Privileged wills are sometimes viewed as an anachronism. In civil law systems such as Romania or France, the freedom of disposition is limited by certain institutions (e.g. the hereditary reserve and the forced heirship), while this is not the case in common law jurisdictions. Nevertheless, civil and common law systems inherited the Roman notion that in some extraordinary circumstances the testator should be allowed to bypass the rigid formalities required for the validity of a will. In turn, civil law systems view such privileged wills as a rather simplified version of the notarial form, while English law fully lifts the written requirement for these cases. The purpose of the current article is to prove the enduring relevance of privileged wills in the contemporary world through an analysis of their origins, current regulation and prospects.

In this study we are making reference to the refusal to accept the bill of exchange and the extraordinary acceptance in the Republic of Moldova and Romania. By accepting the bill of exchange, the drawer becomes the principal debtor and, consequently, the bill of exchange must be presented to him. In case the drawee refuses the acceptance of the bill of exchange, the statement of refusal must be ascertained, within the time limits set for presentation on acceptance, by an act drawn up. Normally, the acceptance of the bill of exchange is made by the drawee. In the case of refusal of acceptance from the drawee, in order to protect the interests of the holder of the bill of exchange, the law regulates the possibility for a person other than the drawee to accept the bill of exchange. Such an extraordinary acceptance avoids the initiation of the action for regress.

In this study, the author, starting with a specific case, refers to the patrimonial liability of the employees grounded on Article 253 (3) of the Labour Code. The text takes over from the common law the so-called action for regress of the principal for the act of the agent, provided by Article 1384 of the Civil Code. However, this action is possible only if the agent (the summoned employee) is liable for the prejudice, and not in the assumption that other persons or the principal himself (the employer) is guilty for causing the prejudice. At the same time, the elements of the contractual civil liability of the employees, consisting in the illicit act, causing damage to the employer’s patrimony, the causal link between the illicit act and the prejudice, as well as their guilt, are cumulative; the lack of one of them removes the mentioned liability.

Neutral power can manifest itself in modern liberal democracies also in the form of autonomous authorities. Their neutrality is based on two kinds of reasons. The first category involves the positioning of the neutral authorities outside the separation of powers in the state, their reactive (not active) political character and their role of balancing the separate powers of the state or of balancing the relations between the state and civil society. They are in the Romanian law authorities with constitutional status. The second category of authorities that call/consider themselves neutral founds its position on the neutrality of the experts in their structure. They have in the Romanian Constitution the status of some atypical, autonomous administrative authorities. Modern states are based on political freedom, i.e. on the liberation of man from objective laws. The expression of this freedom substantiates all the institutional mechanisms of modern constitutionalism. In exchange, the autonomous administrative authorities are set up to release the regulation of certain social mechanisms of political influence. They are not based on modern political freedom. Formed of experts who know the „objective” laws of social development and apply them „scientifically”, these authorities are „objective”. It is thus created a dichotomy: the people or the expert? The increasingly dense contemporary option for the expert can lead to significant risks for the human rights and for the democratic system.

This article addresses the matter of the correct legal classification of the introduction of drugs into the country for personal use. Our attention was drawn whereas not only that the judicial practice of the national courts and the specialized literature are not unitary in terms of legal classification, but even the High Court of Cassation and Justice has pronounced diametrically opposed solutions. Within the paper, it is performed an analysis of the incidental texts of law and of the judicial practice in the field, as well as some aspects of legislative technique and criminal policy.

The new Criminal Code has introduced the imputability as essential feature of the offence. In the current meaning, imputability also includes guilt. Nevertheless, the legislator has mentioned also guilt as essential feature of the offence, together with imputability. The author analyzes to what extent the two essential features of the offence are complementary or exclude each other.