The new Civil Code achieves in art. 1730-1740 a general-rule regulation of both legal and conventional preemption right, regulation applicable wherever the law or the contract do not stipulate otherwise. The conventional preemption right is recognized and regulated under the name of preemption right established by contract; it is nothing but a preference pact in the matter of the sales Contract. Considering that, regardless of the legal or conventional nature of the preemption right, is not normal to have two different systems that penalize violations in the beneficiary’s purchasing priority, the mechanism operating in case of preemption was governed unitary, the freedom of contract left to preemption’s promisor and this freedom overcome consequences being outlined. Whilst trying to settle the doctrinal controversy on the legal characteristics of the right of preemption, the new Civil Code provided for in Art. 1731 that the sale of the property on which there is a legal or conventional preemption right can be concluded with a third party only provided that there is a condition precedent of the preemptor non-exercising the right of preemption, but without specifying explicitly whether such a condition should be considered implicit where it has not been stipulated in the sales contract with the third party. Removing the jurisprudential shortcomings of the substitution mechanism related to the beneficiary instead of the third party purchaser, who is incompatible with the dissolution contract signed between the latter and the promisor, Art. 1732 and 1723 of the new Civil Code, without expressly referring to the sale under condition precedent, stipulate that, through the exercise of preemption, the sales contract is deemed concluded between the preemptor and the seller in the conditions contained in the contract with the third party, and this latter contracts shall be canceled retroactively. In terms of obligations, the creditor is entitled to proper execution and should the creditor have such right, he/she should be granted the opportunity to find effective means to protect it. Reading of Art. 1731 of the new Civil Code, in the sense of making the condition precedent of the preemptor’s non-exercise of the right of preemption in the any sale between the promisor and the third party to be implied, corresponds to the doctrine and jurisprudence attempts to find appropriate means to ensure the observance of the preemptor’s ignored rights, while considering the above principle.

The study of the contract of audiovisual adaptation has been imposed for multiple reasons. Firstly, as no contract of transfer agreement of the author’s patrimonial rights, which includes also the contract of audiovisual adaptation, does not have its own regulation in the Civil Code (Law no. 287/2009). Consequently, the current article deals also with the problem of the incidence of the norms of common law on the analyzed contract. Secondly, the research was also determined by the fact that in the Law no. 8/1996 regarding the author’s rights and the associated rights this type of contract was allocated a laconic regulation, i.e. only in a single article of law. Thirdly, the discussion of this topic was necessary as the norms dedicated to the contract of audiovisual adaptation included in the special Law are not clearly, fluently and comprehensively enough formulated, presenting quite a few faults lacunae and even imprecision, which the author highlighted, sometimes under the form of de lege ferenda proposals.

The author provides a detailed analysis of the legal content of bribe taking offense provided for in art. 289 of the new Criminal Code. He examines the subject of care proceedings, the subjects of the offense, the objective and subjective sides, the forms, procedures, sanctions and some procedural aspects relating to the deed provided for in art. 289 of the new Criminal Code and its aggravated versions. Also, the author does not hesitate to express his standpoint with regard to the systematization of this offense, the constituent content thereof, its nature, its relations with the provisions of Law no. 78/2000 on preventing, discovering and sanctioning corruption, as subsequently amended and supplemented, and to propose some of his own solutions and ideas in this regard. Not least, the author promotes some of his own opinions on the connection or relationship of this criminal deed with other offenses, as well as regards the law applicable for transitional cases.

The judicial declaration of presumptive death is covered by art. 49 to 57 of the Civil Code and art. 943 to 950 of the Code of Civil Procedure; these are texts that take over a large part of the old regulation provisions and also bring some novelties. The new legislation no longer requires prior assumption of disappearance and establishes a general case and two special cases of judicial declaration of death.

Taking into consideration the subtle and random criteria as an incidence in the delimitation of influence peddling from the fraud offences, it is likely that in very similar cases of misleading, the criminal will be lucky due to the occurrence of the influence peddling or it is likely that should not have been lucky when he committed materialized deeds supplementing the constitutive content of the fraud offence in relation to similar material damages. It is likely to cause material damages also in the matter of the formal criminal deeds and in the process of the legal and judicial individualization of the punishment, also the amount of the material damages produced as a result of the concrete endangerment offence should be taken into account.

In this study the author performs a general exposure of the concept of periodic penalty payments firstly (concept, terminology, origin and evolution; legal nature; goal, legal basis; structure), and then examines the legal regime of the periodic penalty payments in the administrative matter (the grant conditions; the forms of the periodic penalty payments and the liquidation of the periodic penalty payments in the matter, and finally he discusses about the issue of the periodic penalty payments in the administrative matter in the light of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and of Fundamental Freedoms (including in terms of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights from Strasbourg).