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.

This paper addresses the matter subordinated to the substantive competence of settlement, during the criminal investigation phase, of the cases in which, initially under the competence of the D.I.I.C.O.T., the procedure of disjunction intervenes. His authors conclude that the provisions of Article 11 (3) of the Government Emergency Ordinance No 78/2016 must in no way be interpreted as being enacted in order to arbitrarily prorogue a prosecutor’s competence, but only for the purpose of the proper administration of justice, purpose to which any decision of disjunction must be subordinated.

Seen by Aristotle as a pure ornamental rhetorical figure, the metaphor is no longer intended in the 21th century to embellish poetical expression, but to generate new forms of access to knowledge, leading from a paradigm of expressive semantic regime to a semantic cognitive regime. It is considered today that the metaphor is not only related to the literary style, but to the whole of human sciences. Even the definition of the right has fuelled an abundant literature that is lost in the darkness of times, and which seems to have failed to reach a right conclusion, as lawyers still seek a definition for their concept of law. This is because the meaning of law, its force and its reason to be keep an irreducible part of mystery, a mystery derived, in part, from the fact that the right term is a metaphor and, like any metaphor, linguistically materializes the cognitive processes of communication and provides, by analogy, an imaginative support that binds it to an already familiar conceptual circuit.

Prin arvonă (arrha)1 se înțelege ceea ce una din părțile contractante, în genere cumpărătorul (art. 1297, 1298 C. C.) sau locatarul (art. 1416), dă celeilalte, fie pentru a asigura executarea contractului (arrha confirmatoria), fie pentru a’și procura mijlocul de a se putea desista de el (arrha paenitentialis).

The emergence of the Law No 76/2012 for the implementation of the Law No 134/2010 on the Code of Civil Procedure had great influence on the Government Emergency Ordinance No 34/2006 on the award of public procurement contracts. The latter stated that, in the matter of claims for compensation for damage caused during the public procurement procedure, the way of attack is an appeal on law submitted within 5 days of the communication. Difficulties with the publication and entry into force of the Law No 76/2012 were felt because it provided that the appeal would be the remedy in the matter, but before it came into force, the Government Emergency Ordinance No 34/2006 was amended by the Government Emergency Ordinance No 77/2012 which was approved by the Law 193/2013 and which left unchanged the way of attack. To solve the problems related to the succession in time of the laws, the High Court of Cassation and Justice by the Decision No 20/2015 of 5 October 2015 on the examination of the appeal in the interest of the law formulated by the Board of the Suceava Court of Appeal determined that the appeal on law is the only way of attack in the matter. Problems of interpretation have not stopped here because, while the High Court has made compulsory the way of attack, it did not make any mention of the term of exercise. Thus, a non-unitary practice has emerged because some courts have considered that the term of exercise is that of appeal, i.e. 5 days, while others have applied the general term. In our view, the time limit for exercising the appeal on law cannot be considered to be 5 days, because in this situation it would only mean that there was a replacement of the term „appeal” with „appeal on law”, but the general term provided by the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply.

In this study there are presented the main scientific arguments that can be taken into account for promoting a new discipline, as sub-branch of the Romanian criminal law, namely the criminal law of transports. For the scientific arguing of this approach, there have been briefly examined the system of Romanian law, the syntagms of branch, sub-branch and institution of our law. As regards the criminal law, reference has been made to the two parts, to some institutions and to the possibility of recognizing the criminal law of transports as sub-branch of the Romanian law. Likewise, within the scientific approach, it has been carried out a brief examination of the criminal law norms specific to the safety of traffic and of transports from Romania, insisting on the necessity of grouping them into a distinct normative act, recommending even a code of transports. The examination has considered the main elements of similarity between criminal law norms specific to the four domains of the national system of transports, namely: road, railway, naval and air.