Starting on October 1, 2011, the new Romanian Civil Code (Law no. 287/ 2009, republished on July 15, 2011) entered into force and, as of February 1, 2013 the new Romanian Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 134/2010, republished on 3 August 2012) shall come into force. Both the above mentioned codes are being developed by Law no. 71/2011 for the implementation of the new Civil Code, and respectively by Law.76/2012 for the implementation of the new Code of Civil Procedure. The new regulations introduced in the Romanian legislation the concept of guardianship court but until the entry into force of such court its powers which are set out in the new Civil Code shall be exerted by the courts, sections or, where appropriate, the existing specialized juvenile and family panels. Unfortunately, during 2011-2012, the regulations in the new Civil Code, the new Code of Civil Procedure and the two laws for application thereof, as being amended and supplemented several times, the guardianship court relevant legislation is confusing at the present time, thus its transposition in practice is difficult. That being the case, the author attempts in this study to solve a number of problems arising from the situation described and to make some proposals with a view to the future law.

The relatively recently legal notion of imprevision brought under Romanian regulation by the new Civil code that came into force October 1st, 2011, is expected to be subject of numerous specialized analyses in order to clarify the various aspects that make up its identity, characteristics and effectiveness. Following the purpose described here-above, this study aims especially at conjugating the theory of imprevision with the copyright transfer agreement. The article hereafter contains standpoints and de lege ferenda suggestions in relation to the party entitled to institute the legal proceeding relative based upon the imprevision theory, the criteria to be observed in order to adopt a solid legal settlement in this respect, the contracting parties and the court’s role in interpreting and applying the imprevision theory.

In this study the authors make an approach that highlights the lack of harmonization between organic laws and the post-December period constitutional laws, in relation to regulating the free use right with referring to the public property, primarily, and the private property of the state/territorial-administrative units, in subsidiary; then the legislating of the new Civil Code which fully ceases the unconstitutionality status; and finally several aspects of specific administrative technique are being addressed.

In this study, the author analyzes the scope of Regulation (EC) no. 593/ 2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to contractual obligations (also called “Rome I”) in individual contracts of employment having an extraneity element, taking into account that the provisions of this regulation are mandatory applicable in Romania, with a view to Art. 148 paragraph 2 of the Constitution and Art. 2640 of the Romanian Civil Code (Law no. 287/2009 republished).

The concept of complex offence is not defined by law, excepting a few European legal systems, such as, for instance, the Romanian and Italian legislation. In the majority of legislations, the term complex offence is approached only by the specialty literature, like the cases of German, Spanish or French law. Non-regulation of the institution of complex offence through a legal provision has however resulted in an uncertainty with respect to its content, as the authors have different opinions regarding this matter.

The present article focuses on the legal liability, having as main character the company administrator and presenting an overview of the the sanction specific to the administrator non-patrimonial liability:the administrator revoking. Concomitantly, the problems occurring in the legal practice are also taken into consideration: decision-making competence and the juridical control of the revoking decision. Due to the intuitu personae character of the mandate, the revoking of the company administrator, even when abusive, is final. So, in practice it was stated that the mandate, even arbitrary withdraw, can not be held in justice against the principle‘s will, the only right the proxy has is the claim damages, but not reintegration, as the trust representing the graunds for the mandate can not be imposed. Also, an administrator can not reguest reintegration but, if abuses were committed, by withdrawing the mandate, the administrator has damage claim. In the situation in which the administrators have been appointed by the article of incorporation, their dismissal presupposes its amendament. That is why, the court can not order the administrator‘revoking, as it would mean the modification of the articles of incorporation. In the condition in which the administrator acquired this quality by the company‘s articles of incorporation, his dismissal does not only have the character of an revokingl but it also represents an amendament of the articles of incorporation. The article also includes a detailed analysis of the opinions expressed in the speciality literature and the solutions in the legal practice for the administrator revoking problem.