The attributions that confer substance to the activity of the prosecutor before the jurisdictional body are the participation in the trial of the criminal and civil cases, the exercise of the means of appeal against the judgments, the examination of the cases of non-uniform application of the law and the analysis of the cases in which the courts have delivered final judgments of acquittal, return or referral to the prosecutor. In criminal matters, the prosecutor mandatorily participates in the trial, under the sanction of absolute nullity, in the cases where the law expressly provides for his participation, and optionally, in cases other than those in which the law establishes the obligativity of participation. In civil matters, the rule is that the prosecutor takes part in the trial optionally, when he considers it necessary to defend the rule of law, the rights and interests of citizens. By way of exception, the prosecutor mandatorily participates in the trial of the civil cases when the obligativity is expressly provided. In criminal matters, the law opens for the prosecutor the path to exercise all means of appeal, ordinary (appeal, contestation) or extraordinary (recourse in cassation, contestation for annulment, revision), against various judgments. In civil matters, the prosecutor may exercise the means of appeal when he deems it is necessary to protect the rights and legitimate interests of minors, of the persons placed under interdiction and of the missing persons, or when he has participated in the trial of the case.

In this study we wish to discuss and find a solution to the many aspects specific to the measures with equivalent effect to the quantitative restrictions, but also to follow up the influences on the policy of protection of similar domestic products within the European Union. We will analyze in detail the free movement of goods, as well as aspects concerning the customs duties and the modality to impose them. We will define the notion of measures with equivalent effect to the quantitative restrictions and we will also subject to research the modalities in which they arise. For the elaboration of this study, we will take into account the domestic law in the matter, the provisions of the international conventions on the free movement of goods, the provisions in the matter of the European law, the legislation and the case law of different states, and we will also raise for discussion the Dassonville and Keck decisions which are of a particular importance in the MEERC matter.

In essence, the expropriation procedure goes through two stages, the administrative stage and the judicial stage, the common law in the matter being represented by the Law No 33/1994, as amended and supplemented. The litigation procedure is criticizable however, in many aspects, for the lack of transparency and of access to data, from the perspective of the holder of the restricted real right. Thus, although in the preamble of this normative act it is affirmed the necessity of equalizing the right of private ownership with the public interest, the latter has priority in many of the situations that have arisen in practice.

One of the forms under which it is presented the right of joint ownership on forced quota-shares is represented, in the conception of the legislator that has created the current Civil Code, also by the periodic ownership. Placing this form of joint ownership within the joint ownership on forced quota-shares is the creation of the legislator, but it is not sheltered from criticism. Among the issues raised by the regulation of the periodic ownership in Articles 687–691 of the Civil Code is also the obligation of compensation and the exclusion, legal provisions upon which the authors of this study have insisted. The provisions of Article 691 of the Civil Code are criticizable both in the way they are formulated and in respect of the effects that the legislator has pursued.

The rule of issuing urban planning permits (building or demolition permits) under the reserve of respecting the civil rights of third parties has two important consequences. First, it makes it clear that this sort of administrative permit does not affect the rights of the third parties; second, it means that the subsequent civil right is not taken into consideration in the management of the file and the issuing of the permits. The said permits solely assure the respect of urban planning law, excluding private law obligations and servitudes.

The idea of this study has been suggested to us by the phrase the subjective right to contract, used in the name and the content of an article relatively recently published in „Dreptul” magazine. Wishing to find out how it was motivated from a logical-legal viewpoint and what such a subjective right involves, we read the article but, to our surprise, we have noticed the lack of any action in this respect. The aspects that have drawn our attention have become reasons why we have decided to try to substantiate some logical-legal solutions regarding some legal notions or phrases, in relation to which the author of the article refrained from arguing her own options, such as the subjective right, the subjective right to contract and the good faith in relation to bad faith.