Although the science and the practice of law have always enjoyed the consideration and the appreciation of society, their academic recognition remained, mostly, a desideratum. As a complex phenomenon: art, technics and science at the same time, the law represents complexity and difficulty in perceiving and affirming its status of scientific and cultural science. That is why, although the faculties of law were among the founding faculties of universities, the lawyers and their discipline came relatively late in the dome of academies. In Romania, the Romanian Academy, created in 1866, was initially concerned with the study of the national language and history, hardly opening its doors for sciences, in general, and social sciences, in particular. Facing this „conservatorism” the representatives of different sciences have opted to create some specialized academies, such as the Academy of Sciences (1936) or the Academy (Institute) of Moral and Political Sciences (1938). It was only in 1948, by creating the Division of legal and economic sciences, when the law received express recognition among the concerns of the high academic forum, but the lawyers are still under-represented within it. The increasing role of law in post-modern society and asserting its status as social complex science impose the revaluation of its academic status as well.

While authorities with jurisdiction in the management of European funds exercise control and investigative activities they issue documents which, although they enjoy the presumption of legality like any administrative act, may give rise to litigations. Based on the special normative acts relevant for the management of European funds and on Fiscal Procedure Code, this paper analyses documents issued by such authorities, their legal nature, as well as the procedure for contesting such documents, as a guarantee of the principle of free access to justice.

While examining the effects of the information procedure on the advantages of mediation in relation to the running of the prescription or limitation periods and corroborating the provisions of Law No 192/2006 referring to mediation with the provisions of the Romanian Civil Code in matters of prescription or limitation periods, this study reaches the conclusion that the procedure on the advantages of mediation prevents the running of the substantial prescription period and limitation period established by the legal provisions (which protect a private right) or by the convention of the parties when these have not began to run, and, respectively, it suspends the course of the prescription/limitation when these have began to run, for a period of 15 calendar days from the date when the prescription/limitation began.

This study, while indicating the absence of systematic doctrinal concern in relation to the meaning of the term „child” used in the Constitution, in the Civil Code and in several other internal or international normative acts, suggests to approach this term, lato sensu, as relative of first degree in the direct line of descent and, stricto sensu, as minor person without full capacity of exercise. Likewise, the author analyzes the definition given to this term in Article 1 of UNO Convention on the Rights of the Child and he presents some of its consequences on the internal regulations in the field.

The Romanian legislator has introduced an innovation in criminal proceedings matters: the institution of the suspect, which is questionable from several points of view. According to the provisions of the new Romanian Criminal Procedure Code, the suspect is the person about whom, from the existing data and evidence in the case, a reasonable suspicion arises that he has committed an offence provided by the criminal law; the quality of suspect is acquired only when the prosecutor orders that the criminal prosecution – which had previously started only with regard to the deed (in rem) – be further conducted against that person. The suspect is not a party in the criminal proceedings, but a main subject to proceedings. In this study, the authors analyze the institution of the suspect, by presenting some critical aspects and by proposing the reconsideration of its regulation.

The new Civil Procedure Code brings some elements of novelty with regard to producing the proof by expertise, also maintaining many of the solutions of the former legislation. This study presents the most important aspects with regard to producing the proof by expertise, using the doctrine and the practice from the period of application of the Civil Procedure Code of 1865 and attempting to interpret the elements of novelty brought by the current procedural legislation.