This study accurately describes some of the controversial aspects within the labour legislation: applicability, in terms of probation, of the regulations regarding the period of probation, concluding that art. 31 par. (3) of the Labour Code (termination of the employment agreement without notice and justification) is also effective in this case; decrease of working time from 5 business days to 4 business days per week in case of temporary reduction of activity, with the specification that the alteration of this program can only be operated if a minimum 30 business days reduction of activity has already occurred; the deadline by which the employer must enforce disciplinary sanctions, pointing out that the deadline of 30 days is computed as of the date the employer receives the disciplinary investigation report which qualifies the deed of the employee as disciplinary offence, while de deadline of 6 months is computed as of its time of perpetration; the parties to the collective negotiation at the unit level and the parties to the collective employment conflict at the same level, stating that, in case of such conflict, only the representative union or the employees’ representatives, as the case may be, can act as party on behalf of the employees and not the representative union federation which, under certain conditions, can participate in the collective negotiation; cumulative number of employment agreements with different employers, specifying that, basically, no definite and generally valid answer can be given, as the position of each employer within such agreements is fundamental (if accumulation is accepted and to what extent). In conclusion, the settlement by law of these controversial aspects is suggested.

The study aims to analyze, as indicated by the title itself, the controversies generated by the implementation of the institution known in practice as „simplified trial procedure in case of acknowledgement of guilt”. The analysis is structured in two sections. The first section analyzes the controversies, already debated by the Constitutional Court, regarding the possibility of enforcing the provisions of art. 3201 of the Code of criminal procedure in case of temporary situations (namely the defendants brought to trial under the ancient laws, but who have surpassed the procedural moment of commencement of forensic investigation) and the requirements necessary for the dismissal of the enforcement request of simplified procedure. The second section describes the controversies to be debated, relative to the possibility of pronouncement of an acquittal order or suspension of the criminal trial in case of simplified procedure, as well as the possibility of removing these provisions in the means of appeal. The study pleads for a legislative intervention which should amend the current editorial content of art. 3201 by such manner so that the judge is no longer limited textually only at the pronouncement of the conviction order. Otherwise, the trial in case of acknowledgement of guilt could easily concede its position to conviction in case of acknowledgement of guilt.

This study examines the issue of the joint security of creditors over the debtor’s patrimony in the light of art. 2324 of the current Romanian Civil Code (Law no. 287/2009, republished on July 15th 2011 and entered into force as at October 1st 2011), with a special regard concerning the mentioned issue in case of establishment of patrimonies of affectation over the joint security of creditors.