In the context of the new legal framework existing after the entry into force of the Law No 85/2014, this study analyzes the final table of claims and the contestations against it, by emphasizing the notable differences as compared to the old regulation – the Law No 85/2006 – and the importance of the final table of claims over the debtor’s estate in the insolvency procedure, as well as the exceptional character of the contestations against it. The registration of claims in the final table of claims against the debtor’s estate is generating rights for the creditors, and, consequently, the analysis and the thorough study of how this is produced, of the content of the final table of claims, of the time of its registration and publication, as well as of the rights and obligations of the participants in this procedure are essential. The contestations against the final table of claims have an exceptional character and the conditions in which these may be formulated are strictly, expressly and limitatively enumerated by the law. Under these circumstances, this legal remedy is approached from the perspective of the persons who may have the legal standing to file the contestation, from the perspective of the time limit for their submission – which appears as a highly opportune legislative novelty for the stability of the procedure – and, finally, from the perspective of the exceptional situations which may lead to the admission of such contestation.

The law provides that all declared claims will be subject to the verification procedure, with the exception of claims established by enforceable court judgments and enforceable arbitral awards, as well as budgetary claims resulting from an uncontested enforcement title within the time limits provided by special laws. In case the court judgments or arbitral awards are annulled, quashed or modified in the means of appeal, the judicial administrator/judicial liquidator will restore the table of claims accordingly. In case the court, by annulling or quashing the judgment, does not settle also the merits of the case, the judicial administrator or the judicial liquidator will proceed to the verification of that claim, by notifying the creditors in the event of total or partial non-inclusion of the claim, the creditors having, against the measure of the practitioner, in the Bulletin of Insolvency Procedures the extract of the report of the judicial administrator or of the judicial liquidator in which that measure is described. The judicial administrator will proceed immediately to the verification of each application and of accompanying documents and will conduct a thorough investigation to determine the legitimacy, the exact value and priority of each claim. For this purpose, the insolvent practitioner has the right to request explanations from the debtor, will be able to discuss with each debtor, requesting additional information and documents, if he considers it necessary. The regulation included in paragraph (2) of Article 106 of the Insolvency Code has an absolute novelty character, because until the appearance of the Law No 85/2014 the judicial administrator/judicial liquidator did not have the right to establish that the extinctive prescription of the claim has arisen. This is provided that, in the conception of the new Civil Code, the prescription can only be invoked by the one in whose favour it runs. Therefore, if the insolvent practitioner will appreciate that for the amount of money declared by a creditor within the procedure the extinctive prescription has arisen, he will notify the creditor in that regard, without further checks on the pretended claim, the legislator considering that in this case it acts, although it is a body applying the procedure, as a representative of the insolvent debtor, obviously with the possibility of the creditor interested in challenging the measure to the syndic-judge. As a result of the verifications made, the judicial administrator/liquidator will draw up and register with the court a preliminary table containing all claims against the debtor’s estate, overdue or not, under condition or under dispute, arisen before the date of the opening procedure. In the table there will be mentioned both the amount requested by the creditor and the amount accepted and the priority rank, and in the case of the creditor undergoing the insolvency procedure the appointed judicial administrator/judicial liquidator will also be indicated. In the case of the simplified procedure, in this table the claims arisen after the opening of the procedure and until the moment of going into bankruptcy will be recorded. In the case of claims which benefit from a preference cause, there will be presented the title from which the right of preference arises, its rank and, if applicable, the reasons for which the claims have been partially recorded in the table or have been removed. The claims that are benefiting from a preference case shall be entered in the preliminary table with the full value, indicating at the same time the title from which the preference right arises, their rank and, if applicable, the reasons for which the claims were only partially recorded in the table or have been removed, and in the final table, up to the market value of the guarantee determined by assessment, ordered by the judicial administrator or by the judicial liquidator, by an authorized assessor. However, Article 122 (1) of the Framework-Law makes the drawing up of the final table of claims conditional upon the handover by the assessor of the guarantee assessment report. In case the capitalization of the assets over which the preferential cause takes effect will be made at a price higher than the amount entered in the final consolidated table, the positive difference will be assigned to the guaranteed creditor, even if a part of his claim had been recorded as a secured debt, until covering the main claim and the accessories that will be calculated according to the documents from which the claim arises, until the date of the capitalization of assets. This provision will also be applied in case of failure of the reorganization plan and the sale of the asset in the insolvency procedure.

The reasons behind our research are justified by the numerous legal acts of the European Union adopted in the most diverse areas, acts which include an unprecedented development of substantive EU law, particularly during the last period (2000–2017). As a consequence, the situations in which the infringement procedure can be initiated are also exponentially multiplied. An in-depth analysis of the subject can be edifying if we make a quantitative comparison, and not only, of the EU acquis, existing in the ’60s, at the beginning of the Community construction, compared to the present, already 60 years after the signing of the Treaties of Rome, which have led to the adoption of a highly derivative legislation within a Union of 28 Member States. Regarding the infringement procedure, for doctrinaires, but especially for practitioners, we will analyze the following outstanding issues: who can trigger the procedure; against whom the procedure may be triggered; the situations and methods for initiating the procedure and the steps taken. All these aspects are presented taking into consideration the quality of Romania as a Member State of the European Union with full rights and obligations.

In the context of the amendments operated on the Administrative Disputes Law No 554/2004 by the Law No 212/2018, the author proposes to analyse the time limits in which the prior complaint can be filed and to analyze each of them separately, by grouping them according to the subject of the prior complaint and to the object of the prior complaint. The author makes the transition from the time limits imposed on the addressees of the administrative act to the time limits imposed on third parties, in the situation of the typical and assimilated individual administrative act, by investigating the length of the time limit, the moment from which it starts, the legal nature or the applicable legal regime and the sanction applied in case of non-compliance with these time limits. The main time limits within which the prior complaint can be filed are analyzed, special attention being given to cases where the prior complaint is not mandatory. Finally, the author emphasizes the importance of applying these time limits in just measure so that the prior complaint procedure does not become an obstacle, not related to the concrete situation, in the way of access to justice of the alleged injured party, nor it becomes an instrument of abuse.