Arbitrability is the entry point of arbitration: it identifies those cases which can be settled by way of arbitration and in which the parties can exclude court procedures and state courts. This article examines, in light of the applicable international treaties, the choice-of-law rule that determines the law applicable to arbitrability and, in order to establish this choice-of-law rule, analyzes the purpose of arbitrability. It argues that arbitrability should be conceived as a question of competence and not as a question emerging from public policy. It follows from this thesis that the application of the law of the forum (lex fori), the dominant approach in international treaty law, is not justified and the exclusion of arbitrability is warranted only in cases which belong to the exclusive competence of the courts of or raise real problems of public policy for the forum.

During the execution of custodial sentences, detainees participate in various activities and educational program, psychological assistance and social assistance that facilitate the adjustment to prison life, support social reintegration and create the framework for learning the rules of social coexistence in the outside society. The central element of this research is the religious freedom of persons deprived of their liberty and the specific way of exercising it in places of detention, considering that a balance must be preserved between the fundamental right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and interest of penitentiary administrations to maintain security in places of detention, respect for the rights of other detainees. Bearing in mind the content, but also the limits of religious freedom, the exercise of this fundamental right in places of detention has some particular characteristics because it influences the life in prisons, the diet of detainees, but also their other rights, and in this regard the special rules of exercise religious freedom can be determined on the basis of principles deriving from both national and European Court of Human Rights’ case law.

In the judicial doctrine and practice, the differences of opinion and the plurality of the proposed solutions are not only an inherent effect of a current, complex and moldable legal reality, but also a desideratum of identifying the correct way of interpreting the legal norms in force and of resolving the legal disputes brought to justice. One of the legal institutions specific to administrative law among the most disputed over the last three decades is the one aimed at legally empowering the courts of law to verify the way in which the public administration authorities exercise their discretionary power to assess the opportunity to issue/adopt administrative documents, as well as the identification of the limits and, possibly, of the exceptions that can be retained from the rule of judicial control over the activity of the public institutions. The analysis of the legal topic in question will consider the approach of some didactic, linguistic, grammatical and of legal analysis methods, integrated and synergistic, having as sole finality the clarification of the meaning and of the limits, objective and subjective, of the right of appreciation and of the discretionary power which the public institutions benefit from. Therefore, it is required, in the beginning, to reveal the polyvalent meaning, attributed in the ordinary language to the notion „opportunity”, semantics that will be the basis for identifying the legal guarantees inherent to the process of exercising by the public administration authorities of the right to assess the time and appropriate means of issuance/adoption of the administrative acts. In the present study, without pretending to exhaust the issues presented above and to put an end to the long differences of opinion that it has caused, we intend to identify the various opinions expressed in the specialized literature, to provide a systematic interpretation of the various solutions adopted by the courts of law and, finally, to propose a viable and pertinent solution to the legal issue under discussion, offering logical-legal arguments and of teleological interpretation of the various competing legal norms, incidental in this legal matter. We intend to offer, through the conclusions of this study, a valuable and applied tool to practitioners in the field of administrative law, in identifying possible answers to complex and elaborate questions, involved by the activity of resolving the legal disputes brought to court with such an object.

This paper analyses judicial limits of property in national legal context, where this kind of property limits are relatively young comparing to the legal limits, which are clearly delimited. The study begins with brief comparative law on similar English, French, and Canadian regulations, continuing by presenting the doctrinal divergence on the foundation of civil liability for abnormal inconveniences of good neighbourhood. The study shows different points of view from doctrine on the fundament of civil liability for causing inconveniences by exceeding the reasonable boundaries of neighbourhood. The paper focuses on differentiating between abuse of right, tortious civil liability and extra-contractual liability, proposing the last one as the fundament of civil liability for causing abnormal inconveniences that bothers the relations of good neighbourhood. Also, it is brought into discussion the meaning of „owner” to which Article 630 of the Civil Code refers, and the implications regarded by giving a restricted meaning to this notion used by the legislator. Still, the French doctrine and the European Court of Human Rights Jurisprudence is orientated to a broad interpretation of this notion.