Unfortunately, labor legislation also includes insufficiently clear, parallel or contradictory provisions. Some of these provisions relate to the probationary period for persons with disabilities, and others relate to the cancellation of the penalty, consisting of disciplinary termination of the employment contract. In this study, the author analyzes the views expressed in the legal literature on the two institutions and also draws his own solutions.

Granting the potential contribution period for establishing the invalidity pension of persons classified within the 1st or 2nd invalidity degree who have lost their capacity to work due to common illnesses or accidents, not related to work, is currently conditioned by the obligation to complete a contribution period „in relation to age, provided in Table No 3” of the Law No 263/2010. The author considers that this provision, laid down in Article 76 (1) of the Law No 263/2010 on the unitary system of public pensions (as revised through Law No 37/2013), is unconstitutional as it is contrary to considerations made by the Constitutional Court in its Decision No 680/2012.

In this study it is examined the legality of the control by the Court of Audit in the matter of public procurement provided that the legislator has conferred the jurisdiction of verifying the procedure for the award of these contracts to other specialized public authorities, and has conferred to the Court of Audit powers of general control on the manner of formation, management and use of the public financial resources. Taking advantage of these control powers with a wide range of coverage, the Court of Audit has extended, unlawfully, through its own regulations, this control over a specialized field, respectively that of the procedure for the award of public procurement contracts, overlapping the control exercised by other administrative authorities and affecting the stability of the legal relations arising from these contracts. That is why it is proposed the legislator’s intervention for the express regulation of the control powers of the Court of Audit in the matter of public procurement, the conditions and limits of this control, in order to avoid the parallelism and the conflict of jurisdiction between this public authority and the other specialized administrative authorities in the field.

The idea of this study has as starting point the „ambiguity” which, under the influence of the current Community and internal regulations, floats over the legal distinction between „designs” and „models”, as well as over their legal nature. Thus, the common definition reserved by the internal and Community regulations for the design and for the model, as well as their alternative or cumulative use in the legal texts convincingly support the existence of this „normative ambiguity”. This „legal reality” is accompanied by the non-existence of some doctrinal concerns for arguing the specificity of designs and of models, mostly by reference of one to the other, but also by reference of these to other kinds of intellectual creation. In fact, as this issue has been approached in the Romanian doctrine, the authors confine themselves, as a rule, only to take over some theses from the foreign legal literature, especially from French one, being less concerned with their logical and legal grounding.

Taking into consideration the provisions of art. 1385, paragraph 4 of the new Romanian Civil Code (adopted and published in 2009, but not yet effective), according to which “if the illicit action caused the loss of the opportunity to gain an advantage, the remedy shall be proportional to the probability of gaining such advantage, by also taking into consideration the circumstances and the actual situation of the victim, and by considering the rich French case law in the field (in the matter of medical liability) the author believes that, in Romania, tort liability could exist even at present (in particular in case of malpractice, as regards medical liability) following the damage caused by losing the opportunity to gain an advantage. For this reason, the author presents in detail the compensation conditions for such damage.

Article 7 paragraph 1 of the Law no. 554/2004 regarding Administrative Litigation regulates the “preliminary procedure”; therefore, the establishment that, before addressing the administrative courts, the prejudiced person in his/ her own right or interest (usually by an individual administrative action) shall require the issuing authority (or the superior authority, if any) the (in whole or in part) rescission of the action, within 30 days from the notification date of the action concerned. As the “preliminary procedure” issue presents some peculiarities in the matter of the construction permit [covered by Law no. 50/1991 on the authorization of construction works (republished on 13 October 2004)], the study’s author, examines on the one hand, in detail, the issue of the “preliminary procedure”, and on the other hand, presents the peculiarities mentioned above.