Baciu Partners

To what extent can the press reproduce and use texts published on social media without the author's consent? This question lies at the heart of a case brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU"), following a request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the High Court of Cassation and Justice ("HCCJ" or "High Court") in September 2024. The need for clarification arose in the context of a case pending before Romanian courts, [1] in which the plaintiff is receiving legal assistance and representation from the law firms BACIU PARTNERS and Turcu & Turcu. Context of the dispute The dispute that led to the referral to the CJEU has the following coordinates: through a lawsuit filed before the Bucharest Tribunal, the claimant CY[2] requested, in opposition with the defendants Gândul Media Network SRL ("Gândul") and HO,[3] that the court finds an infringement of the claimant's copyright by the defendants. The claimant criticized, in essence, the defendats' full reproduction on the website of the publication Gândul of a text she had written and published on her personal Facebook page three years earlier (in 2018), a text that came to Gândul’s attention after it was reposted by the claimaint again on her Facebook page in 2021. In the Facebook post, the claimant, in her capacity as a teacher, expressed her opinion regarding the “gifts” that parents typically give to teachers at the beginning of the school year, thus the resharing of her post three years later occurred in the context of a new school year starting. According to the claimant, the defendants thus reproduced, without authorisation, a work belonging to her, by publishing a press article which faithfully reproduces the text. Gândul described the "surprising" character of the text reproduced without the author's consent. The claimant also requested that Gândul removes the work from its own website, order the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the amount of RON 2,500 as moral damages and that the court’s decision be published in the same manner as the original article. Course of the dispute The Bucharest Tribunal, the court of first instance, dismissed the claimant's requests, finding that the text published by her on her personal Facebook page does not constitute a “work”, within the meaning of Article 7 of Law no. 8/1996 on copyright and related rights ("Law no. 8/ 1996"), therefore, does not benefit from copyright protection. In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered that the text is merely a list of the claimant's grievances, as a teacher, and that it lacked originality. The claimant appealed the decision. The Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the lower court, reasoning that the text published by the claimant lacked originality, as it did not go beyond the bounds of a normal discourse expressing a position on certain customs within the school environment. According to the assessment of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, in order to be protected by copyright, the creation should have been an "artistic work". The appellate court further stated that a text can only qualify as an “artistic work” if it introduces into its artistic domain something new and engaging—something that evokes emotion in those who read it. At the same time, the appellate court’s reasoning noted that the defendants had not intended to appropriate the message, conceptual content, or form of the published text, but merely to positively highlight the claimant's opinion and to bring the issue she addressed to public attention. Against the decision rendered on appeal, CY filed a second appeal, requesting the High Court to refer the matter to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling for the clarification of the concept of “work”. The question proposed by CY sought to clarify how national courts should assess the criteria already established by the CJEU for determining whether a creation is eligible for copyright protection, as summarized in Case C-683/17, Cofemel – Sociedade de Vestuário S.A. v. G-Star Raw CV (“the Cofemel Case”)[4]. Specifically, the question was whether the existence of an original and identifiable object is sufficient for a creation to be protected by copyright, or whether an additional, purely subjective criterion should also be required - namely, that the creation must reflect the notion of art. In support of her second appeal and the request for referral to the CJEU, CY argued that although she believes the answer should reject the idea of a subjective criterion, there is an inconsistent judicial practice of the Romanian courts, which often misinterpret the concept of a "work" by incorrectly analyzing the originality requirement. More precisely, CY criticized the lower courts’ approach of assessing originality based on an alleged artistic component of the creation—implying that, in order to qualify as a "work," a creation must exhibit artistic traits. The appellant argued that this angle of analysis is characterized by subjectivity and exceeds the competence of the national court - which, in such a context, would be called upon to determine what constitutes art and what does not. Therefore, this approach is not in accordance with the rules of interpretation established by the CJEU, and these aspects require clarification from the CJEU itself. Request for a preliminary ruling Following deliberations, the High Court granted the request to refer the matter to the CJEU. CY’s proposed question was reformulated and supplemented by a second question, added at the initiative of the HCCJ, as follows: „1. Must the provisions of Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society[5] be interpreted as meaning that a text