The following study has as research and reflection theme the influence of force majeure on labour relations, determined, in particular, by the legal norms specially adopted in the context of the existence of the pandemic caused by the spread of the SARS-COV-2 coronavirus. There are defined the force majeure, and its specificity is presented, taking into account the regulation of the Civil Code [Article 1351 (2)], as well as relevant doctrinal theories. Next, what is the essence of this stage, there are presented and analyzed the consequences of force majeure, especially consisting of the afore-mentioned pandemic, namely with regard to: forced labour, employment in public institutions and authorities, duration of labour relation, individualized work schedules and overtime work, change of place and type of work, suspension of labour relations, notice periods, patrimonial liability, collective labour agreements and labour disputes. The study ends with the conclusions on the analyzed problems.

This study aimed to develop a theoretical analysis configured in the matrix of a critical examination on the rulings of the Constitutional Court of Romania contained in the Decision No 702/2019. To this end, there were examined the conclusions promoted by the constitutional contentious court, which applied, in support of its point of view, the principle of equal treatment, constitutional rule, as well as of proportionality, praetorian construction, promoted by the case law, from which it resulted that, from a legal perspective, the disabled pensioners who acquired this legal condition based on the Law No 19/2000 will benefit from the application of the correction index regulated by the Law No 263/2010, if at the time of the ex officio transformation of the invalidity pension into an old-age pension the latter law was in force.

Confusing subject of study for a jurist, humanity is an evasive notion because it manifests itself in the individual but is, at the same time, external to it; it claims universality but the way each one looks at is as specific as each one. Myth or legal symbol, „humanity” is a term with variable content, both in the common and the legal language, because, at the same time, it represents the human essence, the goodness but also the race, the human species. The various meanings are indissolubly linked because they are intertwined, so that the „individual” humanity, the one that each individual carries himself, is inseparable from the „collective” humanity, the human community. This together construction results from legal instruments which reflect the ambivalence of the concept, the crime against humanity is, at the same time, a crime against the human essence and a crime against the human race, as its constituent elements demonstrate. Through time, humanity has born and fed contradictory legal discourses, so in international law it is more than a „concept slogan”, because its influence is tangible, but nonetheless, humanity has not simplified the international legal order but has made it even more complex.

Despite the extraordinary multiplication and pertinent diversification of environmental protection regulations, at national, regional (EU) and international level, the efficiency and effectiveness of environmental law norms still remain a desideratum. Their level of achievement is insufficient and different from one country to another, being particularly low and, consequently, representing a problem that should be a priority in Romania. The causes of the situation are profound and diverse (being related to the non-perception and non-expression of the specifics of the matter at all stages and at all levels of the legal phenomenon), and its solving involves a „true legal revolution and a reconsideration of the new branch of law”. The ways to overcome the impasse include, in addition to adapting the legislation and promoting appropriate legal tools and mechanisms, also the establishment of specialized jurisdictions and the specialization of persons involved in the functioning of the environmental process. The topic approached by the author is of increased interest as long as the first institutional steps in this direction are being taken in Romania as well.

Organizațiile societății civile pot fi uneori demersul cel mai accesibil și eficace pentru cetățeni, de a acționa pentru apărarea unui drept sau interes legitim. În plus, membrii grupurilor pot avea un cuvânt greu de spus cu privire la acțiunile ori inacțiunile statului. Aceste aspecte creionează o forță civică, ce, folosită cu bună-credință, poate duce la progresul întregii națiuni. În absența unui simț civic dezvoltat, comportamentul unor persoane ce doresc a abuza de o organizație a societății civile apare ca fiind extrem de nociv pentru democrație1 . Practic, dintre acei puțini români ce se implică, o parte nu urmăresc dezvoltarea comunității, ci propria bunăstare.

As a fundamental instrument for ensuring the functioning of the European Union legal order, the action for the non-compliance with the European obligations is the judicial instrument by which the Union authorities, led by the Commission and the Luxembourg jurisdictional structure, exercise direct control over the conduct of the Member States in relation to EU law imperatives. Located somewhere in the middle between the legality control and the action for liability, the non-compliance with the obligations raises separate and complex issues difficult to understand in the absence of the vast jurisdictional experience of the Court of Justice of the European Union. If, under procedural terms, the present action does not present particular challenges, imposing, as a rule, a mechanism for cooperation between the European Commission and the defendant Member State (as a pre-contentious phase), in which the Court of Justice often plays a subsidiary role (contentious phase), from a material point of view, the non-compliance with the European obligations involves different forms and meanings that transcend both the letter and the spirit of the treaties, even in their current form, consolidated after the Treaty of Lisbon (2009). In such a context, the present study aims to review the most frequently used meanings which the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union has given to the phrase „non-compliance with European obligations”, in the light of current regulations, past experiences and, last but not least, the aim pursued by this procedure, namely to sanction any derogation from the uniform and synchronized application of the European Union law.