In the Romanian civil law and civil processual law there are several particular situations that raise problems in terms of application in time of the civil law and of the civil processual law, especially in case of prescriptions, both to the extinctive prescription and to the acquisitive prescription. It is noted the fact that, in case of prescription of execution, the provisions of processual law are supplemented with the provisions of substantive law, therefore the conflict of laws in time arises not only between the civil procedure rules, but at the same time between the rules of civil material law as well. As regards the acquisitive prescription, the conflict of laws arises, in particular, between the provisions of the Decree-Law No 115/1938 and those of the Civil Code of 1864, and the situation is complicated by the fact that the moment when the prescription period starts to run is different in the two normative acts. The solution proposed by the doctrine to resolve the conflict of laws between the former Civil Code and the current Civil Code can be useful also in case of conflict in time between normative acts, in this case with regard to usucaption, in order to avoid that the applicable law be different from the law that has determined the applicable law.

This study is devoted to a particular analysis of the reason for contestation for annulment provided by Article 503 (2) point 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, text which allows the cancellation of a judgment when it is found that „the solution given to the recourse” is the result of a „material error”. The author argues that the mentioned text does not allow a broad interpretation, namely in the sense that the material errors could lead to the cancellation of a judgment for mistakes that concern the merits of the case. The current regulation does not provide sufficient arguments for a different approach than the one promoted under the influence of the previous Civil Procedure Code, and this despite the fact that Article 318 (1) of this Code was using the phrase „material mistake”, and not that of „material error”. In the author’s view the whole physiognomy of the contestation for annulment is materialised in the fact that this extraordinary legal remedy was made available to the parties only for the removal of some procedural errors, and not of those on the merits as well. In order to remedy some misjudgments it is open the means of appeal, and, in some cases, of the revision as well. However the contrary opinion has the merit to emphasize that there are practical situations in which the current procedural remedies could be considered as insufficient. Therefore, some future legislative approaches might also consider some reassessments concerning the regulation of the legal remedies.

The administrative-jurisdictional procedure established by the Law No 159/2016 and detailed by the Decision No 1171/2016 has utility in a specific area, that of electronic communications. By regulating the procedure for settlement of disputes between the suppliers of public networks of electronic communications and the network operators, on the one hand, and, respectively, of the disputes between the suppliers of public networks of electronic communications and the persons holding by whatever title a physical infrastructure installed inside a building, on the other hand, the Decision No 1171/2016 stands out by provisions of novelty, such as ensuring the contradictoriality and orality of the procedure by distance communication means or by ensuring the public consultation of the preliminary solution given by the Commission within the procedure of settlement of dispute. Similarly, there can also be found procedures regulated in the common law as well, but also derogations in matters of material and territorial jurisdiction of the competent court to censor the legality of the administrative-jurisdictional act issued to settle the case.

The imperative to not let the governors and the governed persons commit any abuses has generated a specific manner of regulation of the organization of public assemblies, especially when they take place in public. The result of this regulation which, although it does not expressly provide the condition of authorising the organization and the conduct of these public assemblies, contains it nevertheless by default, has implications on the problem of the administrative authorizations. This result is the specific manner of establishing a required authorization that is not included within the scope of express authorizations or in the one related to the tacit approval procedure, placed, as well as the latter, in the sphere of legal fictions. Whereas given the state of law and a genuine democracy it can not be explained the reaction of the authorities when they face the situation of spontaneous public assemblies, their regulation at legal level is required as well.

The idea and, especially, the usefulness of this study have been suggested to us by some amendments brought to the Law No 273/2004 on the procedure of adoption by the Law No 57/2016, including with regard to the issue of the jurisdiction of the Romanian courts in matters of adoption, by the provisions of Articles 1066–1082 of the Civil Procedure Code, referring to „the international jurisdiction of the Romanian courts”, as well as by the existence in this area of some norms still involving an effort of logical-legal polishing. Specifically, we have subjected to analysis the hypotheses of international jurisdiction of the Romanian courts, the material and territorial jurisdiction of the tribunal, respectively of the Bucharest Tribunal, with regard to the applications in matters of adoption.

I. Pentru a se garanta mai bine interesele părței civile. 1. Tăerea controversei în privința acordărei daunelor-interese, în caz de achitare, în sensul că achitatul, ca și absolvitul, pot fi în orice materie penală condamnați la daune-interese. 2. Dreptul pentru partea civilă de a pune în mișcare acțiunea publică și a o exercita dânsa singură, când ministerul public ezită sau refuză de a se pune în mișcare, și dreptul de a se face apel sau recurs fie în materie de instrucțiune prealabilă, fie la instanțele de judecată, chiar în caz de achitarea inculpatului. 3. Privilegiul pentru partea civilă de a se despăgubi fiscului din garanția dată de arestat spre a i se da libertatea provizorie, ca și din orice altă avere a acestuia. 4. Tăerea controversei cunoscută sub formula una via electa, lăsându-se la facultatea părței civile de a părăsi chiar calea civilă, și a se alătura la acțiunea publică, în caz când crede mai folositoare această cale și vice-versa.