The judicial individualization of the sentence shall be carried out by a complex operation using all those individualization criteria set forth by law (general and special criteria); the need for taking into consideration all the grounds for sentence modification is included within these criteria, as well. Drawn by this need, the Romanian Criminal Code into force (since 1968) contains regulations regarding the manner in which the various grounds for sentence modification must be enforced, when they concur, regulations contained in the provisions of art. 80. Likewise, the new Romanian Criminal Code contains such regulations in art. 79. In this study, the authors have emphasized several systems of sentence determination in case of the concurrence between the grounds for sentence modification. Both the Criminal Code into force and the new Criminal Code adopted an objective criterion concerning the manner in which the various grounds for sentence modification must be enforced, being sensitive to multiple interpretations and contradictory solutions. The Romanian Criminal Code of 2004 – abrogated, before becoming effective, through the new Criminal Code – which forwarded a system based upon a subjective criterion, by granting the judge the freedom to assess the predominance (prevalence) of the grounds for sentence modification and to give them the due legal effect. From the point of view of the authors of the study, this system seems to be more adequate to settle the problems raised by the concurrence between the grounds for sentence modification.

Law no. 287/2009 regarding the Civil Code introduces in the matter of successoral option many new items here and there, reconfiguring it. In this study, we propose to examine the general aspects that the successoral option involves in the light of the provisions of the new Civil Code, to highlight the new items brought by this legislative instrument in the matter subject to the examination et to assess their progressive nature.

În situația în care, pe perioada procesului de divorț între pãrinți, minora a fost încredințatã mamei prin hotãrâre judecãtoreascã, iar mama o influențeazã pe minorã sã refuze contactul cu tatãl ei și, în același timp, mama refuzã sã execute sentința judecãtoreascã prin care s-a stabilit programul de vizitare a minorei de cãtre tatã, instanța este în drept sã oblige pe ambii pãrinți sã se prezinte cu minora la centrul de consiliere (psihologicã) din cadrul direcției generale județene de asistențã socialã și protecția copilului (cu notã aprobativã).

The author performs a detailed analysis of the characteristic traits of indictments under the new Criminal Code which are correlated with, related to or in interdependence relationship, as appropriate, with fraud, in view of similarities and disparities thereof, with frequent references to valid national legal practice and in relation to the new Criminal provisions. To that effect, there are dealt with, in particular in the light of their disparities, offences such as: fraud in the insurance field, encouragement of the perpetrator, concealment, omission of the referral, misleading the legal authorities, blackmail, theft, breach of trust, breach of trust by defrauding the creditors, unfair assistance and representation, influence peddling, issuance of counterfeit securities, forgery of foreign securities, counterfeiting of a technical record, perjury, false identity, but also the ones laid down in Article 84 of Law no. 59/1934 on cheques and in Article 271 points 1 and 2 of the Company’s Law no. 31/1990. Thereafter, in the case of the offences mentioned above, there are considered differentially, as appropriate, the subject of criminal care, the offence, the objective and the subjective side, forms, procedures and penalties provided for under the law. Also, the author does not hesitate to put forward his opinion on deciphering the legal wording of the offences under review or the sphere, in practical situations, of one or the other of the aforementioned rules of incrimination and to advance some of its own solutions and ideas.

With rare exceptions, self-explanatory, the legal adages have proven out to be law constants, that are so enfranchised and widely accepted that, often, they have been converted from ,,rules” to ,,arguments”. Jurisprudence has capitalized them and is still capitalizing them either in the consideration of ,,their inherent binding legal force”, since, in their essence, they are objectified through legal rules, hence borrowing their value, either in the consideration of ,,their normative force” k within the newer meaning assigned to this concept k as ,,reference”, as ,,guidance”, as ,,standard” of interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of positive law. Two of these adages present a paradoxical and arguable legal circumstance: specialia generalibus derogant (special departs from general); nemo censetur ignorare legem (ignorance of the law excuses no one). They are not established in terminis (in terms) and sufficiently defined by legal dispositions. And, still, they have a binding legal force. These are, in essence, the subject matters proposed to be discussed in the study below.

The author strongly criticizes the regulation stated in art. 519 to 521 of the new (Romanian) Code of Civil Procedure (referral to the High Court of Cassation and Justice for a prior ruling for dispensation of law issues), considering, reasoned, that these texts should be expressly repealed so that, also in the case covered by art. 519, an appeal in the interest of law can be filed (Articles 514 to 518 of the same code).