This study presents the divergent case law generated by the current insufficient regulation of the legal regime of burial plots and funeral constructions, such as burial vaults and crypts. While some courts admit the assignment of the tomb to one heir, others consider that the concession right over the burial plot and the funeral constructions bears upon a forced and perpetual indivisibility which excludes the division. As a solution, it proposes a clarification of the legal regime applicable to funeral concessions and the explicit regulation of the use of underground burial vaults, especially from the perspective of the exclusive right to be buried in a particular crypt.

The study analyses the right of the accused to participate in the judgement of the case, the notification thereof and the finding of an obvious avoidance that allows for a decision to be taken in absence. In addition, there are analysed practical cases about the judgment of the case in the absence of the defendant for the reason of deliberate avoidance, as well as for reasons imputable to the authorities when the defendant has not been properly summoned.

Equality of citizens before the law and before the public authorities is a fundamental category of the theory on social democracy, but also a condition of the state of law, failing which constitutional democracy can not be conceived. The Romanian Constitution expressly enshrines this principle. However, there are also particular aspects of this principle enshrined in the Basic Law. Equality before the law and before the public authorities can not involve the idea of standardization, of uniformity of all citizens under the sign of the same legal regime, regardless of their socio-professional situation. The constitutional principle of equality implies that equal legal treatment should be applied to equal situations. This social and legal requirement implies numerous interferences between the principle of equality and other constitutional principles: the principle of identity and of diversity, the principle of pluralism, the principle of unity and, in particular, the principle of proportionality. In this study, using theoretical and jurisprudential arguments, we intend to demonstrate that in relation to contemporary social reality equality, as a constitutional principle, is a particular aspect of the principle of proportionality. The latter expresses in essence the ideas of: fairness, justice, reasonableness and fair adequacy of the decisions of the State to the factual situation and the legitimate aims proposed.

The Civil Code expressly introduces the porte-fort convention or the promise of another’s deed in Article 1283, regulation which takes over the institution which was created in the doctrine of the Civil Code of 1865. The current codification places the institution in the section regarding the effects of the contract, but in a subsection distinct from the one devoted to the consecration of the principle of relativity of the effects of the contract. Although the systematic treatment of the principle inevitably implies the exploration of the controversies on the real or apparent exceptions, the incorporation of the analysis of the porte-fort convention in this framework has made the novelty of this legal figure somehow obscured. This article intends to make a critical analysis of the porte-fort convention in the regulation of Article 1283 of the Civil Code also from the perspective of the comparative law, by pursuing in detail the legal regime in terms of notion, forms, nature, legal characters, conditions of validity and effects, as well as the applications of this institution.

Fraud is perhaps the cornerstone of the Paulian action. In this sense, there is no right to action without there being a fraud in the interests of one or some of the creditors. Therefore, it is very important to know the elements that characterize the Paulian fraud. This is because the damage caused to the creditor is a consequence of the fraudulent attitude of the debtor who concludes an act with a third person with the sole purpose of hiding from the pursuit of certain goods. So, the first element to be determined in order to formulate a Paulian action is the existence of fraud that has caused the creditor’s prejudice. Through this study, we have tried to highlight some of the most important judgments in the French judicial practice that have created principles for the application of the Paulian action. Although many of them have been pronounced many decades ago, their effects are still occurring at present, and the courts which have pronounced them have shown wisdom and clarity in setting out principles that ultimately shaped a unitary judicial practice in French law. Finally, the study also presents the regulation of the Paulian fraud in the sense of the new Romanian Civil Code, with references to the new French Civil Code.