posted on a social network expressing an opinion relating to social practices regarded as inappropriate may be considered to be a work protected by copyright? Must the provisions of Article 5(3)(c) of Directive 2001/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law that permits the use, for the purposes of providing information on topical issues, of only short extracts from a work but not of the work as a whole, in particular where it is of short length, and only on condition that there is no direct or indirect commercial or economic advantage?” Brief considerations on the request for a preliminary ruling The request for a preliminary ruling therefore seeks to clarify two important issues: Whether texts expressing opinions, published on social media, fall within the category of "other writings" in art. 2 para. (1) of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (the 'Berne Convention') and may benefit from legal protection by copyright; and Whether the exception provided for in Article 5 para. (3) letter (c) of Directive 2001/29/EC (the "Directive") has been correctly transposed into Romanian law by the provisions of art. 35 para. (2) letter c) of Law no. 8/1996. Regarding the first issue, it will be interesting to note whether the CJEU will reaffirm the principles outlined in the Cofemel case, where it was stated that the qualification of a creation as a "work" cannot be determined using a subjective criterion – such as the criterion of the aesthetic/artistic value of the creation – but must instead be assessed using objective criteria. The Cofemel case synthesizes the CJEU's perspective up to the time of its ruling and offers a particularly important point of reference – namely, that the aesthetic/artistic value of an object “is the product of an intrinsically subjective sensation of beauty experienced by each individual who may look at that design. Consequently, that subjective effect does not, in itself, permit a subject matter to be characterised as existing and identifiable with sufficient precision and objectivity, within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraphs 32 to 34 of the present judgment.” At the same time, it will be interesting to see whether the notion of "other writings", as provided for in the list under Article 2 of the Berne Convention[6], can include any kind of texts, including texts published in less official channels or formats (e.g. on social media), as long as they meet the legal criteria for copyright protection. Such an analysis would allow the CJEU to bring the interpretation of the notion of “text” into today's technological reality, in which a large portion of written content that, if printed, would qualify for copyright protection, is now published exclusively or entirely online. As for the second issue, the Court is essentially being asked to determine whether the exception allowing the reproduction of copyrighted works by the press for the reporting of current events and informative purposes has been correctly transposed into Romanian law within the limits established by the Directive. The HCCJ's question arises in the context where the provisions of Romanian law (Article 35(2)(c) of Law no. 8/1996) may be considered more restrictive than the provisions of the Directive (Article 5(3)(c) of Directive 2001/29/EC), since Romanian law provides that the exception for reporting current events for informational purposes applies only if the excerpts taken from the work are short and their use is made without any direct or indirect commercial or economic advantage. In other words, Romanian law could be interpreted to mean that the press may not reproduce protected works in their entirety, but must instead limit itself to reproducing only those excerpts necessary for fulfilling the purpose of informing the public, and must not exploit the exception for commercial or economic gain. Therefore, the High Court's question raises two aspects of the issue: (i) whether Romanian legal provisions comply with the limits of the Directive, and (ii) what limits apply to the press when reproducing works, particularly when the works in question are not of substantial length. Conclusions To what extent are social media posts protected by copyright and to what extent can they be reproduced and quoted by media outlets? The answer can, of course, be "it depends". However, the preliminary ruling to be issued in Case C-598/24 will, hopefully, establish the criteria needed to answer these questions – bringing greater clarity to this aspect of intellectual property law. The CJEU will weigh the competing interests at stake—particularly, on the one hand, the right to intellectual property protection as a symbol of a civilized society that fosters free thought and innovation, and, on the other hand, the right of the press to present its readers with examples of such texts, even when they are published on social media. While awaiting the Court of Justice of the European Union's decision, we consider important to highlight that freedom of expression is not a universal remedy that the press can invoke in all situations, and the use of works created by others must always be carried out within the limits and spirit of the law, which aims to ensure a balance between the right to information and the copyright protection. The law firms BACIU PARTNERS and Turcu & Turcu continue to provide representation in the ongoing proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union. We will provide updates on the progress of the case as soon as new information becomes available. Authored by Ileana Nicolescu, Managing Associate and Narcis Codori, Associate [1] https://www.scj.ro/1094/Detalii-dosar?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=300000000994350 [2] Anonymization belonging to the CJEU. [3] Id. [4] Judgment of 12 September 2019 in Case C-683/17 Cofemel - Sociedade de Vestuario S.A. v G-Star Raw CV (C-683/17, EU:C:2019:721, paragraphs 29 to 35). [5] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02001L0029-20190606 [6] The Berne Convention of 9 September 1886 for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, completed at Paris on 4 May 1896, revised at Berlin on 13 November 1908, completed at Berne on 20 March 1914, revised at Rome on 2 June 1928, revised at Brussels on 26 June 1948, revised at Stockholm on 14 July 1967 and at Paris on 24 July 1971 and amended on 28 September 1979, available at this link: https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/textdetails/12214

