In this study we are making reference to the refusal to accept the bill of exchange and the extraordinary acceptance in the Republic of Moldova and Romania. By accepting the bill of exchange, the drawer becomes the principal debtor and, consequently, the bill of exchange must be presented to him. In case the drawee refuses the acceptance of the bill of exchange, the statement of refusal must be ascertained, within the time limits set for presentation on acceptance, by an act drawn up. Normally, the acceptance of the bill of exchange is made by the drawee. In the case of refusal of acceptance from the drawee, in order to protect the interests of the holder of the bill of exchange, the law regulates the possibility for a person other than the drawee to accept the bill of exchange. Such an extraordinary acceptance avoids the initiation of the action for regress.

Privileged wills are sometimes viewed as an anachronism. In civil law systems such as Romania or France, the freedom of disposition is limited by certain institutions (e.g. the hereditary reserve and the forced heirship), while this is not the case in common law jurisdictions. Nevertheless, civil and common law systems inherited the Roman notion that in some extraordinary circumstances the testator should be allowed to bypass the rigid formalities required for the validity of a will. In turn, civil law systems view such privileged wills as a rather simplified version of the notarial form, while English law fully lifts the written requirement for these cases. The purpose of the current article is to prove the enduring relevance of privileged wills in the contemporary world through an analysis of their origins, current regulation and prospects.

The enforcement of enforceable titles consisting of judgments regarding budgetary claims, owed on the basis of some contractual legal relationships, which become revenue to the state consolidated budget, was a distinct issue dealt with in the practice of the courts of law, as a result of different legal application and interpretation of incidental legal texts. It was the judicial practice that led to the intervention of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, called upon to issue a preliminary ruling for the settlement of a matter of law regarding the interpretation of the provisions of Article 623 of the Civil Procedure Code in relation to Article 220 (3) and (5) and Article 226 (3) of the Law No 207/2015, in the light of Article 3 (1) of the Law No 273/2006 and Article 3 point 18 of the Law No 69/2010. The solution of the High Court of Cassation and Justice confers the competence of enforcement of the above-mentioned obligations to the tax executors, as executing authorities of the State.

This paper analyses the concepts of harmonization, approximation of laws and the establishing of minimum norms in EU law, with an emphasis on the criminal European law. These notions are followed since their creation, first in the internal market and then, in the area of freedom, security and justice, through all avatars they got through alongside the evolution of the EU integration process. Without a legal definition, the meaning of those concepts was created and then partially contested by legal authors. Though, there is still a debate between some authors about the differences in the nuances of those legal notions specific to EU law, the majority of legal thinking agreed that all these notions are reflecting the same idea of vertical integration of EU law. Another major influence upon defining those concepts in the criminal European law was represented by the EU Court of Justice case-law in the Environmental Crimes Case and Shipping Pollution Case, setting out, for the first time, a constitutional basis for the creation of criminal European law: the principle of effectiveness combined with the principle of loyal cooperation. The final part of this study analyses the harmonization and the establishment of minimum standards in criminal European law in post-Lisbon era, taking into consideration all important changes brought by this treaty, such as the fully constitutional basis for harmonization and mutual recognition in the criminal law area of the EU.

In this study we have analyzed the effects of the situation of incompatibility in which the local elected representatives, especially the mayors, can be found, as this situation has been established by the prefect or by the National Integrity Agency through the evaluation report. Thus, in the first case, finding the incompatibility entails the lawful cessation of the mayor’s mandate, if he will not renounce the incompatible function within the time limit provided by the law, and, in the latter case, the state of incompatibility has as consequence the prohibition of the person declared incompatible to fill an eligible position for a period of 3 years from the date of cessation of the current mandate or, respectively, from the date of the final assessment report of the National Integrity Agency. In other words, not even if the National Integrity Agency establishes it, the state of incompatibility is not an implacable reason for lawful cessation of the mayor’s mandate, but, on the contrary, it can avoid such a consequence by renouncing the incompatible function within the same period provided by the law in case the incompatibility is established by the prefect.

In this study we are making reference to the acceptance of the bill of exchange in the Republic of Moldova and in Romania. The bill of exchange includes the drawer’s order addressed to the drawee to pay to the holder of the bill of exchange (payee) the amount of money mentioned in the title. This order itself includes only an obligation of the drawer to determine the payment of the amount of money to be made to the beneficiary, as well as a designation of the person (the drawee) which is going to make the payment at maturity. But the obligation to pay the amount of money does not arise from the order given by the drawer, but from the expression of the will of the drawee itself. So only by accepting the order the drawee becomes acceptor, that is debtor of bill of exchange, and will be obliged to pay at maturity the amount of money provided by the bill of exchange. By accepting the bill of exchange, the drawee becomes the principal debtor and, as a consequence, he must be presented with the bill of exchange.