This study includes a critical analysis of the provisions of the new Criminal Procedure Code which provide the producing of proof by expertise in case the technical-scientific fact-finding report is contested. The author has in view the wording of the legal text, which he considers as defective, thus allowing different interpretations. The essence of the discussion is related to the mandatory nature or, on the contrary, to the optional nature of producing the proof of expertise in the mentioned hypothesis.

The new Civil Procedure Code establishes the penalties for each day of delay as indirect means of coercion meant to ensure the performance in kind of the obligations to do or not to do which can not be carried out by someone else other than the debtor. The application of these penalties is mainly carried out at the level of the executional procedural law, being conditioned by the initiation of the enforcement and by the existence of a writ of execution, however the legislator, by the law implementing the new Code, tends to generalize the system of penalties to the detriment of the other legal means with similar function. In this context and under the terms of removal of the comminatory damages and of the civil fines for each day of delay, regulated by the provisions of substantive law contained in special laws, it is raised the question of admissibility of the general use of penalties regulated by the Civil Procedure Code at the level of substantive law, before obtaining a writ of execution.

The procedure of payment order has been regulated as a synthesis, but also as a reformation of the two previous procedures materialized in the Government Ordinance No 5/2001 on the procedure of the payment summons and the Government Emergency Ordinance No 119/2007 on the measures for combating the delay of the performance of the payment obligations resulting from the contracts between professionals. In its legislative work, by the new Civil Procedure Code, the legislator has not only achieved a fusion between the two normative acts, but it has also inserted novelty legislative solutions, bringing numerous amendments to the procedure and following its adjustment to the current legal, social and economic realities, in the attempt to harmonize the Romanian legislation with the European one. This study makes a detailed analysis of the nature of the procedure of payment order, of the characters and of the way it was conducted within the current normative framework, as well as of the vast judicial practice, by identifying the novelty elements of the procedure regulated by the new Civil Procedure Code, which – beyond the guaranteed additional accessibility and efficiency – require clarifications and specifications.

As subject of public international law, the European Union is committed not only to observe, but also to develop the public international law and, within this framework, it is established the principle of equality between the Member States, within the limits of the treaties of the Union. The institutional structure of this intergovernmental international organization and the procedure of adoption of the legal acts reflect a nuanced equality between the Member States, which however emphasizes the specificity of the Union. „United in diversity”, a motto to which, according to the Declaration No 52 to the Treaty of Lisbon, not all Member States have subscribed, the European Union promotes an enhanced integration and a political cooperation in which the States act in accordance with the Treaties and, in certain cases, for the purpose of supporting the national interest. The transfer of competences from the States to the Union was achieved gradually, with the economic and political evolution at national and international level, pursuant to the state sovereignty. Equality between states within the European Union is a principle whose application in the current European and international context might reflect a new approach of the European integration and positioning of the Member States within the Union.

Within this paper, the author makes a brief review of the background, respectively of the grounds of the Decision No 363/2015 of the Constitutional Court, and afterwards he stops to analyze the effects of this decision on the criminal trials ongoing at the date when the mentioned decision is pronounced. In relation to the exigences imposed by the principle of legality of incrimination and to the fact that the text declared unconstitutional has incriminated for the first time a certain conduct as an offence, the failure to reconcile, within the legal time limit, the incrimination text with the provisions of the Constitution of Romania, republished, has the value of a decriminalization.

This study analyzes the rules within the Romanian labour legislation referring to the attributions of the trade unions in correlation with those of the elected representatives of the employees. It is concluded that there are, in this matter, legal solutions obviously uncorrelated, major errors, unjustified exclusions from the exercise of some attributions of the representatives of the employees in favour of the trade unions. All these despite the fact that, in terms of essential competences – either of the trade unions or of the representatives of the employees –, the legal solutions are identical. In relation to these findings there are made a series of proposals to improve the labour legislation which have as objectives to clarify the role and to state the attributions of the trade unions and of the representatives of the employees in the conduct of the labour relations.