In this study the authors examine, rather exhaustively, the problems of regulating the submission of the written notes by the parties, namely: both the „common law” in the matter [Article 244 (2) and Article 394 (2) of the new (Romanian) Civil Procedure Code] and a series of special provisions in the field, included in the same Code [Article 244 (3); Article 244 (4); Article 222 (2); Article 383], and finally, after examining the legal consequences of the non-compliance with the mentioned rules, they formulate a series of interesting conclusions with respect to the topic discussed.

One of the main innovations introduced by the new Criminal Procedure Code is the possibility of concluding a plea bargaining agreement between the defendant and the prosecutor. Where there is evidence to confirm that the defendant is the perpetrator of the deed subject to the criminal trial, and he admits the allegations against him, it is possible for the defendant and the prosecutor to mutually agree on the punishment, the method of execution of punishment, as well as on all other aspects related to the criminal side of the case. In this case, the role of the court will be limited only to verifying whether the concluded agreement fulfils or not the conditions provided by law and to confirm it or to reject it. Through this new institution it will decrease the duration of trials where the evidence produced during the criminal prosecution phase proves almost unequivocally the commission of acts by the defendant, allowing the courts to concentrate their resources on the really complex cases.

The problematical issues concerning the documents issued by the President of Romania in exercising his constitutional and legal powers and the settlement of disputes derived from these documents have been less discussed in the literature of speciality. Starting from this reality, this study intends to analyze these issues, by comparing the provisions of the Law on the administrative disputes No 554/2004 to the provisions of the revised Constitution and to other special normative acts in the matter. In this context, the study analyzes in detail the documents issued by the President of Romania in exercising his constitutional and legal powers, the documents issued by the President of Romania which may be subject to an action for administrative disputes, as well as the documents which are excepted from the control of the court of administrative disputes.

The author makes a comprehensive and dense analysis of the exception of non-performance which, in his opinion, falls within the system of remedies for non-performance of contracts. At the beginning of his scientific speech, he has proceeded to a broad presentation of the notion, origin and foundations which justify the existence and the application of this important legal means, which is available to any party of a contractual relation, the content of which is formed of reciprocal and interdependent obligations. Likewise, he points out that, unlike the legislative state existing under the influence of the old Civil Code, currently, the exception of non-performance is expressly regulated, by general provisions, in Article 1556 of the new Civil Code, taken over in their essence from the German Civil Code, which entered into force on 1 January 1900. Having the provisions of the new Civil Code in this matter as legislative reference points, this study presents a vast debate on the scope of application, on the conditions of existence, on its own and specific mechanism of operation, as well as on the effects which this important remedy for non-performance of contracts produces between the contracting parties and to the third parties. The findings and the conclusions of the analysis have allowed the author to retain and to express the elements and the own features of the legal regime and of the functions specific to the exception of non-performance, based on which, ultimately, he proceeds to its delimitation from other related legal mechanisms, such as the legal compensation and the right of retention.

This paper presents a brief analysis of the problems raised by the offence of theft. The authors emphasize, on the one hand, the close connection between these problems and some errors occurred in the civil theory of possession, and, on the other hand, some shortcomings of the current definition of the offence of theft. Similarly, there are presented some possible corrections, both at theoretical level and at legislative level.

Law No 78/2014 regarding the regulation of volunteering in Romania provides that a volunteer agreement can be concluded by any natural person „who has acquired capacity to work according to the legislation in the field of labour.” Whereas this phrasing is likely to generate controversies and discussions (the Law No 78/2014 being a law in the field of civil law, and not in the field of the labour law), the author examines precisely at what age minors may conclude volunteer agreements. The author’s conclusion, resulting from the corroboration of Articles 41–42 of the Civil Code with Article 13 of the Labour Code, is that: minors may conclude volunteer agreements after they turned 14, but between 14–16 years of age the consent of their parents, guardians, etc., is also required and, after the minor turned 16, he may conclude such an agreement himself, without the above-mentioned consent.