The regulation of the dismissal of employees in the national legislations is carried out, as a rule, either in casuistic system, or conditioned by the existence of a justified reason, or without imposing the requirement of no reason. In Romania, the regulation of the dismissal has in view the cases strictly provided by the Labour Code and any other special laws. However, there are some states of the European Union, as well as on the North American, South American, African continent or on the Australian continent, where the possibility of dismissal without cause of employees is admitted. In the spirit of flexibilization of the labour relations, in this study it is deemed useful that the dismissal without cause of employees be regulated in Romania as well, as an exception from the casuistic dismissal, and only with application limited to certain categories of employees (those pursuing an intellectual activity and, particularly, those who hold management positions). In order to ensure adequate protection of employees, the dismissal without cause should be conditioned by the grant of longer periods of notice, that are superior to those in the common law, determined according to seniority of employees at that employer, and to the payment of some monetary compensation, also established depending on the seniority at that employer, following that these measures be strengthened by the sanction of nullity applied to the dismissal that does not comply with these conditions.

The (Romanian) Labour Code (Law No 53/2003 – republished) regulates (Article 88 et seq.) the legal institution of labour law of the „temporary labour contract”, which has Directive 2008/104/EC of 19 November 2008 as „European” legal basis. In the legal literature of labour law from Romania a controversy has arisen, whether the „mission” performed under a „temporary labour contract” may be considered or not as secondment [within the meaning of Article 45 et seq. of the (Romanian) Labour Code]. The position of the author of this study is firm, in a negative way, and, as a result, the employee in question is not entitled to the special rights regulated for the employees on secondment provided by Article 46 (4) and Article 47 of the Labour Code.

As the author herself states, the purpose of this study is to identify the sources of the international law which grounds the interdiction of the „hate speech”, as well as the manner of their perception and application at European level, particularly in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. In this respect there are presented: the foundations of the interdiction of the „hate speech” at universal and European level; the elements analyzed in this respect by the European Court of Human Rights (reference to the context of the speech; instigation to hatred on grounds of race and religion; negativistic and revisionist speech); the regulations adopted by the Council of Europe and by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance; the normative framework of the European Union on racism and xenophobia, and, finally, the reference of the current Romanian criminal legislation to international exigences.

Announced in theory, present in practice, and recognized everywhere, „flexible law” is seeking its own accreditation at a doctrinal level. Covering a number of highly heterogeneous normative instruments (directives, advices, charters, codes of conduct, et al.) having as a common element the fact of being imposed not by constraint, but by the adhesion of its recipients, it manifests itself specifically in international law (as „soft law”), EU law (as a method of governance), or internal order (as a lever of achieving the functions of the state). In relation to proper law („hard law”), flexible law manifests itself either as its precursor, in the process of adoption, a companion in its enforcement, or, in certain situations, as a substitute. Knowing diverse national experiences, flexible law presents itself as a factor of simplification and improvement of the quality of legal regulations.

The article analyzes the advantages which the settlement of disputes by means of arbitration has to offer. Arbitration is an exception from the principle that administration of justice is done by the courts and represents that effective legal mechanism, designed to ensure a fair, faster and less formal, confidential trial finalized by judgments subject to enforcement. Most patrimonial and non-patrimonial causes may be settled by way of arbitration, so that this method of settlement of disputes can be chosen by parties, instead of the common law justice. The conclusion that can be drawn is that, in order to relieve the courts of their role, arbitration is a viable alternative of settlement of disputes.

This article aims to analyze a wage increase for people who traditionally have a PhD title and are working in the field in which they obtained this title. Up to the adoption of the legislation on uniform remuneration in budgetary system, all those who had obtained a PhD title received, without distinction, a wage increase for PhD. The current legislation has provided the inclusion of this increase, as a transitional compensatory amount, in the base salary, the basic pay/salary or monthly allowance, for the employees that had it to be paid on 31 December 2009, but not for those who have won the PhD title after this date. That legislation created a discriminatory situation, on which the National Council for Combating Discrimination was notified, and this has expressed a specialised opinion, which advocated for the competent authorities of the State, Parliament and the Government to proceed to eliminate the difference in legal treatment, so additional salary entitlement to be recognized by the legislature to all employees, regardless of the date on which it was awarded a PhD title. To this end we propose the appropriate modification of the law.