The study analyzes Article 961 of the current Civil Code on the removal of the effects of unworthiness, introduced as a novelty, to the previous regulation. There are analyzed the conditions in which it may be operated a removal of the effects of successoral unworthiness by the express forgiveness. Then, it is analyzed whether or not it may operate the removal of the effects of successoral unworthiness by the tacit forgiveness of the unworthy, with arguments in a negative sense. Within the study it is examined the future of the legacy left by the testator by a testament drawn up after the act of successoral unworthiness has ben committed, whether it has the meaning of forgiveness of the unworthy and of removal of the effects of unworthiness or whether, without having these meanings, it is actually recognized the right of the legatee to collect the legacy left by the testator by a testament drawn up after the act of successoral unworthiness has ben committed.

Following a critical study of the provisions of the Government Ordinance No 121/1998 on the material liability of the military, the author points out that this normative act is contrary to Article 73 (3) j), Article 118 (2), (3) of the Constitution. The juridical reasoning is based on the standard imposed by the case law of the Constitutional Court in respect of the status of the public officers and of the military staff, the author emphasising the necessity to adopt an organic law/several organic laws to regulate the material liability of the military staff and of the public officers within the Ministry of National Defence, Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Romanian Intelligence Service, the Protection and Guard Service, the Foreign Intelligence Service, the Special Telecommunications Service and the Ministry of Justice.

The extension of the preventive arrest is one of the instruments available to the judicial bodies in order to remove some threats to public order, undermining at the same time a fundamental right of the defendant, the right to freedom. The procedure of extension of the preventive arrest must respect the right to a fair trial, as regulated in the international conventions and the internal provisions. This article analyzes the possibility of breaching the principles of equality of arms and of equality of treatment in the procedure of judging the contestation against the decision to extend the preventive arrest measure.

Under the old civil law, the registration of a property right in a land registry was a follow-up phase to the fulfilment of the obligation to give, that is, to transfer the property. In that sense, the registration thus carried out was only intended to ensure to third parties the publicity of the legal transaction transferring the right of property, making the new owner known, similarly to other law systems in Europe. Currently, under the Civil Code in force, things have remained relatively under the same conditions. The Civil Code regulated the constitutive system of registration rights in the land registry, but the implementing law postponed those provisions until the completion of the cadastral measurements. However, we consider an apriorical analysis of the constitutive system of rights to be helpful in anticipating and clarifying the legal issues that may arise in the future, but also in determining the legal nature of the interim period between the conclusion of the contract and the time of registration in the land registry, that is to say, until the time of complete fulfilment of the obligation to give. Last but not least, we will analyze aspects of the eventual liability that could be committed because of the faulty fulfilment of the obligation to apply for registration in the land registry, therewith identifying the persons who can apply for the registration and the persons who have to apply for it.

The attenuating circumstance of the challenge is provided by the Criminal Code in force in Article 75 (1) a). By the challenging act of illegitimate nature it is affected the physical integrity or dignity of the person, so that, although punished by the criminal law, the offender’s deed is merely a reaction, a disproportionate response to an illegitimate action or inaction. The challenge can only be retained if the conditions relating to the offence committed under the auspices of a powerful disorder or emotion, respectively the conditions relating to the challenging act are cumulatively met. Without claiming to exhaust the subject, the paper aims to emphasize also some controversies regarding: the proportionality and the time interval between the challenging act and the offence; the distinction between the challenge and some justificative causes or causes of non-imputability; the possibility of retaining the challenge concurrently with the premeditation.

What we intended on this occasion is to discuss the rules that are used to determine in the concrete situations, related to the case, the legal inheritors of de cuius and the meanings of these rules. The topic seems interesting to us, because on the way in which it is dealt with, on the answers given to some questions, which are raised or can be raised in this regard, depend the adequate theoretical perspective and the rigor of determining of the inheritors in a given case, not only of the lawful ones, but also of the testamentary successors, each category of heirs being able, either alone or with the other, to access the inheritance.