] to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status’. 

1. Introduction

The Polish constitutional crisis, also referred to as the rule of law and democracy crisis (Ash, 2016; Berendt, 2016; Schulz, 2016; Veser, 2015), centres primarily on the paralysis of the Constitutional Tribunal. The Constitutional Tribunal, a sole guardian of the Constitution, has found itself in a stalemate since autumn 2015 when the Law and Justice Party (PiS) came into power. The conservative Party has crippled the Tribunal by the non-acceptance of the three Tribunal’s judges elected by the previous Sejm (Lower Chamber of the Polish Parliament) and by the amendments to the Constitutional Tribunal Act, which effectively disabled its functioning. Such actions have provoked vociferous domestic and international reactions. For instance, it has triggered the following reactions: widespread protests around Poland, the creation of the Committee for the Defence of Democracy, criticism espoused by academics and NGOs, the ’debate about Poland’ in the European Parliament, the initiation of the unprecedented EU Commission procedure under 2014 Rule of Law Framework, and the unfavourable for the Polish government Venice Commission Opinion.

In the European context, as well as in the national one, corruption has always represented an antisocial, unethical, and illegal behaviour affecting the welfare of the society by favouring the interests of a limited number of individuals. 

As our democratic society aims towards an ideology based on liberty and progression, normality is highly associated with a fast growth of the living standards and the wellbeing of the community. Consequently, this leads to an accelerating desire for swift enrichment, gaining personal advantage and material assets. In this manner, what we define as ‘normality’ gains its significance through the necessity of possessing something. The sensible question which may arise is whether non-participation in the process of stopping corruption and our indifference make us co-authors or participants in crimes, or our endeavors to combat this phenomenon is a benefit to the whole society?

Our Supporters Opportunities Masters Abroad Newsletter