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.

The study tries to outline the concept of misuse of law as it is regulated in the new Romanian Civil Procedure Code, starting from the regulations of novelty introduced by the new Civil Code. Recognized in the case-law and in the doctrine as a phenomenon inherent to the exercise of the subjective rights, the misuse of law appears better outlined on procedural level, unlike the substantive law, both with regard to its constitutive elements and the conditions in which it can be found and in respect of the sanctions that may appear. Even if the regulation of the new Civil Procedure Code is wider, a series of discussions raise, further on, the issue of misuse of law in the matter of the right of action under the terms of express sanctioning for bringing, in bad faith, an application for summons or for exercising an obviously unfounded judicial remedy.

The procedure of payment order has been regulated as a synthesis, but also as a reformation of the two previous procedures materialized in the Government Ordinance No 5/2001 on the procedure of the payment summons and the Government Emergency Ordinance No 119/2007 on the measures for combating the delay of the performance of the payment obligations resulting from the contracts between professionals. In its legislative work, by the new Civil Procedure Code, the legislator has not only achieved a fusion between the two normative acts, but it has also inserted novelty legislative solutions, bringing numerous amendments to the procedure and following its adjustment to the current legal, social and economic realities, in the attempt to harmonize the Romanian legislation with the European one. This study makes a detailed analysis of the nature of the procedure of payment order, of the characters and of the way it was conducted within the current normative framework, as well as of the vast judicial practice, by identifying the novelty elements of the procedure regulated by the new Civil Procedure Code, which – beyond the guaranteed additional accessibility and efficiency – require clarifications and specifications.

The debate over the future of the juveniles’ court and the juvenile justice system has been between proponents of a retributive philosophy and advocates of the traditional individual treatment mission. Both punitive approaches and those focused solely on treatment have failed to satisfy basic needs of crime victims, the community and offenders themselves. Neither offers hope for preserving a separate justice system for juveniles. This document outlines an alternative philosophy, restorative justice, and a new mission, the balanced approach, which require that juvenile justice system devotes attention to making amends to victim and the community, increasing offender competencies, and protecting the public, through process in which offenders, victims and the communities are all active participants.

The foundations of European Union law lie in the reasons that European decision-makers have identified, after the two World Wars, firstly, for the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community and then of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. These reasons, however, find their origins in the events that essentially marked the first half of the 20th century, identifying themselves, among other things, through the developments recorded by the international society, namely the international law, in general, evolutions which the European society, and, implicitly, the European Union law, would not have been possible to avoid.

Reopening the criminal trial in case of the judgment in the absence of the convicted person – an extraordinary means of appeal whose admissibility is subsumed to a set of conditions and requirements the fulfilment of which is meant to offer to the defendant the guarantee of a fair trial.