The study tends to discern the essential characters and the legal regime of the administration of the assets of another, which represent a novelty in the landscape of our legal system. After examining the general regulatory framework of this institution and the special one in the matter of guardianship of the minor and of the ad-hoc guardianship, we argued that the obligations of the management bodies of the legal person or of the trading companies should not be reduced to mandate relations concerning legal relations with third parties, because the entire regulation regarding the attributions of these bodies in relation to the patrimony of the legal person or of the company is impregnated by the spirit of the institution of the administration of the assets of another. In approaching the institution, we have analyzed the manner of adoption of the decision-making acts compared to the adoption of the decisions in matters of co-ownership and the measures that the court of law can take in case of the decision-making blockage. With regard to the plurality of administrators, there have been brought to attention the issue of their liability, the exceptions to the solidarity rule, including the liability in case of delegation of attributions. Depending on the powers granted to the administrator by the act of appointment, it has been marked the delimitation between the simple administration and the full administration, with the legal regime related to each form of administration. In another section, there have been examined the common rules of the two forms of administration regarding the separation of patrimonies, the guarantees, the administrator’s liability in the relations with third parties and the beneficiary, in case he acted in his own name or in excess of the proxy, the procedure of exercising the control of the beneficiary on the manner of administration and its efficiency, the ways of cessation of administration and its effects with special outlook on the handover of the administered assets, the expenses deducte d from the administered patrimony, as well as the expenses incumbent on the administrator under the contract of administration.

After a summary examination of the mechanisms that develop the unilateral and conventional resolution, the author finds that the specific formalism established by the Civil Code for achieving the objectives of the pacts agreed by the parties is – in some situations – difficult to fulfil, in the context in which the partners do not know or cannot rigorously follow the steps required by the delay procedure. The uncertainties that the mechanism can produce in special conditions are observed and, then, practical solutions are suggested, starting from the premise – generally accepted – that the commission pact is itself a subsequent and accessory convention to the fundamental contract.

Making the due observations regarding the legal content of Article 6 of the Law No 143/2000, republished in 2014, the authors came to the final conclusion that Article 6 of the mentioned law contains three distinct incriminations regarding the high-risk drug trafficking. Thus, Article 6 (1) of the Law No 143/2000, republished, includes the crime of high-risk drug trafficking, representing the medically unnecessary prescription of such substances by a doctor. In paragraph (2) of Article 6 of the same law it is incriminated the high-risk drug trafficking, by releasing such substances from pharmacies on the basis of a recipe that includes a prescription that is not medically necessary or is falsified. In paragraph (3) of Article 6 of the same law, the high-risk drug trafficking is incriminated, by obtaining such substances from a pharmacy based on a fictitious medical recipe. In conclusion, the authors state, if a drug addict doctor prescribes to himself high-risk drugs on a recipe without being medically necessary and obtains them from a pharmacy, he will commit two crimes in real concurrence, namely the one provided in Article 6 (1) and the one provided in Article 6 (3) of the Law No 143/2000, republished.

As a result of the measures taken at the level of the Member States in order to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, the statistics show that the number of teleworkers has increased and, at the same time, telework can become an „endless job” with negative effects on the mental and physical health condition of teleworkers. In this context, at the level of the European Union, it was appreciated that it is necessary to secure the labour relations of teleworkers by unification of the legislations of the Member States in terms of the right to disconnect. The implicit way of regulating this right, which also exists in Romania, does not create an adequate protection for teleworkers. Exercising the right to disconnect implies a clear delimitation of the working time and of the rest time and the obligation of employers to monitor and measure the daily working time provided by teleworkers, as it results from the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The role of the social partners is essential for the implementation of the right to disconnect and appropriate individual information measures must be taken in order to ensure that the employee is sensitized and made aware of the risks associated with permanent availability. Artificial intelligence creates the premises for telework to evolve into smartworking, which gives the teleworker full autonomy in choosing the place where he performs work.

Simplification and debureaucratization, in many cases, indeed, lead to a positive result. However, the complexity and apparent bureaucratization of some institutions and procedures, in many cases, have a well-defined, useful, even necessary role. The elimination of functional and strict requirements may drive the expected rationalization but an undesirable adverse effect: dysfunctions and legal uncertainty. These ideas can be best illustrated by the recent amendment of the Law No 31/1990 on companies, through Law No 23/2020 for the simplification and debureaucratization of the transfer of shares („social parts”) and the payment of the share capital. Unfortunately, in recent years, the limited liability company has become a subject of experimentation for different improvement attempts, without noticing that companies’ legal regime is an organic whole. Most of the time, reforms are well-intentioned but distorted by enduring normative realities. They also distort the existing law: as is currently the case with share capital and shares transfer.

The study analyzes the initial version of the first sentence of Article 426 (5) of the Civil Procedure Code, according to which the judgment had to be drafted within maximum 30 days from the date of pronouncement. In the author’s opinion, such a time limit ensured the achievement of one of the fundamental principles of the civil trial, respectively, the right to a fair trial, in an optimal and predictable time limit, as provided by Article 6 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code. In the version of the Law No 310/2018, the first sentence of Article 426 (5) of the Civil Procedure Code was amended, in the sense of granting the possibility to extend the drafting time limit, over the initial one of 30 days from the date of pronouncement. Thus, for well-grounded reasons, this time limit may be extended by 30 days, at most twice. In the author’s opinion, the total current time limit of 90 days for drafting the judgment is not able to ensure a reasonable time limit for the completion of the trial and should return to the version existing prior to the amendment by the Law No 310/2018, respectively, the time limit of no more than 30 days from the date of pronouncement.