The regulation of crypto-asset markets at the level of the European Union is no longer a legislative promise, but a legal reality. With the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA), the Union establishes, for the first time, a unified and directly applicable legal framework specifically designed for digital assets not covered by existing financial regulations. Although the Regulation entered into force in 2023, the actual applicability of the provisions of the Regulation regarding crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) has been postponed, in order to allow Member States to establish the necessary institutional infrastructure. National Initiative for the implementation of MiCA In Romania, the implementation of the MiCA Regulation has been initiated through a draft Emergency Government Ordinance developed by the Ministry of Finance, which is currently subject to public consultation under the applicable transparency procedures. This legislative act lays down the national framework required for the effective enforcement of the new European provisions and, in accordance with Article 94 of the Regulation, delineates the distribution of responsibilities among the competent national authorities. Furthermore, the draft ordinance sets out the institutional architecture for the supervision of the domestic crypto-asset market, establishes the authorization regime applicable to crypto-asset service providers (CASPs), and introduces a specific framework of sanctions for regulatory breaches. It also regulates essential aspects such as the operation of Crypto ATM terminals, the technical and fiscal compliance obligations of service providers, as well as transitional provisions enabling entities that are already active to continue their operations until the relevant authorization is obtained under the new legal regime. Taken as a whole, the draft ordinance marks a transition from a previously fragmented and liberal regulatory environment to a unified and coherent legislative framework, fully aligned with European standards and aimed at supporting the development and institutional consolidation of the crypto-asset market in Romania. Institutional architecture of crypto-asset market supervision With regard to the allocation of responsibilities, the draft Emergency Ordinance designates two central authorities as responsible for the implementation of the Regulation: the Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF), an autonomous administrative body responsible for the regulation and oversight of non-banking financial markets, and the National Bank of Romania (BNR), the central bank of the Romanian state and the prudential authority for the banking sector and payment institutions. ASF is entrusted with supervising the issuance of asset-referenced tokens (ARTs), other crypto-assets that are not electronic money tokens, as well as the provision of crypto-asset services, expressly including the operation of Crypto ATMs. In contrast, BNR is designated as the competent authority exclusively for the issuance of EMTs by credit institutions and electronic money institutions under its supervision. Additionally, in terms of cross-border cooperation, ASF is appointed as the single point of contact for the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), while BNR assumes the same role in relation to the European Banking Authority (EBA). To fulfil their statutory responsibilities efficiently, both authorities may be supported by other public institutions with technical, fiscal, or cybersecurity competencies, including: the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MAI), the National Authority for Consumer Protection (ANPC), the National Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF), the National Institute for Research and Development in Informatics – ICI Bucharest, and the Authority for the Digitalization of Romania (ADR). Inter-institutional cooperation mechanisms are strengthened through the possibility of concluding formal cooperation protocols. Authorisation regime for crypto-asset service providers and related infrastructure A distinct section is dedicated to the regulatory framework applicable to Crypto ATM terminals, defined as physical devices through which users may purchase or sell crypto-assets using cash or other payment methods. According to the draft legislation, the operation of such terminals is subject to prior authorisation by the Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF), acting as the competent authority. For this purpose, operators are required to submit two technical approvals: one concerning the physical model of the terminal, issued by the National Institute for Research and Development in Informatics (ICI Bucharest), and another concerning the IT system employed, issued by the Romanian Authority for Digitalisation (ADR). Furthermore, the draft establishes the obligation to implement technical mechanisms that enable real-time and remote access by the competent authority