Within the study hereunder, the legal regime of joint ownership, in both its forms (common and temporary, respectively forced and perpetual) is analyzed, from a critical point of view, with special regard on the second type. The author analyzes the differences between the legal regime of these types of ownership established under the Civil Code (Law no. 287/2009, as republished) by comparison with the regulation of the Civil Code of 1864. The inconsistencies instituted under the new regulation, the illegitimate and unconstitutional nature of some of them, as well as the recent legislative amendments intervening in this respect are analyzed, all these being accompanied by examples extracted from the Romanian and foreign jurisprudence.

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 thus entitled draws the conclusion that the fiscal inspection report, as a deed preceding the issuance of the notice of assessment, cannot form the object of an action in the fiscal and administrative contentious neither severally nor jointly with the fiscal and administrative document, as erroneously resolved, in some occasions, by the Section of Administrative and Fiscal Contentious of the High Court of Cassation and Justice.