Ever since the date of its publication in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, the Law No 241/2005 has become a highly debated law in the doctrine, many of its articles underlying inhomogeneous judicial decisions. Article 10 of the above-mentioned Law was one of the Articles which excelled by its lack of predictability, a fact which lead to raising a large number of pleas of unconstitutionality. Over time, its applicability has received some clarifications however, even today, some aspects still raise controversies and continue to lead to an inhomogeneous judicial practice. For this reason, the author believes that the intervention of the High Court of Cassation and Justice would be more than welcome.

In this study, starting from a decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, the author examines two important aspects in the field of labour relations. On the one hand, he speaks about the incidence of the legal obligation of loyalty exclusively during the performance of the individual labour contract and, on the other hand, about the possibility of the court properly seized to judge the application of the employee on challenging the dismissal decision, although the decision in question did not contain accordingly all the elements required by Article 252 (2) of the Labour Code.

This paper deals with the problems of establishing the garnishment when the debtor is the Romanian State itself. The analysis is carried out in the light of the provisions of Article 5 (1) of the Government Emergency Ordinance No 146/2002, republished. At the same time, it is also analyzed the lack of incidence of the provisions of the Government Ordinance No 22/2002 in case of this debtor.

The idea of this study has been inspired by obviously modest doctrinaire concerns in connection with the analysis of the legal regulations dedicated to the legal protection of „databases”. In fact, in the specialized literature, as a rule, the approaches usually do not exceed the level of reproduction of the regulations in the field or the subject is simply avoided. Probably this situation is determined, mostly, by the redundant style of wording the provisions of Articles 1221–1224 of the Law No 8/1996 on copyright and neighbouring rights and the provisions of Directive No 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of databases. This normative situation should represent the spring of some normative doctrinaire measures deeply studied and it should by no means demobilize the analysis of the problems in the matter.

In the context of the new legal framework existing after the entry into force of the Law No 85/2014, this study analyzes the final table of claims and the contestations against it, by emphasizing the notable differences as compared to the old regulation – the Law No 85/2006 – and the importance of the final table of claims over the debtor’s estate in the insolvency procedure, as well as the exceptional character of the contestations against it. The registration of claims in the final table of claims against the debtor’s estate is generating rights for the creditors, and, consequently, the analysis and the thorough study of how this is produced, of the content of the final table of claims, of the time of its registration and publication, as well as of the rights and obligations of the participants in this procedure are essential. The contestations against the final table of claims have an exceptional character and the conditions in which these may be formulated are strictly, expressly and limitatively enumerated by the law. Under these circumstances, this legal remedy is approached from the perspective of the persons who may have the legal standing to file the contestation, from the perspective of the time limit for their submission – which appears as a highly opportune legislative novelty for the stability of the procedure – and, finally, from the perspective of the exceptional situations which may lead to the admission of such contestation.

In this study, it is analyzed the direct action of the mandator against the sub-mandatary, in light of the new Romanian Civil Code (the Law No 287/2009, republished on 15 July 2011). In this respect there are examined successively: the direct action in the legal relations arising from the contract of mandate, both under the old Romanian Civil Code (of 1864, in force until 30 September 2011) and under the influence of the new Civil Code (in force since 1 October 2011); the liability of the mandatary towards the mandator; the problem whether the mandatary and the sub-mandatary are jointly liable or not; the effects of the direct action of the mandator against the sub-mandatary and others.