In this study the authors focus on the necessity of considering the criminal ks degree of social danger in the individualization of penalty, given that the same penalty, identical as type and amount, does not generate the same effects for all criminals on whom it is applied. Concurrently, the authors highlight and conduct an ample research of the elements de facto that are used for the assessment of a criminal ks degree of social danger. Therefore, in order to comprehend the criminal ks degree of social danger, the following should be assessed: health condition (predominantly the psycho-physical condition), the criminal ks biological structure and mental characteristics, the entire social environment, the criminal ks behavior before perpetration of the crime, the criminal and legal circumstances of the criminal (convict, recidivist, prosecuted for other felonies, rehabilitated, amnestied, pardoned etc.), behavior after perpetration of the crime and during the criminal lawsuit, the level of education, as well as age. The following personal circumstances of individualization should also be included: the criminal ks capacity (officer, army enlisted, magistrate, mother etc.), civil status (married, single, widowed etc.), the relationship with the victim (close relative, relative, cohabitant, spouse, friend, enemy etc.) and any other information that might contribute to the individualization of the criminal ks individuality (for instance, lifestyle, reputation, social merits etc.).

The engagement – although traditionally used in social life k did not have any legal regulation in the modern Romanian legislation, prior to the enforcement of the new Civil Code (October 1st 2011), namely: the Civil Code of 1864 and next, the Family Code. Instead, the new Civil Code (Law no. 287/2009, republished on July 15th 2011) regulates engagement in art. 266-270. The authors of this study analyze the aforementioned enactment of engagement, concluding that the express regulation of this private law institution in the new Civil Code is beneficial.

Ending a controversy that lasted for two decades (1991-2011), Law no. 62/ 2011 on social dialogue settled, unequivocally, that in case of triggered and / or continued illegal strikes, the parties responsible are the organizers of the strike and all employees participating in such strikes, be they employees or civil servants. Further, the study proceeds to a thorough analysis regarding the legal nature of restoring liability (civil-tort or civil-contractual) of the organizers of such strikes, as well as of the „employees” (employees or civil servants) participating in such strikes, concluding that the first bear civil-tort liability, and the participating employees bear civil-contractual liability.

Compensation for damage related to the environment (environmental damage, lato sensu) – harm to the (ecologically “pure”) environment and damage to persons or property caused by pollutants, harmful actions and disasters - is achieved in Romanian law through several legal regimes: tort liability, under the Civil Code (liability for the deeds of its own, deeds based on guilt, fault liability, the deed of things, liability for abnormal neighborhood disturbances), environmental responsibility (covered by Directive no. 2004/35 / EC, transposed into the national law by the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 68/2007), the objective liability of legal origin and liability for damage caused by defective products. The main criterion is in this regard the term “environmental harm” and the concept of environmental damage (lato sensu). The construction of the liability and compensation for damage related to the environment (environmental damage) system involves delimiting the action field of each type of “liability”, “repair”, establishing the specific rules applicable and capturing the relevant structural interdependencies.

The author analyzes the rules of Directive 2001/23/EC of March 12, 2001 on the appropriation of the European Union Member States’ laws relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or establishments, by reference to the rules of the Labor Code (republished) and the provisions of Law no. 64/2006 on the protection of employees’ rights for transfers of undertakings, business or parts thereof; this comparative analysis reached some interesting conclusions useful both for theorists, and practitioners.

The paper presents the amendments to the Government Ordinance no. 2/ 2001 brought by Law. 76/2012 for implementing Law no. 134/2010 on the Code of Civil Procedure, the Contraventional procedure undergoing major changes with the entry into force of these regulations. Therefore, the steps of the judicial Contraventional procedure are briefly presented through the innovations introduced by the Code of Civil Procedure and, at the same time, the Contraventional law-related issues not yet regulated are analyzed, reiterating the proposal to develop a Contravention Code to regulate matters still confusing of the law material Contraventional and, especially, the ones contravention of the procedure Contraventional.