This study aims to analyse the meaning of the term „reasonable grounds” enshrined in paragraph (2) of Article 11 of Law No 554/2004 on Administrative Proceedings. Neither the relevant framework law, nor any other regulation defines this concept, which creates problems in practice. The tendency in case law is to consider that „reasonable grounds” must be understood as a situation beyond the person’s control, insurmountable, in case of force majeure or fortuitous event. The present study seeks to correct this view and to promote the interpretation that the notion can be understood both in the sense mentioned above and in one where the parties use administrative methods to prevent a dispute from arising.

The insurance market in Romania is an extremely complex field of legal regulation, which involves not only the observance of the principle of fair competition between the professional competitors, rivals on the market, but mostly the observance of some high standards of consumers’ protection, which are in a net inferiority ratio from a financial, informational and organizational point of view, in comparison with the policy issuers covering the compulsory civil insurance. From this perspective, the withdrawal of the operating authorization and the initiation of the bankruptcy procedure against the Insurance-Reinsurance Company City Insurance – S.A. raises a series of big problems for the clients of this insurer, not only from the point of view of the contractual relations established by the insurance contract, but especially through the procedural mode of action on the part of these consumers, so that the protection of their rights be full, as well as that the effects of the opening of bankruptcy procedure against City Insurance be mitigated, as much as possible, in relation to the already precarious situation of these clients. We intend, through this study, to highlight a series of pressing legal issues and to propose a series of solutions to the legal, substantive or procedural issues that arise from the withdrawal of the authorization of this important player on the insurance market from Romania. Thus, those entitled to recover the expenses occasioned by the repair of the cars involved in road accidents caused by the clients of City Insurance – S.A. have the way opened for a special and accelerated procedure for the recovery of these damages, without waiting for the opening of the bankruptcy procedure against this insurer and the registration in the amount of claims, extremely laborious and time-consuming legal procedures, which raise problems for the consumers who are victims of traffic accidents, and also for the clients of the insurance company who could see themselves engaged in legal actions intended to lead to the compensation of those injured in road accidents and that would endanger their personal patrimony, although they appear as contracting parties and beneficiaries of some perfectly valid RCA policies on the date when the damage was caused.

This article examines the fiduciary property through a historical and comparative analysis of the legislation and doctrine of Québec, France and Romania. The contemporary fiducia ought not to be confused for the Roman fiducia, whose name it borrowed. As a result of the reception of the Anglo-American trust in the mixed legal system of the Canadian province of Québec, the fiducia has been the subject of subsequent legal transplants into the continental tradition. The Romanian legislator, inspired by its French counterpart, took over the restrictions brought to the fiducia in said legal system. In the matter of real rights, this legislative option also meant the rejection of the doctrine of an ownerless patrimony, an innovation of the legal system of Québec, in search of a continental instrument to replace the division of title between the legal holder (trustee) and the equitable one (beneficiary), as enshrined in the Common Law tradition. Commenting on the solutions proposed within French legal literature (including the classification as a method of ownership or even as a result of dismemberment), the author argues that only a combination of them may fully explain the mechanism of the fiduciary ownership. In essence, the fiduciary owner acts like a true owner, but by virtue of a title held under a resolutive condition, while the beneficiary enjoys a virtuality of law in his capacity as an owner under a suspensive condition. However, the constraints to which the right of ownership transferred to the trustee is subject, in terms of its exclusivity and perpetuity, may be explained by the fiducia contract itself, the effects of which are assimilated to the conventional limitation operated, for example, through an inalienability clause. In other words, the fiduciary owner may be considered an owner under a resolutive condition, yet he remains subject to the conventional limitations brought upon by the very nature of the fiduciary operation.

The modalities of the obligations, the time limit and the condition, are of several types and with different legal regimes (Articles 1004–1025 of the former Civil Code, respectively Articles 1399–1420 of the new Civil Code). The legal regime of these modalities is generally known by jurists, the modalities being frequently encountered both in the domestic and international commercial activity, as well as in the judicial practice and in the arbitration one. We do not intend to examine the legal regime of these modalities, with problems too rich for a simple review study, but only to question the purely potestative condition (Article 1009 of the former Civil Code and Article 1403 of the new Civil Code), which, as a rule, does not produce legal effects. However, there are, admittedly, rare cases in which such a condition still produces legal effects. We encountered such a case on the occasion of some international rental contracts, for which we were requested a legal opinion, and we considered that it would be useful that the legal issues raised by the case to be brought to the knowledge of the practitioners of the law.