The process of fighting against tax evasion has been and continues to be of particular importance for the Romanian legislator, due to the negative effects which this widespread phenomenon generates on the economic and social life, affecting the long-term development of a country faced with a fragile economy, still in transition. Despite the legislative developments of the last years, the normative framework in force continues to generate certain controversies, due to the different application and interpretation of the law, one of them being the modality to settle the civil action in the criminal trial, in case of tax evasion offences. Starting from the mentioned premise situation, the author of this study tries to provide an answer to one of the problems noticed in the process of interpretation and application of the law, related to the possibility of granting ancillary tax claims in the criminal trial. In this context, having regard to the legal framework in force, the author expresses his opinion on the impossibility to provide this kind of claims in the criminal trial, however expressing the opinion that the contrary solution, beneficial for the purpose pursued by the legislator, could form the object of legislative intervention, thereby providing a solid foundation for the solutions binding the author of the offence to pay the ancillary tax claims, even in a modality atypical to the tort civil liability, which serves as a model in the criminal trial.

In the current architecture of the Criminal Procedure Code, the regulation of the special methods of surveillance or investigation is based, from the perspective of the legislative technique, on a unified, foreseeable and predictable approach, eliminating the arbitrary. The special methods of surveillance or investigation are meant to contribute, by their results materialized in proofs, to proving in a direct manner the offences committed by the suspects or/and the defendants. The specificity and concrete particularities of the circumstances of some of the corruption offences, the offences assimilated to the corruption offences, as well as those of drug trafficking, trafficking in weapons, human trafficking, acts of terrorism, cybercrime, expressly enumerated within Article 139 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code suppose that the probative includes, in a significant proportion, proofs obtained by way of special methods of surveillance or investigation.

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.

The author, by accurately examining Book IV of the new Romanian Civil Code (regarding the inheritance and the liberalities), entered into force on 1 October 2011, notes that, as a rule, like in the previous Civil Code of 1864, there are some more important institutions of successoral law which, in his opinion, may be considered controversial (questionable), inopportune or unclear such as, for example: – the notions of „heir”; „successor”; „inheritor”; – whether the status of heir is affected or not by disinheritance or by the waiver of inheritance; – whether the contractual appointment and the preciput clause are two separate legal institutions or not; – whether the successoral reserve has an individual or collective nature; – whether the prohibition of the (mutual) consummated will is opportune or not; – whether the successoral option is always a disposition act or not; – the inopportunity of the multiple vocation to inheritance; – the questionable nature of the utility of the „seizin”.

Recently (re)invented (2005) by the Italian and North American law schools, quickly developed and initially submitted as a „science a little bizarre” (J.-B. Auby, 2007), the global administrative law is one of the legal results of the phenomenon of globalization. Introducing an increasing porosity of the borders, and also a considerable development of the functions of the non-state actors, increasingly diverse and numerous, globalization creates new phenomena of adjustment, involved in the development of transparency and that contribute to the accountability of each intervener on the supranational stage. This is the background of the emergence of a global administrative law, based on a new and systematic analysis of the supra- and trans- national phenomena, mostly heteroclite in appearance. In only a decade, around these precepts, an authentic school of thought has been crystallized, developed especially in common law doctrine, less exploited in French doctrine, and its presence finding its beginning in the Romanian doctrine by this study.

In this study it is examined the legality of the control by the Court of Audit in the matter of public procurement provided that the legislator has conferred the jurisdiction of verifying the procedure for the award of these contracts to other specialized public authorities, and has conferred to the Court of Audit powers of general control on the manner of formation, management and use of the public financial resources. Taking advantage of these control powers with a wide range of coverage, the Court of Audit has extended, unlawfully, through its own regulations, this control over a specialized field, respectively that of the procedure for the award of public procurement contracts, overlapping the control exercised by other administrative authorities and affecting the stability of the legal relations arising from these contracts. That is why it is proposed the legislator’s intervention for the express regulation of the control powers of the Court of Audit in the matter of public procurement, the conditions and limits of this control, in order to avoid the parallelism and the conflict of jurisdiction between this public authority and the other specialized administrative authorities in the field.