to transactional data, including the individual identification of users for each transaction carried out. The terminals must be equipped with authentication systems, encryption technologies and advanced security measures, and must be installed in locations compliant with the legal requirements for physical protection, as laid down by Government Decision No. 301/2012. The draft explicitly prohibits the installation of such terminals in in publicly accessible or unsupervised premises and requires prior notification to the ASF regarding the intended locations. Additionally, providers are required to ensure full transparency regarding fees and terms of use, as well as easy access to information concerning the risks associated with crypto-asset transactions. With regard to the obligations imposed on crypto-asset service providers, the draft legislative act reflects the legislator’s intention to establish a market access regime that is both rigorous and proportionate, in line with the principles set out under MiCA. The draft Emergency Ordinance conditions the granting of authorisation on the cumulative fulfilment of clear requirements: the absence of outstanding tax liabilities, the absence of unreversed criminal convictions or relevant entries in the tax offence register, both for the legal entity and for the members of its management. Existing operators will be required to update their corporate purpose accordingly and notify either the Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF) or the National Bank of Romania (BNR), depending on the nature of the services provided. In addition, a monthly fee amounting to 0.5% of the revenues generated from authorised activities is established. This amount must be transferred in full to the ASF no later than the 15th day of the month following the one for which it is due, and is intended to support the Authority’s regulatory, supervisory and enforcement duties in the crypto-asset sector. Failure to pay this fee shall result in the revocation of the provider’s operating authorisation. Supervisory mechanisms and the sanctioning framework From a supervisory standpoint, the draft ordinance introduces a differentiated sanctioning mechanism, tailored to the nature of the entity and the severity of the breach. It draws a clear distinction between administrative offences and criminal violations, assigning enforcement powers to the two competent authorities – the Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF) and the National Bank of Romania (BNR). These authorities are empowered to apply a broad range of enforcement measures, including administrative fines, written warnings, suspension of activities, and public disclosure of the sanctions imposed. All sanctions are subject to procedural safeguards, including the right to challenge administrative decisions before a court of law. The underlying objective of this coercive framework is to ensure a high level of compliance and investor protection, without impairing the functioning of the market. Transitional provisions and compliance challenges In order to allow for the adaptation of entities already operating in the field of crypto-asset services on Romanian territory, the draft ordinance includes transitional provisions enabling such entities to continue their activity until authorisation is obtained under the new legal framework. However, the wording of the proposed legislation creates legal uncertainty and necessitates further clarification, as the current formulation of the transitional provisions under Article XXXIV of the draft ordinance appears to extend the authorisation requirement to providers that are already authorised in another Member State of the European Union under the MiCA Regulation. This interpretation is not, however, expressly supported by any provision that would exclude the applicability of the cross-border service provision mechanisms laid down in the Regulation. While it is unclear whether this extension of the authorisation requirement was indeed intended by the legislator, the absence of an explicit distinction between the two categories of providers risks leading to inconsistent application of the regulation and to practical difficulties in ensuring compliance during the transitional period. In addition, the draft legislative act introduces an obligation for crypto-asset platforms to undergo recurring technical audits, with a view to ensuring a high level of operational security and user protection. In cases where repeated security breaches are identified, the draft provides for gradual sanctions, which may ultimately lead to the suspension of the entity’s activity for a period of up to three years, as well as the obligation to fully compensate customers for the damages incurred. The implementation of the MiCA Regulation in Romania is expected to fundamentally reshape the operational landscape for crypto-asset service providers. Significant investments in compliance infrastructure, advanced technology, and specialized personnel will be necessary. At the same time, increased investor confidence and enhanced market stability may constitute key advantages. From a legal perspective, the transposition of MiCA poses several challenges: the complexity of inter-institutional coordination, time constraints in adopting secondary legislation, and the risk of market concentration. These challenges are addressed through transitional arrangements and structured mechanisms for institutional cooperation. Therefore, the proposed legislative measure constitutes a critical and necessary step toward establishing a regulated, functional, and credible crypto-asset market in Romania, fully aligned with European standards.   Authored by Andrei Cosma, Partner and Adela Nuță, Managing Associate.

