The offence of abuse of social goods is one of the most frequent offences regarding companies. The incrimination of this action has the purpose of protecting the company against their managers’ temptation to consider it their own property and/or abuse of its goods or credit against the company’s interest. The offence that the authors examine can have as material object the goods, the credit and the authority. The offence may also refer to the company’s credibility, namely “the company’s commercial reputation, born out of the good operation of the company, its capital, its volume and the nature of its business”. Using the credit in a negative interest means exposing the company to a risk it should not be exposed to, even if the risk is not achieved.

The objective of this study is to nuance practical problems that may arise in the application of the provisions of the Civil Code in matters of the right of preference to tenancy. In the absence of some exhaustive legal norms (Article 1828 of the Civil Code making reference to the provisions of the right of preemption that must be properly applied), we consider that it is inevitable that in the hypothesis of a litigation there are no divergent interpretations which have as source unclear rules that govern this matter. We have focused, primarily, on identifying the compatibility of the provisions of the preemption right with that of the right of preference, being essential the correct interpretation of the phrase „properly”. We later pointed out the holders of this right and the conditions that must be met in order for this to may be exercised. More specifically, we have leaned on the analysis of a condition whose limits are not clearly laid down by the law: what does it mean the obligativity for the tenant to perform the obligations on the basis of the previous rental and whether the notion of non-performance also includes the delay in performing the obligations. In addition, we have analyzed the nature and moment from which the exercise of the right begins to run, considering that particular issues are raised by the notification which the lessor is obliged to send to the lessee in view of exercising the right of preference, since the moment of communication thereof is also the one from which the term of exercise of the right begins to run. We have identified two judgments expressing two fundamentally different views referring to what the content of the notification must be, analyzing the arguments of both courts and exposing our own point of view. Last but not least, in terms of the differences between the contract of sale and the one of tenancy, our approach has continued by pointing out how to exercise the right of preference, respectively of the amount of rent that must be recorded and the moment when the recording must be made – which, from our point of view, differs from those in the matter of preemption. We have concluded with the moment when the new rental agreement was signed, along with the effects it produces. We hope that this study will prove useful to be to practitioners in particular, as we have tried to answer questions and provide explanations where the legislation and doctrine have not done it so far, although the questions have already arisen in practice, imperiously requiring an answer.

The cessation by right of the individual labour contract is one of the fundamental institutions of the labour relations law. Its objective is to expressly regulate those legal hypotheses in which the labour relations, lawfully concluded, cease under the power of law, for objective reasons beyond the control of the signatory parties. Due to the relatively large number of cases where the continuation of the labour relations becomes practically impossible, as well as to the legal issues of a high complexity that may become incidental in this context, the examined institution of law shows a special configuration in all the factors that cause the cessation of the effects of the individual labour contract in the future.