The article analyzes how there are settled in court, according to Chapter V of the Law No 101/2016, the disputes in matters of award of public procurement contracts, of sectoral contracts, of works concession and services concession contracts. The authors emphasise the specific features of the manner of settlement of these disputes, mentioning among them: the material jurisdiction pertains to the section of administrative disputes and fiscal matters of the tribunal, through panels specialized in public procurement, and the territorial jurisdiction pertains to the tribunal in whose district it is located the head office of the contracting authority. The case shall be settled as a matter of emergency and with priority, and filing a request for summons in matters of public procurement shall not have an enforcement suspensive effect. The first hearing shall be set 20 days after the date of registration of the complaint, and the subsequent trial terms can not be longer than 15 days, and the entire duration of the procedure can not exceed 45 days from the date of referral to the court. The judgment may be challenged by recourse, within 10 days from the communication, at the section of administrative disputes and fiscal matters of the court of appeal, which sits in a panel specialized in public procurement. According to the authors, it is justified to establish a special law for the settlement of the disputes in matters of public procurement.

This article emphasises the special situations of some employees of the public hospitals, of the forensic medicine institutes and of the employees of some quarry mining exploitations, who have reported prejudices to their right to health and safety at work by the conduct of the employers, of the trade unions and even of the public institutions with powers of control and of ensuring the respect for these rights.

10 December 2016 marks 60 years from the date when the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation opened for signature (and 50 years from the date when they entered into force) the two international covenants on human rights: International Covenant on civil and political rights and International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. These, along with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Organisation Charter, make up the hard core of the protection of human rights, within the United Nations Organisation (UNO). The 50th anniversary of their entry into force is equally a reason for balance, namely reflection and projection into the future. Thus, in 1966, the design of the two different conventional instruments, corresponding to the two traditional categories of human rights (civil and political rights, on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights, on the other hand), was based on their different legal nature, on the East-West ideological divisions, or on the necessity to treat them differently in the process of implementation at state level: the immediate implementation (civil and political rights) v. progressive realization (economic, social and cultural rights). However, the initial situation did not stay within the same parameters, but it gradually evolved. Although initially conceived as „political obligations” in the economic, social and cultural fields and rather left at the discretion of StatesParties, the economic, social and cultural rights have acquired, in time, through the work carried on by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), a position that allows them to claim, in the next 15 years, a significant role in the process of implementation of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. In such conditions, in this paper, the author initiates an evaluation of the doctrine of economic, social and cultural rights in the past two and a half decades, as well as of the way in which CESCR has built the „profile” of these rights, in this regard being evaluated two of the work methods used by CESCR, namely: General comments and the new LOIPR procedure – List of Issues Prior to Reporting.