In respect of the contract of transport, the provisions of the new Romanian Civil Code in the matter (Articles 1955–2008) have the nature of general law, which, as the case may be, is supplemented by the special legislation, specific to each type of transport (rail, naval, road, air). Considering the above, this study makes an analysis of the provisions of the new Civil Code referring to a limited aspect, namely a summary on the rules of this Code, with reference to the civil-contractual liability of the transporter in the contract of transport of goods.

This study deals with the problem of the judicial remedy and of the time limit for exercising it in case of the rejection on the merits of the application for establishing guardianship. The analysis is carried out from the perspective of the civil procedural provisions which regulate the procedure for settling the non-contentious applications.

Within this paper, the author makes a brief review of the background, respectively of the grounds of the Decision No 363/2015 of the Constitutional Court, and afterwards he stops to analyze the effects of this decision on the criminal trials ongoing at the date when the mentioned decision is pronounced. In relation to the exigences imposed by the principle of legality of incrimination and to the fact that the text declared unconstitutional has incriminated for the first time a certain conduct as an offence, the failure to reconcile, within the legal time limit, the incrimination text with the provisions of the Constitution of Romania, republished, has the value of a decriminalization.

Finding the truth in the criminal trial sometimes requires the hearing as witnesses of some persons who know of factual elements referring to the object of the case. In order that the statements given by these persons should not be influenced by factors of pressure exercised on them, the criminal processual legislation has also instituted some special measures to protect the persons that are going to be heard in this capacity in the criminal trial, being also created special categories, such as the category of threatened witness, of vulnerable witness and of witness included in the witness protection program. This study deals with the transitory situation arisen after the entry into force of the new Criminal Procedure Code where the witness, to whom the status of witnesses with protected identity in the criminal prosecution phase has been granted in accordance with the provisions of the previous Criminal Procedure Code, is heard in the trial phase after the entry into force of the new Code.

In this study, the author analyzes the provisions of the Romanian Civil Code (the Law No 287/2009) referring to the matrimonial convention (Articles 329–338 and Articles 366–369). Therefore, there are examined the provisions on: the notion; the principles of the matrimonial convention; the legal characters; the conclusion of the convention – the conditions on the substance and the form of the convention; the date of conclusion and the date from which it produces effects; the caducity, the simulation and the nullity of the matrimonial convention; the object of the convention; the publicity of the convention and its amendment.

The Romanian Labour Code (the Law No 53/2003, republished on 18 May 2011) provides, in Article 38, that „Employees may not waive the rights recognized to them by law. Any transaction which aims at waiving the rights recognised by law for the employees or at limiting such rights shall be null.” The author starts from the premise that this legal text, which could also be found in the previous Labour Code (Law No 10/1972), should be reconsidered, however, in the light of the social order of today, of the principles and of the requirements of the market economy and of the dynamics of the labour relations and of the labour market. Considering the above, the author formulates, in accordance with the Romanian labour law doctrine as well, a flexible interpretation of Article 38 of the Labour Code, also taking into account a series of texts of the new Romanian Civil Code, which entered into force on 1 October 2011, by rallying, at the same time, to a number of de lege ferenda proposals elaborated in the labour law doctrine over the last years.

Within this article, the author makes an analysis of the main provisions of the Hague Convention of 1985 on the law applicable to trusts and on their recognition. In the context of introducing in the Romanian civil law the legal operation of fiducia, achieved by the provisions of Articles 773–791 of the Civil Code of 2009, Romania’s accession to the Hague Convention would be a natural step that the Romanian legislator should take in the near future. Although some of the provisions of the Hague Convention have been taken, tale quale, within the provisions of private international law relating to the fiducia, the accession to the Hague Convention and its introduction into the Romanian internal law, would lead to expanding the scope of practical application of the legal instrument of the fiducia itself.

In this study, the authors have chosen to present and to analyze the criminal law institution of the conditional release because, as practitioners, more than once, they came to discover a different application thereof, a different approach of the criteria laid down by this institution and even a difference of opinions within the assessment of the opportuneness of ordering this measure by the judges of the same court, this generating an uneven practice with regard to the application of the same rule of criminal law.

This approach is meant to carry out a brief examination of the control which the judge is required to perform on the acts of disposition of the parties in the civil trial. It refers to the main sides of availability and, especially, to the presentness and imperativeness of such a control. In this context, the author notes that the new Civil Procedure Code has not abdicated from the active role of the judge, this being far from the peak of its „glory”. Likewise, the author analyzes the procedural ways of invalidation of the acts of disposition, first noting the incidental legislative regulation both with regard to the transaction and to the judgment that confirms the agreement of the party. It is noted that, from a normative point of view, the party does not have an option right between the exercise of the action for annulment and the means of recourse against the judicial transaction. At the end of the study, the author analyzes some aspects of the recourse which can be exercised against the acts of divestment and acquiescence to the claims of the applicant.

In principle, the confession is admissible as means of evidence in all the matters for which the civil processual law represents the common law of the procedure and for which there is no separate procedure. Exceptionally, the confession is not admissible: when it is expressly prohibited by law; whether, by admitting it, the imperative provisions of the law would be eluded; if the law requires that certain facts be proved only by certain means of evidence; if, by admitting it, one could reach to total or partial loss of a right which may not be waived or may not be subject to a transaction. The judicial confession shall be given by means of cross-examination, as reflected by Articles 351–358 of the Civil Procedure Code. Obviously, it is a question of provoked judicial confession, whereas the spontaneous judicial confession does not require any prior preparation and, as such, it does not require an express regulation. Instead, the written extrajudicial confession is subject to the regime of proof of evidence through written documents, and the extrajudicial verbal confession may be attested by witnesses, if the law allows the testimonial evidence. The legislator of the new Civil Procedure Code expressly establishes the principle of indivisibility of the judicial confession and, at the same time, he provides an exception from this principle, namely the situation in which the judicial confession contains separate facts not connected between them. In this study there are elaborated the ideas presented above

The regulation (Article 225) of the new Criminal Procedure Code is not too different from the one (Article 1491 paragraphs 3–8 and Article 150) of the previous Criminal Procedure Code (1968). Instead, the new criminal processual law does no longer provide for the possibility to settle the proposal of preventive detention, in the absence of the defendant, when the defendant is abroad, as it was stipulated in the previous Criminal Procedure Code. The authors analyze the institution of settlement of the proposal of preventive detention, by presenting some critical issues and by proposing some improvements to the new regulation.

In this study, the author presents a constitutional reform on the Hungarian Constitutional Court, in the sense of extending its substantive jurisdiction, which entered into force at the beginning of the year 2012. Indeed, the mentioned reform preserves the classic system of the constitutional courts, but it receives an additional jurisdiction, i.e.: after a judgment has become final, either party may address to the Constitutional Court if the decision made is contrary to a fundamental right established by the Constitution. This way, concludes the author, the Constitutional Court is elevated at the level of a centre of the state power, an independent branch thereof which, in a certain sense, conducts a control on all branches of the state power.