The present study proposes to analyze the issue of civil guilt, in both of its forms (tort and contractual), judging that the selection of the Civil Code s applicable guidelines (the new Civil Code, in force as of October 1st 2011, as well as the previous Civil Code) from the amalgam of jurisprudential solutions and doctrinaire directions is highly important. The exploration of the Civil Code ks texts brings in discussion a current topic much debated by the contemporary doctrine: disappearance of the unity and harmony of civil liability, which is traditionally founded on guilt. The coexistence of the hypotheses of subjective civil liability with those based on the idea of risk, warranty or equity, within the context of modern society, evidences the increase of the remedial role of civil liability, to the detriment of the sanctionable role. The attention focuses on the victim ks position, to be indemnified, being less important, within the area of civil liability, the sanction applicable to the offender. In the last part of the study, the author expresses her belief that, despite inherent difficulties, undoubtedly, at this moment, the guilt still remains „the eternal lady of tort liability”.

In this study the authors focus on the necessity of considering the criminal ks degree of social danger in the individualization of penalty, given that the same penalty, identical as type and amount, does not generate the same effects for all criminals on whom it is applied. Concurrently, the authors highlight and conduct an ample research of the elements de facto that are used for the assessment of a criminal ks degree of social danger. Therefore, in order to comprehend the criminal ks degree of social danger, the following should be assessed: health condition (predominantly the psycho-physical condition), the criminal ks biological structure and mental characteristics, the entire social environment, the criminal ks behavior before perpetration of the crime, the criminal and legal circumstances of the criminal (convict, recidivist, prosecuted for other felonies, rehabilitated, amnestied, pardoned etc.), behavior after perpetration of the crime and during the criminal lawsuit, the level of education, as well as age. The following personal circumstances of individualization should also be included: the criminal ks capacity (officer, army enlisted, magistrate, mother etc.), civil status (married, single, widowed etc.), the relationship with the victim (close relative, relative, cohabitant, spouse, friend, enemy etc.) and any other information that might contribute to the individualization of the criminal ks individuality (for instance, lifestyle, reputation, social merits etc.).

This paper analyzes the legal status of the Romanian judgments in terms of the European Enforcement Order, in light of the provisions included in Regulation (EC) no. 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims; Regulation (EC) no. 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure; and Regulation (EC) no. 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, all this, in conjunction with the rules of the new (Romanian) Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 134/2010, republished on 3 august 2012 and entered into force on February 15, 2013).

The author analyzes the rules of Directive 2001/23/EC of March 12, 2001 on the appropriation of the European Union Member States’ laws relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or establishments, by reference to the rules of the Labor Code (republished) and the provisions of Law no. 64/2006 on the protection of employees’ rights for transfers of undertakings, business or parts thereof; this comparative analysis reached some interesting conclusions useful both for theorists, and practitioners.

The authors comment on the provisions of art. 1013 to 1024 of the new Romanian Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 134/2010 of the Code of Civil Procedure, republished in the “Official Gazette of Romania”, Part I, no. 545 of 3 August 2012 and entered into force on 15 February 2013) on the instruction payment special procedure, whereby the legislator establishes uniform rules for combating the late payment of certain amounts of money, bringing together the provisions previously established by the two laws, currently repealed (Government Ordinance no. 5/2001 and Government Emergency Ordinance no. 119/2007). When stating the conclusions of the study, the authors welcome the legislative solution and point out that the payment instruction procedure can be used concurrently with the small claims procedure (art. 1025 to 1032 Civil Procedure Code), as these two special procedures do not exclude each other.

In this study, the author provides a critical analysis of the content of art. 2322 of the Civil Code that has entered into force on 1 October 2011, regulating for the first time, in terms of legislation, autonomous guarantee instrument of the letter of comfort. Given the lack of doctrinal explanations and of the Romanian jurisprudence in this regard, the author makes a comparative law analysis regarding the use of this instrument, employing as reference points the Common Law systems and Continental Law systems based on the existence of a Civil Code. This instrument is known since the early 1960s by the international transactions practice, but the corresponding case law is quite limited and in some legislation, although frequently used, letters of comfort are not subject to an expressis verbis legislative regulation. The author emphasizes the Romanian Civil Code modern nature together with the call for a consistent use, in practice, of this legal institution.