Following the conclusion of the Arbitration Convention there are born a number of contractual relationships between all participants in such Convention, namely: the Arbitration Agreement (between litigants and arbitrators appointed by the same); the Arbitration Cooperation Agreement (in the case of Institutional Arbitration, between arbitrators and the permanent arbitration institution); the Agreement on the Organization of Arbitration (between the Parties and the Arbitration Institution). In the above study there are reviewed the legal issues of the three Agreements, subsequent to the conclusion of the Arbitration Convention mentioned above, namely: The Arbitrators’ Agreement, Drafting Arbitration Agreement and the Agreement on the Organization of Arbitration.

Hardship (as grounds for contractual amendment or termination thereof, even in default of contractual provisions in this respect) had not been legally regulated under the former Romanian Civil Code (dated 1864), but only under some special laws. However, during the past two decades, there was shaped in legal doctrine and the Romanian reference jurisprudence a theory of hardship (as shown), which substituted, in part and controversially, the legal deficiency in the matter. This deficiency wore away by the entry into force of the new Civil Code (Law no. 287/2009, republished on July 15th, 2011 and enforced on October 10th, 2011), which, by a single fundamental wording (Article 1271, entitled „Hardship”) regulates the conditions under which the Court may rule, where appropriate, upon the adoption of a contract or even termination thereof „should the performance of the contract become excessively burdensome due to an exceptional change of circumstances that would make manifestly unjust the binding of the debtor to the execution of its duty”. In the study above, the authors make an analysis of the configuration of hardship in the light of Article 1271 under the new Civil Code.

In the new Civil Procedure Code, a great number of court decisions remain final in the appeal in tribunals or courts of appeal, and there is no procedural way to fight against illegal or unfounded decisions. Given the judicial realities of our country, it is speculative to believe that the enforcement of the NCPC will automatically stop tribunals and courts of appeal from pronouncing illegal or unfounded decisions. Therefore, it is only natural that an adequate regulation is adopted, by the reintroduction of the action for cancellation as a last remedy for the correction of illegal or unfounded decisions. Although the action for cancellation proved its utility, it was eliminated from the Civil Procedure Code, by the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 58/2003, amending and supplementing the Civil Procedure Code. The parties in the trials for which the decisions remain final in the appeals filed with various tribunals and courts of appeal do not have access to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, and in these circumstances illegal or unfounded decisions are not submitted to the judicial control of the latter. The requirement to correct illegal or unfounded judgements passed by the courts of law is provided by art. 6 § 1 in the European Convention of Human Rights, art. 1 par. 3 and art. 124 in the Constitution, moral rules and the precepts of the Holy Bible, the sacred book of Christianity, according to which all deeds and actions of people must be based on truth and justice.

In this study the authors focus on the necessity of considering the criminal ks degree of social danger in the individualization of penalty, given that the same penalty, identical as type and amount, does not generate the same effects for all criminals on whom it is applied. Concurrently, the authors highlight and conduct an ample research of the elements de facto that are used for the assessment of a criminal ks degree of social danger. Therefore, in order to comprehend the criminal ks degree of social danger, the following should be assessed: health condition (predominantly the psycho-physical condition), the criminal ks biological structure and mental characteristics, the entire social environment, the criminal ks behavior before perpetration of the crime, the criminal and legal circumstances of the criminal (convict, recidivist, prosecuted for other felonies, rehabilitated, amnestied, pardoned etc.), behavior after perpetration of the crime and during the criminal lawsuit, the level of education, as well as age. The following personal circumstances of individualization should also be included: the criminal ks capacity (officer, army enlisted, magistrate, mother etc.), civil status (married, single, widowed etc.), the relationship with the victim (close relative, relative, cohabitant, spouse, friend, enemy etc.) and any other information that might contribute to the individualization of the criminal ks individuality (for instance, lifestyle, reputation, social merits etc.).

This paper analyzes the legal status of the Romanian judgments in terms of the European Enforcement Order, in light of the provisions included in Regulation (EC) no. 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims; Regulation (EC) no. 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure; and Regulation (EC) no. 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, all this, in conjunction with the rules of the new (Romanian) Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 134/2010, republished on 3 august 2012 and entered into force on February 15, 2013).

Fraudulent bankruptcy is one of the criminal law’s “Cinderellas” because the legislator was highly oscillating with regard to the sanctioning regime, the rules indicting this deed suffered frequent changes of the contents and the seat of the matter was found in the recent years in several legal acts (the Commercial Code, Law no. 31/1990, Law no. 64/1995, Law no. 85/2006 and the 2009 Criminal Code). This study focuses both on the analysis of the fraudulent bankruptcy offense under the new Criminal Code and on the specific concepts.