The new Romanian Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 134/2010, as republished on 3 August 2012 and coming into force on the 1st of February 2013) supersedes the previous Code of Civil Procedure (of the year 1865) regulating (in articles 303-320) the witness-based evidence. In this study the author makes a wide-ranging analysis of this regulation, from the triple perspective of the admissibility, of the administration, of the appreciation of this mean of evidence, comparing the new provisions in this matter by those set forth in the previous Code of Civil Procedure.

One of the major problems with direct implications in the effective implementation of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the European Union is related to the need for coherent legal norms regarding the establishment of the territorial jurisdiction in the event of positive or negative conflicts of jurisdiction between the competent legal bodies of two or more Member States. In the study, the author examined the provisions of the European regulatory document framework which set out a series of legal norms on preventing and settling conflicts of jurisdiction between the Member States, making some critical remarks designed to help the improvement of the legal system. This paper is aimed at all those interested in this field and can be useful to academics and to practitioners as well. The innovations consist of the general examination of the European regulatory document provisions, of the Romanian special law, with some critical comments, and of proposals for rewording legal rules, aiming at improving the complex system of judicial cooperation in criminal matters between the Member States.

The author argues that, for repeated offense and continued criminal offense, the time of the offense, which determines reversal of the conditional suspension of execution of sentence is the first time the constituent elements of the offense were met and not when the offense was completely consummated. If the first time when the elements of the offense that enter the natural or legal unity of the repeated or continued criminal offense were met was discovered after the expiry of the trial period, the court shall not rule the reversal of the conditional suspension of execution of sentence.

The authors examine the issue of the former immovable properties, exclusively “state-owned” (during 1948-1991), which later, after 1991, became, as appropriate, public or private property, either of the State or of the administrative-territorial units. Whereas the status of such property is not always expressly clarified by legal rules (in the sense that after 1991 they became public or private property either of the state or of the territorial administrative units), in end of the study the authors embrace certain legal criteria for performing the said placement, thus trying to find a solution to the problem which is the subject of this study.

Examining art. 201 of Law No. 71/2011 for the implementation of the new Civil Code (Law No. 287/2009, republished on July 15, 2011) in conjunction with art. 6 paragraph (4) of the said Code, the author concludes that judicial bodies (judiciary authorities and arbitration courts) can, ex officio and at any stage of the trail, claim the limitation periods that have begun under the former regulation (Article 18 of Decree No. 167/1958) as well, regardless of whether such limitation periods have been met or not until the entry into force of the new Civil Code; subsequently, only the limitation periods which have begun after October 1st, 2011 (the date of entry into force of the new Civil Code) shall be able to be claimed exclusively by the interested party and only until the first term the parties were duly summoned at (this according to art. 2513 of the new Civil Code).

The new Romanian Criminal Code’s lawmaker took most of the regulations from the Criminal Code in force, the so-called constants of criminal law, but also introduced new ones, unknown to our law, some of which being required by the current socio-economic conditions and others being introduced out of the lawmaker’s desire to bring something new to the criminal law in force or simply to take them from other foreign laws, although criminal law science did not call for this. In this study, the authors make an inventory of these innovations, while attempting to analyze thereof and show the unfittingness of their introduction or acquisition from other foreign laws.