The content of the medical legal relation includes all rights and obligations of the provider and of the beneficiary of the medical service. Among these, only the rights of the patient benefit by an explicit and ample special regulation and by a growing doctrinal interest. However, this does not mean the lack of specific rights in favour of the doctor, but only the necessity to identify the existence and the determination of their content by analyzing the nature and/or the implicit effects of the legal provisions and of the jurisprudential solutions. Thus, the patient’s acceptance by the doctor, based on Article 663 (1) of the Law No 95/2006, is the equivalent of the informed consent of the patient, expressed pursuant to Articles 660–662 of the Law No 95/2006 and Articles 13–20 of the Law No 46/2003; the interruption of the relation between the doctor and the patient, pursuant to Article 664 (1) c) (ii) of the Law No 95/2006, as a result of a hostile and/or irreverent attitude towards the doctor, would be impossible in the absence of an obligation of gratitude of the patient, correlative to a right to gratitude of the doctor; and the jurisprudential consecration of the liability of the sanitary unit for the damage suffered by the doctor due to a nosocomial infection is due precisely to the existence of a right to security of the doctor.

What we intended on this occasion is to discuss the rules that are used to determine in the concrete situations, related to the case, the legal inheritors of de cuius and the meanings of these rules. The topic seems interesting to us, because on the way in which it is dealt with, on the answers given to some questions, which are raised or can be raised in this regard, depend the adequate theoretical perspective and the rigor of determining of the inheritors in a given case, not only of the lawful ones, but also of the testamentary successors, each category of heirs being able, either alone or with the other, to access the inheritance.

The study is devoted to the legislative convergences and divergences existing at the level of the European countries regarding the functioning of small and mediumsized companies. The first part of this approach emphasizes the important role of small and medium-sized companies within the national economies, including their contribution to the formation of the gross domestic product. In the author’s opinion, the support granted by the political and legislative powers, including by the doctrine, is not in accordance with the contribution brought by the small and medium-sized companies to the development of the national economies. Starting from the finding that the typical legal form of functioning of the small and medium-sized companies is represented by the limited liability companies, the author presents the most relevant aspects regarding their establishment, organization and functioning. A particular analysis is also carried out in relation to Directive 2017/828/EC, a European document that is likely to significantly promote appropriate normative convergences. The author also emphasizes some positive trends manifested at the level of the European Union, such as those represented by the elimination of the fixed minimum share capital or by the reduction thereof. Among the legislative divergences, the author analyzes those determined by the conflicts of interests between the members of the limited liability company. In particular, the author takes into account the divergences concerning the right of the minority members, whose interests are threatened by the actions of the majority members, to freely exit that company.

Although the European Union’s activities hardly integrate into the civilist logic of the „illicit legal act”, its non-contractual liability is triggered in particular for what the doctrine generically calls „behaviours” considered to be illegal. Even under this generous hypothesis, the Union liability can only be engaged under very strict conditions, less established by the Treaties and, rather, by the judge in Luxembourg, on the basis of some rules that discourage the litigants, limiting the possibility, in procedural and material terms, to bring such actions. The jurisdiction to settle the disputes concerning non-contractual liability of EU exclusively pertains to the European Unional jurisdictions, by applying Article 268 TFEU, which necessarily implies that the non-contractual liability of the Union must be engaged solely on the basis and under the conditions of EU law. Such an argument is fundamentally justified by the fact that engaging this liability very often implies that the scope of application is an appreciation of the Union’s policy, which is why the exclusion of the competence of any national jurisdiction appears to be natural.

The study discusses in a precise manner and with a careful observation of the perception of the judicial practice on this issue how it is possible or how one should proceed to the verification of the legality of the probative procedures in the preliminary chamber phase. At the same time, with pertinent doctrinal arguments, the author of the study proposes an extension of the limits of verification of the legality of the probative procedures and with regard to the validity of the authorization issued by a judge of rights and liberties during the criminal investigation phase.

This study starts from a case settled in the preliminary chamber by a court that has proceeded to the exclusion from the probative material of some illegally obtained evidence, but also of those derived therefrom. In the analyzed situation in the context of the preliminary chamber it was found that there had been a confusion which led to obtaining data on a person’s financial transactions in an unlawful manner, namely by an ordinance that had not been validated by a judge of rights and freedoms, as the provisions of Article 138 (9) of the Criminal Procedure Code would have required.