In April 2025, the UK Gambling Commission released a comprehensive update on emerging money laundering and terrorist financing risks across the gambling sector that also outlines current threats and sets Commission’s clear expectations for how operators should respond to such. Although directed at licensed operators in Great Britain, the Commission’s insights have wider relevance beyond the UK context. They highlight systemic vulnerabilities that increasingly affect gambling markets globally, particularly in jurisdictions such as Romania, where AML compliance frameworks continue to evolve in line with international expectations set by the FATF and the European Union. Specifically, the update outlines a significant number of emerging risk areas that reflect both regulatory priorities and broader vulnerabilities within the gambling sector, including the continued misuse of MSB services within casinos, the increasing use of AI to forge identity documents and circumvent due diligence, and the exploitation of personal data for fraudulent account creation. Other key concerns include weak oversight of open-loop payment systems, the appearance of licensed games on unregulated platforms, and high-risk activity linked to cryptoasset transactions. The report also highlights operational blind spots in terminal-based payments, unaddressed shifts in customer demographics, and the laundering potential of crash games. Additional risks relate to the improper acceptance of asylum-related identity cards, and the insufficient vetting of third-party partners and financial inflows. Together, these findings reinforce the need for dynamic, risk-based AML strategies across the sector. Although specific to the UK framework, the underlying typologies of the risks identified by the report are not. The convergence of digital gambling, AI manipulation, cryptoassets, and cross-border financial flows means that these risks are inherently transnational. In this sense, the Gambling Commission’s analysis offers practical guidance for AML professionals, regulators, and compliance teams beyond the UK. For Romanian operators, many of the risks highlighted are increasingly visible within the local market. As such, the UK model can serve as a benchmark for proactive risk mitigation, providing a valuable roadmap for strengthening compliance procedures, internal audit frameworks, and client onboarding protocols. As a result, the Commission’s update offers a relevant point of reference for operators aiming to align their AML frameworks with emerging international standards.   Authors: Andrei Cosma, Partner and Adela Nuță, Managing Associate

As part of the European Union’s broader efforts to promote equality and eliminate barriers to participation in the digital economy, the legal framework on accessibility will soon become binding for a wide range of service providers, including those active in the gambling sector. Accessibility, as defined under Directive (EU) 2019/882 on the accessibility requirements for products and services (commonly referred to as the European Accessibility Act – EAA), refers to the ability of persons with disabilities to perceive, understand, navigate and interact with products and services on an equal basis with others. In Romania, the EAA has been transposed through Law no. 232/2022, which introduces mandatory accessibility requirements applicable to a broad array of services across the internal market. Starting from 28 June 2025, gambling operators established in, or offering services within, the European Union will be required to ensure that their platforms comply with this harmonised accessibility regime. Although both online and land-based gambling operators may fall within the scope of the accessibility framework established by Law no. 232/2022, the degree of applicability varies depending on the nature of the service provided. In the case of land-based operations, potential obligations may arise in connection with the use of self-service terminals or with the accessibility of the physical premises where services are offered. However, considering the distinct regulatory considerations applicable to such environments, including possible extensions under national law, a separate and dedicated analysis will be provided for the land-based segment. Online gambling services, by their very nature as remotely accessible, contract-based offerings delivered through websites or mobile applications fall within the scope of the accessibility obligations laid down in Law no. 232/2022. In line with that legal framework, operators are required to ensure that their platforms are not only technically compliant, but also functionally accessible throughout the entire user journey. This requirement extends beyond the visual or structural design of the interface and encompasses the manner in which information is organised, presented and made operable for all users, including persons with disabilities. From the initial stages of account creation and identity verification, through game interaction and transaction flows, and up to customer