The neutral power, i.e. a power that is situated outside the three powers derived from the organisation of the state on the basis of the principle of separation of powers, was conceived and institutionalised in various ways. One of them transforms the Head of State into a power that distances itself from political games and the separation of powers. The Head of State plays the role of balancing power and that of mediator between legislative, executive and jurisdictional powers and between state and society. The following article examines the role of the Head of State as neutral power in the constitutional history of Romania and in the 1991 Constitution.

Through this study we have made a thorough analysis of the conditions of admissibility of the special cancellation (revocation) action regulated by the provisions of Article 117 of the Law No 85/2014 on the procedures for preventing insolvency and of insolvency, as well as an analysis of the possibility of cancelling (revoking) any fraudulent act concluded by the debtor in the 2 years prior to the opening of the insolvency procedure. Likewise, we have analyzed what operations concluded, in the two years prior to the opening of the procedure, with the persons who have legal relationships with the debtor may be cancelled and the benefits recovered, if they are to the detriment of the creditors, except for the acts concluded in good faith in the execution of an agreement with the creditors, concluded as a result of extrajudicial negotiations for restructuring the debtor’s debts

The idea of a neutral power from those derived from the separation of powers was preceded in the modern epoch by the placing of one of the Chambers of the Parliament in the role of balancing and preserving power. This second Chamber had to be different from the first one, in order for it to be superior. The manner of conceiving this superiority and the balancing and conservative role of this Chamber have been different from one epoch to another and from one system to another. In the following article, subsequent to a brief analysis of the concepts of neutral power and balancing power, I shall investigate the role played by the superior Chamber of Parliament in the constitutional history of Romania.

Equality of citizens before the law and before the public authorities is a fundamental category of the theory on social democracy, but also a condition of the state of law, failing which constitutional democracy can not be conceived. The Romanian Constitution expressly enshrines this principle. However, there are also particular aspects of this principle enshrined in the Basic Law. Equality before the law and before the public authorities can not involve the idea of standardization, of uniformity of all citizens under the sign of the same legal regime, regardless of their socio-professional situation. The constitutional principle of equality implies that equal legal treatment should be applied to equal situations. This social and legal requirement implies numerous interferences between the principle of equality and other constitutional principles: the principle of identity and of diversity, the principle of pluralism, the principle of unity and, in particular, the principle of proportionality. In this study, using theoretical and jurisprudential arguments, we intend to demonstrate that in relation to contemporary social reality equality, as a constitutional principle, is a particular aspect of the principle of proportionality. The latter expresses in essence the ideas of: fairness, justice, reasonableness and fair adequacy of the decisions of the State to the factual situation and the legitimate aims proposed.

The Civil Procedure Code entered into force on 15 February 2013, when neither the fax nor the e-mail were unknown anymore in the field of communication. However, the procedural provisions have proven to be tributary to some classical origins, even obsolete in some cases. The interventions of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, of the Constitutional Court, in the matter of law analyzed by the authors in this article, did not have the role of modernizing nor of improving the efficiency of the act of justice. The given interpretations have taken into account the letter of the law and not its spirit, probably starting from the strict application of the procedural provisions. Without disregarding these principles, the authors criticize in an argumented manner the solution pronounced by the Decision No 34/2017 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the Panel for the settlement of some legal issues, ruling in the sense of qualifying the procedural act sent by e-mail or fax, after the court’s work schedule, but until 24.00 of the last day of the procedural term, as being done in due time.

The study is devoted to the legislative convergences and divergences existing at the level of the European countries regarding the functioning of small and mediumsized companies. The first part of this approach emphasizes the important role of small and medium-sized companies within the national economies, including their contribution to the formation of the gross domestic product. In the author’s opinion, the support granted by the political and legislative powers, including by the doctrine, is not in accordance with the contribution brought by the small and medium-sized companies to the development of the national economies. Starting from the finding that the typical legal form of functioning of the small and medium-sized companies is represented by the limited liability companies, the author presents the most relevant aspects regarding their establishment, organization and functioning. A particular analysis is also carried out in relation to Directive 2017/828/EC, a European document that is likely to significantly promote appropriate normative convergences. The author also emphasizes some positive trends manifested at the level of the European Union, such as those represented by the elimination of the fixed minimum share capital or by the reduction thereof. Among the legislative divergences, the author analyzes those determined by the conflicts of interests between the members of the limited liability company. In particular, the author takes into account the divergences concerning the right of the minority members, whose interests are threatened by the actions of the majority members, to freely exit that company.