Following the entry into force of the new Romanian Civil Code (on October 1, 2011) and the new Romanian Code of Civil Procedure (which will take place on February 1, 2013), in the Romanian civil law doctrine a controversy arose in the sense that divorce exclusive fault of the defendant State (that if the respondent spouse doesn’t file a counterclaim) is admissible only by way of exception, where the reason for divorce consists of a minimum 2-year de facto separation of spouses or, on the contrary in other situations as well. After a thorough analysis, the author opts for restrictive solution, i.e. divorce for applicant spouse’s exclusive fault (if the respondent spouse doesn’t file a counterclaim) is admissible only by way of exception, where the reason for divorce consists of a minimum 2-year de facto separation of spouses.

The new Romanian Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 134/2010, as republished on 3 August 2012 and coming into force on the 1st of February 2013) supersedes the previous Code of Civil Procedure (of the year 1865) regulating (in articles 303-320) the witness-based evidence. In this study the author makes a wide-ranging analysis of this regulation, from the triple perspective of the admissibility, of the administration, of the appreciation of this mean of evidence, comparing the new provisions in this matter by those set forth in the previous Code of Civil Procedure.

Starting on October 1, 2011, the new Romanian Civil Code (Law no. 287/ 2009, republished on July 15, 2011) entered into force and, as of February 1, 2013 the new Romanian Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 134/2010, republished on 3 August 2012) shall come into force. Both the above mentioned codes are being developed by Law no. 71/2011 for the implementation of the new Civil Code, and respectively by Law.76/2012 for the implementation of the new Code of Civil Procedure. The new regulations introduced in the Romanian legislation the concept of guardianship court but until the entry into force of such court its powers which are set out in the new Civil Code shall be exerted by the courts, sections or, where appropriate, the existing specialized juvenile and family panels. Unfortunately, during 2011-2012, the regulations in the new Civil Code, the new Code of Civil Procedure and the two laws for application thereof, as being amended and supplemented several times, the guardianship court relevant legislation is confusing at the present time, thus its transposition in practice is difficult. That being the case, the author attempts in this study to solve a number of problems arising from the situation described and to make some proposals with a view to the future law.

The study examines the issue of autonomy of labor law in relation to civil law while considering the recent assertions in legal literature. Taking into account the classical criteria for delimiting the legal branches within the law – the subject, the specific principles and regulatory method - it is concluded that labor law is a mixed law branch which belongs mainly to private law, applies by way of common law to all labor legal relationships unfounded on individual employment agreement, is self-contained and it capitalizes, where appropriate and possible, the rules of civil law as common law rules. Labor law is not a branch (part) of civil law, but independent component of private law along with common law (civil law).

Any scientific approach which seeks to understand the meanings of “rule of law” must be an interdisciplinary approach based on the philosophy of law. This study carries out such an analysis in order to highlight the many theoretical meanings for this concept, and the relationship between principles and legal rules, respectively the regulatory value of law principles. Such analysis is a plea for relating to principles in the work of law establishment and enforcement.

Very high frequency of facts consisting of possession and sale of cigarettes from smuggling, as well as significant damage to the state budget by committing such acts with adverse consequences exacerbated in the current economic climate, require a consistent jurisprudence to prevent and effectively combat such deeds. Building on the diversity of solutions pronounced by the courts on the legal classification of the offense of possession, outside a fiscal warehouse and by an authorized warehouse-keeper, of unmarked excisable goods for which duty has not been paid and originate form smuggling, the author points out the need to promote a referral in the interests of the law and identifies a possible solution to unify the judicial practice, holding that the said deed meets the constitutive elements of the offenses provided for in art. 2961 par. (1) l) of the Fiscal Code, art. 9 para. (1). a) of Law no. 241/2005 on preventing and combating tax evasion and art. 270 para. (3) of the Customs Code.