The right to protection of personal data is essential for the respect for some fundamental rights of the citizen, including in his capacity of employee, in particular the right to private life. The labour legislation contains some provisions that can guarantee respect for this right, which they explicitly establish, however they can not be considered separately from the Law No 677/2001. The reasons that justify the processing of personal data of employees are those expressly and restrictively provided by the Law No 677/2001 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data, and the employees have the rights regulated by this law: the right to be informed, the right of access to processed data, the right of intervention upon the data, the right to object and the right to take legal action.

This article aims to analyze a wage increase for people who traditionally have a PhD title and are working in the field in which they obtained this title. Up to the adoption of the legislation on uniform remuneration in budgetary system, all those who had obtained a PhD title received, without distinction, a wage increase for PhD. The current legislation has provided the inclusion of this increase, as a transitional compensatory amount, in the base salary, the basic pay/salary or monthly allowance, for the employees that had it to be paid on 31 December 2009, but not for those who have won the PhD title after this date. That legislation created a discriminatory situation, on which the National Council for Combating Discrimination was notified, and this has expressed a specialised opinion, which advocated for the competent authorities of the State, Parliament and the Government to proceed to eliminate the difference in legal treatment, so additional salary entitlement to be recognized by the legislature to all employees, regardless of the date on which it was awarded a PhD title. To this end we propose the appropriate modification of the law.

The article analyzes the advantages which the settlement of disputes by means of arbitration has to offer. Arbitration is an exception from the principle that administration of justice is done by the courts and represents that effective legal mechanism, designed to ensure a fair, faster and less formal, confidential trial finalized by judgments subject to enforcement. Most patrimonial and non-patrimonial causes may be settled by way of arbitration, so that this method of settlement of disputes can be chosen by parties, instead of the common law justice. The conclusion that can be drawn is that, in order to relieve the courts of their role, arbitration is a viable alternative of settlement of disputes.

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.

This study raises for discussion the condition of full recognition of facts and changing the legal classification within the trial procedure in case of recognition of accusation. A deed, which the defendant must recognize, means the act of conduct committed under both its sides, objective and subjective, as well as all the circumstances surrounding this act, regardless of their nature and of the moment when they occur in relation to the act itself. The defendant may contest the legal classification established by the public prosecutor and may benefit from the settlement of the case in simplified procedure only when the contestation against the legal classification is not based on a change of the state of facts.

In this article, the author presents the foundation of criminal substantive law of the safety measure of special confiscation, which concerns the category of goods obtained from committing criminal acts, as well as of the safety measure of extended confiscation, in both situations the analysis being focused on the assumption that the goods have been alienated by the defendant and they have ended up in the patrimony of other persons. Further on, it is made an analysis of criminal procedural law of the situation of the persons – other than the defendant – whose goods are subject to confiscation in the course of the trial. From the perspective of guaranteeing the right to a fair trial for these persons, the author detects a series of problems of interpretation or even of legislative gaps. Finally, there is a conclusive chapter of the article accompanied by de lege ferenda proposals corresponding to the criticism which the author has developed and argued by reference to the current legal texts.