Inconveniences of neighbourhood are regulated autonomously in Article 630 of the new Romanian Civil Code, as judicial limits of the right of property. The paper analyzes the inconveniences of neighbourhood in the light of the relation to the abuse of right, because it has been for a long time the main instrument of settlement of the conflicts arisen in the state of neighbourhood. In this regard the author emphasizes that, unlike the abuse of right that involves, in all its forms of manifestation, the existence of guilt and the illicit act, by engaging the tort civil liability, the inconveniences of neighbourhood oblige the owner to provide reparation only if they are abnormal and are produced by the normal and licit exercise of the right. The foundation of the obligation to repair the created inconvenience is equity, the only one that can adjust to the conditions required by the legal situation specific to abnormal disturbances of neighbourhood. By applying equity, the court sets the judicial limits in the exercise of property, separate from the legal limits or from the conventional ones, expressly regulated by the new Civil Code, for private interest.

As the author herself states, the purpose of this study is to identify the sources of the international law which grounds the interdiction of the „hate speech”, as well as the manner of their perception and application at European level, particularly in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. In this respect there are presented: the foundations of the interdiction of the „hate speech” at universal and European level; the elements analyzed in this respect by the European Court of Human Rights (reference to the context of the speech; instigation to hatred on grounds of race and religion; negativistic and revisionist speech); the regulations adopted by the Council of Europe and by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance; the normative framework of the European Union on racism and xenophobia, and, finally, the reference of the current Romanian criminal legislation to international exigences.

In this article, the author presents the foundation of criminal substantive law of the safety measure of special confiscation, which concerns the category of goods obtained from committing criminal acts, as well as of the safety measure of extended confiscation, in both situations the analysis being focused on the assumption that the goods have been alienated by the defendant and they have ended up in the patrimony of other persons. Further on, it is made an analysis of criminal procedural law of the situation of the persons – other than the defendant – whose goods are subject to confiscation in the course of the trial. From the perspective of guaranteeing the right to a fair trial for these persons, the author detects a series of problems of interpretation or even of legislative gaps. Finally, there is a conclusive chapter of the article accompanied by de lege ferenda proposals corresponding to the criticism which the author has developed and argued by reference to the current legal texts.

This study raises for discussion the condition of full recognition of facts and changing the legal classification within the trial procedure in case of recognition of accusation. A deed, which the defendant must recognize, means the act of conduct committed under both its sides, objective and subjective, as well as all the circumstances surrounding this act, regardless of their nature and of the moment when they occur in relation to the act itself. The defendant may contest the legal classification established by the public prosecutor and may benefit from the settlement of the case in simplified procedure only when the contestation against the legal classification is not based on a change of the state of facts.

Law No 78/2014 regarding the regulation of volunteering in Romania provides that a volunteer agreement can be concluded by any natural person „who has acquired capacity to work according to the legislation in the field of labour.” Whereas this phrasing is likely to generate controversies and discussions (the Law No 78/2014 being a law in the field of civil law, and not in the field of the labour law), the author examines precisely at what age minors may conclude volunteer agreements. The author’s conclusion, resulting from the corroboration of Articles 41–42 of the Civil Code with Article 13 of the Labour Code, is that: minors may conclude volunteer agreements after they turned 14, but between 14–16 years of age the consent of their parents, guardians, etc., is also required and, after the minor turned 16, he may conclude such an agreement himself, without the above-mentioned consent.

The article analyzes the advantages which the settlement of disputes by means of arbitration has to offer. Arbitration is an exception from the principle that administration of justice is done by the courts and represents that effective legal mechanism, designed to ensure a fair, faster and less formal, confidential trial finalized by judgments subject to enforcement. Most patrimonial and non-patrimonial causes may be settled by way of arbitration, so that this method of settlement of disputes can be chosen by parties, instead of the common law justice. The conclusion that can be drawn is that, in order to relieve the courts of their role, arbitration is a viable alternative of settlement of disputes.

