Within this article, the author makes an analysis of the main provisions of the Hague Convention of 1985 on the law applicable to trusts and on their recognition. In the context of introducing in the Romanian civil law the legal operation of fiducia, achieved by the provisions of Articles 773–791 of the Civil Code of 2009, Romania’s accession to the Hague Convention would be a natural step that the Romanian legislator should take in the near future. Although some of the provisions of the Hague Convention have been taken, tale quale, within the provisions of private international law relating to the fiducia, the accession to the Hague Convention and its introduction into the Romanian internal law, would lead to expanding the scope of practical application of the legal instrument of the fiducia itself.

In this study, the authors have chosen to present and to analyze the criminal law institution of the conditional release because, as practitioners, more than once, they came to discover a different application thereof, a different approach of the criteria laid down by this institution and even a difference of opinions within the assessment of the opportuneness of ordering this measure by the judges of the same court, this generating an uneven practice with regard to the application of the same rule of criminal law.

This approach is meant to carry out a brief examination of the control which the judge is required to perform on the acts of disposition of the parties in the civil trial. It refers to the main sides of availability and, especially, to the presentness and imperativeness of such a control. In this context, the author notes that the new Civil Procedure Code has not abdicated from the active role of the judge, this being far from the peak of its „glory”. Likewise, the author analyzes the procedural ways of invalidation of the acts of disposition, first noting the incidental legislative regulation both with regard to the transaction and to the judgment that confirms the agreement of the party. It is noted that, from a normative point of view, the party does not have an option right between the exercise of the action for annulment and the means of recourse against the judicial transaction. At the end of the study, the author analyzes some aspects of the recourse which can be exercised against the acts of divestment and acquiescence to the claims of the applicant.

In principle, the confession is admissible as means of evidence in all the matters for which the civil processual law represents the common law of the procedure and for which there is no separate procedure. Exceptionally, the confession is not admissible: when it is expressly prohibited by law; whether, by admitting it, the imperative provisions of the law would be eluded; if the law requires that certain facts be proved only by certain means of evidence; if, by admitting it, one could reach to total or partial loss of a right which may not be waived or may not be subject to a transaction. The judicial confession shall be given by means of cross-examination, as reflected by Articles 351–358 of the Civil Procedure Code. Obviously, it is a question of provoked judicial confession, whereas the spontaneous judicial confession does not require any prior preparation and, as such, it does not require an express regulation. Instead, the written extrajudicial confession is subject to the regime of proof of evidence through written documents, and the extrajudicial verbal confession may be attested by witnesses, if the law allows the testimonial evidence. The legislator of the new Civil Procedure Code expressly establishes the principle of indivisibility of the judicial confession and, at the same time, he provides an exception from this principle, namely the situation in which the judicial confession contains separate facts not connected between them. In this study there are elaborated the ideas presented above

The regulation (Article 225) of the new Criminal Procedure Code is not too different from the one (Article 1491 paragraphs 3–8 and Article 150) of the previous Criminal Procedure Code (1968). Instead, the new criminal processual law does no longer provide for the possibility to settle the proposal of preventive detention, in the absence of the defendant, when the defendant is abroad, as it was stipulated in the previous Criminal Procedure Code. The authors analyze the institution of settlement of the proposal of preventive detention, by presenting some critical issues and by proposing some improvements to the new regulation.

In this study, the author presents a constitutional reform on the Hungarian Constitutional Court, in the sense of extending its substantive jurisdiction, which entered into force at the beginning of the year 2012. Indeed, the mentioned reform preserves the classic system of the constitutional courts, but it receives an additional jurisdiction, i.e.: after a judgment has become final, either party may address to the Constitutional Court if the decision made is contrary to a fundamental right established by the Constitution. This way, concludes the author, the Constitutional Court is elevated at the level of a centre of the state power, an independent branch thereof which, in a certain sense, conducts a control on all branches of the state power.