support, accessibility must be integrated as a fundamental element of service delivery and platform design. In operational terms, this implies that all content and functionalities must be conceived in a way that makes them perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust for all users, including those with visual, auditory, motor or cognitive impairments. Visual elements such as icons, buttons or promotional banners must be accompanied by appropriate semantic markers to allow interpretation through assistive technologies. User navigation should be fully achievable without reliance on touch input or pointer devices. Textual content must be scalable without loss of readability or structural coherence, and visual contrasts must remain legible across a range of visual capabilities. Where multimedia components are integrated (for example, video tutorials or dynamic promotional content) equivalent alternatives such as captions or descriptive transcripts must be provided to ensure access on equal terms. The legal obligations applicable to online gambling operators are not limited to the structural or technical configuration of the digital platform. In accordance with the legislative framework previously discussed, operators are also required to ensure that all communication and support mechanisms are accessible to users with disabilities. This includes customer-facing services such as help desks, call centres, live chat tools and technical assistance channels, which must be designed to function compatibly with assistive technologies. At least one communication method must be made available for users who cannot rely on voice telephony. Equally, documents such as general terms and conditions, game rules/help files, account statements or promotional terms must be published in formats that are accessible and adaptable, for instance by enabling screen reader access or alternative display modes. Beyond these design and functional obligations, operators are required to publicly document how their services meet the legal requirements through an accessibility statement. This document must contain a general description of the service, an outline of how accessibility obligations have been addressed, and information on how users can request additional accessible formats or report non-compliance. While the accessibility statement must outline how the service meets legal requirements, the law does not prescribe a fixed set of technical solutions that operators must follow. Neither Law no. 232/2022 nor Directive (EU) 2019/882 imposes mandatory implementation specifications. Instead, conformity can be demonstrated by reference to harmonised European standards, with EN 301 549, incorporating WCAG 2.1 Level AA serving as the most widely accepted benchmark. Although WCAG 2.2 has been published, it has not yet been formally adopted at Union level. At the same time, the law recognises that certain providers may not be subject to the full extent of the accessibility obligations. These include microenterprises defined as operators with fewer than ten employees and an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 2 million, which are exempt from service-related accessibility obligations. In addition, digital content published before 28 June 2025 is not subject to the new requirements, provided it is not subsequently modified. Transitional measures are also in place for pre-existing contracts and services, which may remain operational under specific conditions until June 2030. However, in the context of online gambling services, these exemptions appear to have limited applicability. Failure to comply with the obligations set out under Law no. 232/2022 may lead to administrative sanctions. These include fines ranging from RON 6,000 to RON 12,000 (approximately EUR 1,200 to EUR 2,400) for general non-compliance and between RON 7,000 and RON 15,000 (approximately EUR 1,400 to EUR 3,000) for specific breaches such as the absence of accessible interfaces. In more serious or repeated cases, operators may face suspension of their services or even revocation of their licence. Moreover, failure to notify competent authorities of any instances of non-compliance or to implement corrective measures in due time may attract additional penalties. With the compliance deadline rapidly approaching, online gambling operators should take immediate steps to review the accessibility of their digital platforms. A structured internal audit is essential to identify any areas of non-conformity and to ensure that services meet the requirements set out in Law no. 232/2022 and the European Accessibility Act. Where internal resources are insufficient, external expertise should be sought to support the implementation of harmonised standards and eliminate potential compliance risks. Accessibility should no longer be treated as a secondary issue. It is an essential part of how platforms are designed, operated, and maintained in today’s regulatory environment. Operators who take action now will not only reduce legal and reputational risks, but also demonstrate that they are prepared to meet the growing expectations for inclusion, transparency, and long-term digital responsibility. By Ana-Maria Baciu, Andrei Cosma and Adela Nuță

