According to the Romanian legislation in the field, which existed prior to the entry into force of the new (Romanian) Code of Civil Procedure (15 February 2013) and labor addressing conflicts (disputes), the tribunal was usually the first instance court having jurisdiction to hear and the court of appeal had jurisdiction only on a single remedy at law (the appeal). After the entry into force of the new Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 134/ 2010, republished on 3 August 2012), the situation has changed in that against the sentence of the first instance court (the tribunal) there is (except for the revision) a single remedy at law i.e. the appeal (within the Court of Appeal jurisdiction), appeal which is an ordinary, devolutive remedy at law. In this study, the authors analyze this situation stressing that, in principle, is the better for the parties to have nothing but the appeal (besides the revision) as remedy at law, instead of solely the recourse.

The new Romanian Civil Code (Law no. 287/2009, republished) contains a new concept, namely the sanction of clauses deemed unwritten, which are incident to all areas covered by the Civil Code. In this study, the author makes a comprehensive analysis of this new concept, concluding that we are faced with an autonomous sanction. Although it has an autonomous nature, with regard to its legal system, the author believes that this autonomous sanction is, by analogy, subject to the rules for invalidity.

The author highlights the manner in which the observance of fundamental rights enshrined and guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is ensured by the national constitutional rules and the main provisions of the Civil Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as by domestic judicial courts that interpret and apply the domestic or European law, on a case-by-case basis. At the same time, the study also presents the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union relevant in the matter of ensuring access to justice, the right to a fair trial, as well as the relationship between EU law and the national law relating to judicial organization. In this regulatory and jurisprudential framework, the author considers that compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union moves toward being enforced by national courts, along with the (European) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The study reveals, in its introductory part, some shortcomings of Law No. 8/1996 on copyright and rights related to copyright, in the field of audio-visual works, such as the contested definition thereof or the absence of definition of the audio-visual production contract definition, and puts forth its own points of view, likely to lead to the settlement of such cases. On the merits, the work depicts the characteristic features of the audio-visual production contract, its delimitation as to other types of contracts, analyses the Contracting Parties as well as the purpose and wording thereof, in terms of legal regulations and doctrinal interpretations.

In the interpretation and unitary application of the provisions of art.251 of the Law no. 32/2000 regarding the insurance activity and insurance supervision, as subsequently amended and supplemented, corroborated with those of art.24 of the Code of criminal procedure, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, in the judgment in the interest of the Law no. 3/2010, decided that “in the criminal trial, The street victims’ protection fund has the capacity of a liable party from the civil point of view and may be obliged solely, but not collectively with the defendant, to pay the civil indemnifications to the persons injured in non-insured car accidents”. In the attempt to answer the question whether, in a criminal trial, the defendant could be obliged to pay the civil indemnifications or whether the amounts paid as such shall be determined in the exclusive charge of The street victims’ protection fund, the author of the article promotes the idea according to which the main obligation to repair the damages shall belong, further, to the defendant, in his capacity as the offender of the illegal deed generating prejudices, and the existence of a special regulation set up for the purpose of protecting the victims of the car accidents, could not operate as a reason for holding harmless from the civil point of view. Considering that in the light of the present Civil Code the obligations of the defendant and of the above-mentioned fund keep their nature of in solidum obligations, the author considers that from the operative part and the considerations of the judgment in the interest of the Law no. 3/2010 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, it does not result that The street victims’ protection fund shall be exclusively obliged to pay indemnifications in the criminal trial, as the law-related questions which have generated a non-unitary practice pertain only to the capacity of a party in a lawsuit of this fund and to the possibility to oblige him, collectively with the defendant, to pay indemnifications.

Audit services is based on two premises: (i) companies must be able to choose their auditors according to their needs and at a reasonable cost and (ii) investors must be able to rely on an independent audit opinion based on an audit of high quality before investing in a company. It is in the public interest to ensure a sustainable audit function and, consequently, a competitive market for audit firms. Usually, a person invests in a company only once, in advance, has analyzed an audit report relating to the financial condition of that company. If, then, there is a failure of the enterprise (such as eg bankruptcy) that has earlier cases and unidentified audited by the auditor in place its civil liability issue. The question is to set a limit on the civil liability of auditors so that, on the one hand, to ensure fair compensation to those injured (investors), and on the other hand, auditors to take such risks reasonably.