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.

Despite of the settling for several years in the Romanian legislation of the regulation giving the creditor the opportunity to regulate the enforcement of the debtor’s obligation, the holder of a trademark, in the manner of the legal seizure of the trademark directly from the estate of the latter – the provisions of art. 40 para. (2) of the Law no. 84/1998 on trademarks and geographical indications, the creditors completely ignore this option as they are not able to anticipate its multiple advantages. The legal seizure of a strong trademark known among consumers – the recipients of the goods or services which the trademark is associated to, confers the creditor seeking enforcement a true mean of enforcing the debtor in the voluntary and immediate execution of its duty. The latter is threatened with the loss of the right to use the trademark in its trade activity, a trademark that it had made famous in time with significant costs and making continuous effort. The manner in which the legislator intended to outline the text of art. 40 para. (2) of the Law no. 84/1998 suggests indirectly that the trademark rights can be enforced ut singuli, distinctly from the goodwill in which they are included, and the legal nature of the concept of trademark determine the means of enforcement whose procedures have to be followed in order to achieve the ultimate goal – recovery of the claim: the indirect. movable enforcement, by sale at auction of the trademark rights, after its evaluation by a judicial technical expert in the matter of the industrial property rights.

The author analyzes the legal status of undue payment, regarded as a source of civil obligations, such as they results in the texts of the new Civil Code. It has been specified since the beginning of the study that in general no essential amendments were reported in relation to the definition and existence conditions of this legal deed. However, it is noted as a novelty that the rules of undue payment in the new legislative environment apply also when the payment consists of the provision of services or execution of works. Likewise, the new Civil Code, unlike the old regulation, does not set forth anymore expressly the condition that the payment be made in error by solvents; however, the author argues, with convincing arguments, that the error of solvens is usually an actually relative prerequisite of the undue payment. A large space is given to the obligation to reimburse the undue payment and the rules applicable to it regarding the existence, the limits and its manner of execution. Most of these rules are located in a separate title of the Civil Code (Art. 1635 to 1649) and apply, with some exceptions, to all reimbursement obligations, regardless of their source. The author notes that, in their content, these rules contain many new elements compared to the old Civil Code, which tries and manages to examine carefully, formulating relevant solutions and answers.

In a study published in the “Dreptul” Magazine no. 3/2013, p. 108-115, an author criticized the regulation stated in Art. 519-521 of the new Code of Civil Procedure (entered into force on 15 February 2013) regarding the seizing of the High Court of Cassation and Justice for passing a preliminary ruling for clarifying certain law-related issues, which is why he proposed the repeal of these texts. In response, in this study, the author considers that the regulation in question is useful and therefore should not be repealed.

Guaranteeing the right to defence is a fundamental principle under the Romanian criminal procedure law. Although it has strong constitutional and criminal procedure guarantees, however, its practical implementation is in some cases misinterpreted and, on the other hand, the prosecution bodies violate it sometimes, the consequence being the discrediting of the judicial process. The present article refers to jurisprudence in two cases where the defender’s right to question the opposing party and to inspect the prosecution file is restricted without legal basis.