The curiosity to explore the spectacular field of intellectual property law was the main element that defined the vibe of the third edition of the Intellectual Property Law Moot Court Competition organized by the BACIU PARTNERS team together with our partners ELSA Bucharest, the European Law Students Association’s chapter. The competition was addressed to third and fourth-year law students, with 28 teams registered at its start. The BACIU PARTNERS team involved in the substantive structuring and formal organization of the event this year was varied, highlighting the importance given by the firm to interactions with younger future colleagues, law students, but also the common passion we share for doing things with purpose, with passion. Ana-Maria Baciu, Andreea Bende, Ileana Nicolescu, Zsófia Judit Halmágyi, George Irimescu, Narcis Codori, Oana Ionescu and Iunia Radu, together with Anca-Ștefănescu Toma and Raluca Comănescu, were the interlocutors of the participants in the competition, throughout the stages of the project. At the end of the pleadings, Ana-Maria Baciu mentioned: "In the year in which World Intellectual Property Day celebrates music, under the theme IP & Music: feel the beat of IP, we are glad to have offered law students a stage on which to make their voices heard. Through this project, which has already become a tradition, we contribute to spreading the sound of knowledge – an echo of legal curiosity, creativity and our desire, as a team, to look beyond the letter of the law. Whether we are talking about the opportunity to identify and capitalize on our professional potential in a dynamic setting, or about the challenge of listening to and understanding the changing needs of the business community, every step in this direction matters for each of those involved in this project. We congratulate all 56 students who expressed their interest in this competition – we hope that this experience will play an important role in bringing them closer to the field of intellectual property. Congratulations also to the entire BACIU PARTNERS team involved in organizing this project – for the dedication and enthusiasm with which we manage, together, to carry on this valuable initiative." Ileana Nicolescu, MC of the Competition added: "From one edition to another of the Intellectual Property Moot Court Competition, our enthusiasm grows steadily – a growth fuelled both by the growing interest of students in this competition, and by the valuable experiences we build together, year after year. We pay attention to the feedback received and actively respond through adjustments designed to refine each stage, in order to bring the editions closer to the current reality of the practice in the field of intellectual property. We strongly believe that applied legal education, including through such competitions, has the power to train professionals who understand the depth of law – as a tool for protection, but also as a source of inspiration. We are happy to offer students the chance to discover, through practice and dialogue, how much the law can support and cultivate creativity. For us, this competition is part of our way of contributing to shaping the future of the intellectual property field." The pleadings stage generated an emotional charge, due to its unfolding in one of the courtrooms of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, amplifying the feeling of "real", and with it, the emotions of the participants. The third edition of the Intellectual Property Law Moot Court Competition organized by BACIU PARTNERS was won by the team comprised of Ioana Gheorghe and Raluca Miulescu. The team on the second place included Loredana Filip and David Ene, and the third place was awarded to Maria-Elena Paraschiv and Andreea-Iulia Lungu. By organizing the Intellectual Property Law Moot Court Competition, we aim to create an elite collaborative environment in which the combination of legal knowledge with elements of creativity and communication is fundamental and in which each participant makes their voice heard in the fascinating world of intellectual property law. It is also one of our specific ways to anticipate the celebration of World Intellectual Property Day on April 26, an event established by the World Intellectual Property Organization to raise awareness of the role of IP rights in encouraging innovation and creativity. Happy World Intellectual Property Day! ***** BACIU PARTNERS is Executive Partner of ELSA Bucharest for the academic year 2024-2025. An independent business law firm, BACIU PARTNERS stands out for the manner of its team members to find different answers to clients' questions. Our reputation on the Romanian legal market is the result of our enthusiastic spirit, which is amplified by our clients' confidence in our commitment to provide legal assistance of outstanding quality, in a fast, accessible and truly useful manner.