The author points out that article 77 of the new Criminal Code reassessed the circumstances having the ability to emphasize a high degree of social danger of the committed offence and of the offender. Thus, the scope of the circumstance relates to the perpetration of the offence by a person being in a preordinate intoxicated condition which may be generated besides the alcohol, by other psychoactive substances, whose consumption represents a breach of a legal or medical interdiction. The aggravation of the criminal liability has been waived in case the offence is committed for infamous reasons, as the content of this circumstance has never been precisely determined by the doctrine and jurisprudence. A new aggravating circumstance has been introduced consisting in the perpetration of the offence by taking advantage of the obvious vulnerable condition of the injured person due to his/her age, health condition, disability of due to some other grounds, as such a circumstance emphasizes a high level of gravity of the offence, but also a degree of increased injuriousness of the offender. Another novelty item is represented by the waiver to the category of judicial aggravating circumstances, because the imprecise manner in which they are regulated would be situated at the edge limit of the principle of the predictable nature of law.

Certain considerations are mentioned in this study regarding the privilege of the confidentiality of the journalists’ information sources. To this end, there is carried out an interesting description of the European conception on the confidentiality of information sources (case law of the European Court of Human Rights; Swedish, German, British, Belgian, French laws), of the conception in the matter of the laws and case law of the United States of America, as well as of the Romanian conception, finally. The study concludes by emphasizing the need for the adoption of a modern Romanian mass-media law, pointing out that the freedom of the media can never be absolute and consequently, may be limited by legal exception rules of interpretation strictly.

In this study, the author analyses the offence of disturbance of possession both from the diachronic perspective and in the light of the applicable, but also future criminal laws. From the historical perspective, the author states that the amendments that the new Criminal Code brings in relation to the abovementioned offence cause the regulation to be similar to the provisions of art. 556558 of the Criminal Code „Carol II who punished the committed offence by moving the boundary limits, by threat and violence and of art.220 of the Criminal Code of 1968, in its original version, for the simple occupation without being entitled, the owner having the use of possession actions at his disposal.

According to the Labor Code (Law no. 53/2003, republished on the 18 of May 2011), the employer, under the pain of absolute nullity, cannot inflict any disciplinary sanction (except the written warning), without beforehand and compulsorily, performing a disciplinary investigation as well, by an individual authorized by the employer to this end. The minimum rules regarding the disciplinary procedure (namely, also those regarding the prior disciplinary investigation) are set forth in the Labor Code and are developed by the Internal Regulations of the unit. Such being the case, this kind of rules cannot be legally established in the collective employment agreement, no matter its level of negotiation (at the level of the unit, of the group of units or of the fields of activity), even if during the period 2007–2010 the national unique Collective Employment Agreement (terminated at present) regulated, against the law, a procedure regarding the (prior and compulsory) disciplinary investigation which included also provisions obviously contrary to the Labor Code.

Simpla cunoștințã a existenței și folosirii mãrcii anterior depozitului nu este suficientã pentru întrunirea condiției relei-credințe, fiind necesar ca acest fapt sã fie unul de naturã frauduloasã. Reaua-credințã implicã îndeplinirea cumulativã a douã cerințe distincte, vizând, pe de o parte, cunoașterea „faptului relevant” – existența și folosirea unei mãrci anterioare sau chiar a unui semn neînregistrat ca marcã – iar, pe de altã parte, intenția frauduloasã.

Following the conclusion of the Arbitration Convention there are born a number of contractual relationships between all participants in such Convention, namely: the Arbitration Agreement (between litigants and arbitrators appointed by the same); the Arbitration Cooperation Agreement (in the case of Institutional Arbitration, between arbitrators and the permanent arbitration institution); the Agreement on the Organization of Arbitration (between the Parties and the Arbitration Institution). In the above study there are reviewed the legal issues of the three Agreements, subsequent to the conclusion of the Arbitration Convention mentioned above, namely: The Arbitrators’ Agreement, Drafting Arbitration Agreement and the Agreement on the Organization of Arbitration.

Hardship (as grounds for contractual amendment or termination thereof, even in default of contractual provisions in this respect) had not been legally regulated under the former Romanian Civil Code (dated 1864), but only under some special laws. However, during the past two decades, there was shaped in legal doctrine and the Romanian reference jurisprudence a theory of hardship (as shown), which substituted, in part and controversially, the legal deficiency in the matter. This deficiency wore away by the entry into force of the new Civil Code (Law no. 287/2009, republished on July 15th, 2011 and enforced on October 10th, 2011), which, by a single fundamental wording (Article 1271, entitled „Hardship”) regulates the conditions under which the Court may rule, where appropriate, upon the adoption of a contract or even termination thereof „should the performance of the contract become excessively burdensome due to an exceptional change of circumstances that would make manifestly unjust the binding of the debtor to the execution of its duty”. In the study above, the authors make an analysis of the configuration of hardship in the light of Article 1271 under the new Civil Code.

In the new Civil Procedure Code, a great number of court decisions remain final in the appeal in tribunals or courts of appeal, and there is no procedural way to fight against illegal or unfounded decisions. Given the judicial realities of our country, it is speculative to believe that the enforcement of the NCPC will automatically stop tribunals and courts of appeal from pronouncing illegal or unfounded decisions. Therefore, it is only natural that an adequate regulation is adopted, by the reintroduction of the action for cancellation as a last remedy for the correction of illegal or unfounded decisions. Although the action for cancellation proved its utility, it was eliminated from the Civil Procedure Code, by the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 58/2003, amending and supplementing the Civil Procedure Code. The parties in the trials for which the decisions remain final in the appeals filed with various tribunals and courts of appeal do not have access to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, and in these circumstances illegal or unfounded decisions are not submitted to the judicial control of the latter. The requirement to correct illegal or unfounded judgements passed by the courts of law is provided by art. 6 § 1 in the European Convention of Human Rights, art. 1 par. 3 and art. 124 in the Constitution, moral rules and the precepts of the Holy Bible, the sacred book of Christianity, according to which all deeds and actions of people must be based on truth and justice.

In this study the authors focus on the necessity of considering the criminal ks degree of social danger in the individualization of penalty, given that the same penalty, identical as type and amount, does not generate the same effects for all criminals on whom it is applied. Concurrently, the authors highlight and conduct an ample research of the elements de facto that are used for the assessment of a criminal ks degree of social danger. Therefore, in order to comprehend the criminal ks degree of social danger, the following should be assessed: health condition (predominantly the psycho-physical condition), the criminal ks biological structure and mental characteristics, the entire social environment, the criminal ks behavior before perpetration of the crime, the criminal and legal circumstances of the criminal (convict, recidivist, prosecuted for other felonies, rehabilitated, amnestied, pardoned etc.), behavior after perpetration of the crime and during the criminal lawsuit, the level of education, as well as age. The following personal circumstances of individualization should also be included: the criminal ks capacity (officer, army enlisted, magistrate, mother etc.), civil status (married, single, widowed etc.), the relationship with the victim (close relative, relative, cohabitant, spouse, friend, enemy etc.) and any other information that might contribute to the individualization of the criminal ks individuality (for instance, lifestyle, reputation, social merits etc.).