This article aims to analyze a wage increase for people who traditionally have a PhD title and are working in the field in which they obtained this title. Up to the adoption of the legislation on uniform remuneration in budgetary system, all those who had obtained a PhD title received, without distinction, a wage increase for PhD. The current legislation has provided the inclusion of this increase, as a transitional compensatory amount, in the base salary, the basic pay/salary or monthly allowance, for the employees that had it to be paid on 31 December 2009, but not for those who have won the PhD title after this date. That legislation created a discriminatory situation, on which the National Council for Combating Discrimination was notified, and this has expressed a specialised opinion, which advocated for the competent authorities of the State, Parliament and the Government to proceed to eliminate the difference in legal treatment, so additional salary entitlement to be recognized by the legislature to all employees, regardless of the date on which it was awarded a PhD title. To this end we propose the appropriate modification of the law.

The right to protection of personal data is essential for the respect for some fundamental rights of the citizen, including in his capacity of employee, in particular the right to private life. The labour legislation contains some provisions that can guarantee respect for this right, which they explicitly establish, however they can not be considered separately from the Law No 677/2001. The reasons that justify the processing of personal data of employees are those expressly and restrictively provided by the Law No 677/2001 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data, and the employees have the rights regulated by this law: the right to be informed, the right of access to processed data, the right of intervention upon the data, the right to object and the right to take legal action.

Analyzing the jurisdiction of the courts as it is regulated by the new (Romanian) Civil Procedure Code (Law No 134/2010, republished, entered into force on 15 February 2013), the author comes to the conclusion that this Code regulates a single case of alternative jurisdiction of public order, that is Article 113 (1) point 1 („Besides the courts provided in Articles 107–112, there shall also be competent: 1. the court having jurisdiction over plaintiff’s domicile, in the applications concerning the determination of filiation;...”).

Marea Adunare Națională dela Alba-Iulia, din 18 Noembrie/1 Decembrie 1918, a îmbrăcat, mai presus de orice îndoială, caracterul de adunare constituantă. Alcătuită din reprezentanți ai Românilor din teritoriile aflate sub imperiul Marelui Sfat Național Român1 – representanți pe categorii profesionale și sociale pe de-o parte, pe circumscripțiuni electorale pe de alta2 ea a fost, în mod cert, icoana juridică a vrerei întregii suflări românești din Transilvania3. Grandioasele proporțiuni ale acestei adunări se reliefează ca un eveniment fără precedent în istoria noastră națională, ca un eveniment cu puțini corespondenți în cea universală. Voința națională și-a găsit o expresiune unică prin vigoarea cu care s’a manifestat – cu prilejul acestei zile memorabile.

Contractul de asistență juridică învestit cu formulă executorie, în condițiile legii, constituie titlu executoriu cu privire la restanțele din onorariu și alte cheltuieli efectuate de avocat în interesul clientului. Este nelegală executarea silită pornită pentru o sumă pe care creditoarea o apreciază ca fiind datorată cu titlu de prejudiciu pentru încălcarea obligațiilor contractuale. Creanța nu reprezintă o plată pentru o activitate profesională desfășurată de societatea de avocatură, ci o despăgubire pentru încălcarea clauzelor contractuale de către contestator, având astfel caracterul unei clauze penale. Din această perspectivă nu prezintă relevanță în ce măsură creditoarea putea desfășura activități de intermediere sportivă ori dacă putea pretinde debitorului executarea obligației garantate potrivit contractului de ipotecă mobiliară pentru o nerespectare a obligațiilor asumate în cazul unui transfer. Nu este permis ca prin convenția lor părțile să poată ca, sub denumirea de „onorariu”, să-și creeze un titlu executoriu pentru o creanță care în realitate este o despăgubire.

Prin Decizia nr. 269/2017 a Înaltei Curți de Casație și Justiție (completul de 5 judecători)1 a fost respins recursul împotriva hotărârii Consiliului Superior al Magistraturii referitoare la sancționarea disciplinară a unui judecător, constând în diminuarea indemnizației de încadrare lunară pentru abaterea prevăzută de art. 99 lit. l) din Legea nr. 303/2004 privind statutul judecătorilor și procurorilor2. Persoana sancționată a criticat hotărârea amintită, printre altele, pentru că instanța disciplinară a făcut o aplicare greșită a dispozițiilor art. 46 alin. (7) din Legea nr. 317/2004 privind Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii3, cu privire la termenul de prescripție a aplicării sancțiunilor disciplinare, precum și a dispozițiilor art. 99 lit. l) din Legea nr. 303/2004, care instituie abaterea disciplinară, constând în „imixtiunea în activitatea altui magistrat”.