The international treaties on human rights are the fundamental conventional sources de jure applicable in this area and at the level of the European Union. The evolution of their content relevant to the fundamental rights is spectacular, starting from the lack of interest in terms of regulations expressed in the Treaty of Rome signed in 1957, to the rules of reference to the (European) Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms contained in the Single European Act or the Treaty of Maastricht and up to the establishment of the European Union’s own protection mechanism under the Treaty of Lisbon and the Charter of fundamental rights.

The crime of family abandonment is a continuing offense. The courts have strictly enforced the decision no. 10/2008 issued by the High Court of Cassation and Justice, joint Sections, which sets forth that in the case of continuing and continued offenses, the prior complaint shall be admitted within two months from the date the injured party or the party entitled to file the prior complaint has knowledge of the identity of the offender. The decision issued in second appeal in the interest of law shall be binding and might lead to the suspension of the criminal trial in all cases concerning abandonment of family. Thoroughly analyzing the doctrine and jurisprudence, the author identifies a solution for solving this dilemma.

While the judicial authorities have rigorous procedure codes, and the legislative authority has regulations for the development and adoption of laws, the public administration authorities in general and local government in particular „are still suffering in this respect”. To fill the „gap” that exists in some /partial sides of the administrative procedure, since the Administrative Procedure Code has not been yet adopted, in this study the authors intended (invoking the tangent jurisprudence) to contribute to the elucidation of the two cases (of many) in a segment in which positive law is quite vague, thus allowing an inconsistent practice, sometimes even arbitrary.

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.

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.

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.