The new Romanian Criminal Code’s lawmaker took most of the regulations from the Criminal Code in force, the so-called constants of criminal law, but also introduced new ones, unknown to our law, some of which being required by the current socio-economic conditions and others being introduced out of the lawmaker’s desire to bring something new to the criminal law in force or simply to take them from other foreign laws, although criminal law science did not call for this. In this study, the authors make an inventory of these innovations, while attempting to analyze thereof and show the unfittingness of their introduction or acquisition from other foreign laws.

Examining art. 201 of Law No. 71/2011 for the implementation of the new Civil Code (Law No. 287/2009, republished on July 15, 2011) in conjunction with art. 6 paragraph (4) of the said Code, the author concludes that judicial bodies (judiciary authorities and arbitration courts) can, ex officio and at any stage of the trail, claim the limitation periods that have begun under the former regulation (Article 18 of Decree No. 167/1958) as well, regardless of whether such limitation periods have been met or not until the entry into force of the new Civil Code; subsequently, only the limitation periods which have begun after October 1st, 2011 (the date of entry into force of the new Civil Code) shall be able to be claimed exclusively by the interested party and only until the first term the parties were duly summoned at (this according to art. 2513 of the new Civil Code).

Analyzing the draft of the Romanian law regarding the protection of national minorities in Romania (to be adopted pursuant to the Framework Convention for National Minorities adopted in 1995 by the Council of Europe), the author believes that inserting the definition of the “national minority” term into law is inappropriate; the mere listing of some objective criteria, useful for identification, is sufficient and useful.

The authors examine the issue of the former immovable properties, exclusively “state-owned” (during 1948-1991), which later, after 1991, became, as appropriate, public or private property, either of the State or of the administrative-territorial units. Whereas the status of such property is not always expressly clarified by legal rules (in the sense that after 1991 they became public or private property either of the state or of the territorial administrative units), in end of the study the authors embrace certain legal criteria for performing the said placement, thus trying to find a solution to the problem which is the subject of this study.

Presumption of innocence is one of the basic rules of criminal proceedings being expressly regulated in art. 52 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. First recognized as a fundamental human right [the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the (European) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms], the presumption of innocence is enshrined in the national legislation, first in the republished Romanian Constitution, having specific influence on the development of the entire Romanian criminal proceedings since 2003. In this study, the author sought to identify some of the situations that affect this fundamental principle of criminal proceedings, its analysis covering several procedural institutions. Equally, he outlined several proposals to ensure the compliance with the presumption of innocence both during the trial and in the stages prior to the prosecution, referring both to the current criminal procedural rules and to those provided for in the new Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 135/2010).

This article seeks to clarify whether the scope of the revision cases also includes the one based on a case dismissal solution given by the prosecutor and that was deemed by a part of the legal practice as documentary evidence for the purposes of Section 5 of the Art. 322 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The author shows that the analysis of the meaning of “documentary evidence” has determined that the prosecutor’s acts lack this character, as the case dismissal solution is not decisive for the fate of the trial and has no probative value in itself. Examination of these admissibility aspects, and exclusion of the prosecutor’s case dismissal resolution / ordinance from the documentary evidence category are reasons for supporting the conclusion that this solution adopted by the prosecutor shall not be imposed upon the civil court and can not substantiate a revision which is based on the provisions of Section 5 of the Article 322 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Following the entry into force of the new Romanian Civil Code (on October 1, 2011) and the new Romanian Code of Civil Procedure (which will take place on February 1, 2013), in the Romanian civil law doctrine a controversy arose in the sense that divorce exclusive fault of the defendant State (that if the respondent spouse doesn’t file a counterclaim) is admissible only by way of exception, where the reason for divorce consists of a minimum 2-year de facto separation of spouses or, on the contrary in other situations as well. After a thorough analysis, the author opts for restrictive solution, i.e. divorce for applicant spouse’s exclusive fault (if the respondent spouse doesn’t file a counterclaim) is admissible only by way of exception, where the reason for divorce consists of a minimum 2-year de facto separation of spouses.

The new Romanian Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 134/2010, as republished on 3 August 2012 and coming into force on the 1st of February 2013) supersedes the previous Code of Civil Procedure (of the year 1865) regulating (in articles 303-320) the witness-based evidence. In this study the author makes a wide-ranging analysis of this regulation, from the triple perspective of the admissibility, of the administration, of the appreciation of this mean of evidence, comparing the new provisions in this matter by those set forth in the previous Code of Civil Procedure.

Starting on October 1, 2011, the new Romanian Civil Code (Law no. 287/ 2009, republished on July 15, 2011) entered into force and, as of February 1, 2013 the new Romanian Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 134/2010, republished on 3 August 2012) shall come into force. Both the above mentioned codes are being developed by Law no. 71/2011 for the implementation of the new Civil Code, and respectively by Law.76/2012 for the implementation of the new Code of Civil Procedure. The new regulations introduced in the Romanian legislation the concept of guardianship court but until the entry into force of such court its powers which are set out in the new Civil Code shall be exerted by the courts, sections or, where appropriate, the existing specialized juvenile and family panels. Unfortunately, during 2011-2012, the regulations in the new Civil Code, the new Code of Civil Procedure and the two laws for application thereof, as being amended and supplemented several times, the guardianship court relevant legislation is confusing at the present time, thus its transposition in practice is difficult. That being the case, the author attempts in this study to solve a number of problems arising from the situation described and to make some proposals with a view to the future law.

The study examines the issue of autonomy of labor law in relation to civil law while considering the recent assertions in legal literature. Taking into account the classical criteria for delimiting the legal branches within the law – the subject, the specific principles and regulatory method - it is concluded that labor law is a mixed law branch which belongs mainly to private law, applies by way of common law to all labor legal relationships unfounded on individual employment agreement, is self-contained and it capitalizes, where appropriate and possible, the rules of civil law as common law rules. Labor law is not a branch (part) of civil law, but independent component of private law along with common law (civil law).

Any scientific approach which seeks to understand the meanings of “rule of law” must be an interdisciplinary approach based on the philosophy of law. This study carries out such an analysis in order to highlight the many theoretical meanings for this concept, and the relationship between principles and legal rules, respectively the regulatory value of law principles. Such analysis is a plea for relating to principles in the work of law establishment and enforcement.

Very high frequency of facts consisting of possession and sale of cigarettes from smuggling, as well as significant damage to the state budget by committing such acts with adverse consequences exacerbated in the current economic climate, require a consistent jurisprudence to prevent and effectively combat such deeds. Building on the diversity of solutions pronounced by the courts on the legal classification of the offense of possession, outside a fiscal warehouse and by an authorized warehouse-keeper, of unmarked excisable goods for which duty has not been paid and originate form smuggling, the author points out the need to promote a referral in the interests of the law and identifies a possible solution to unify the judicial practice, holding that the said deed meets the constitutive elements of the offenses provided for in art. 2961 par. (1) l) of the Fiscal Code, art. 9 para. (1). a) of Law no. 241/2005 on preventing and combating tax evasion and art. 270 para. (3) of the Customs Code.