Through this study, the author starts from the monistic regulation of the current Civil Code, raising for discussion the possibility of adopting a new Commercial Code, which should include all the essential regulations of the special laws in force, with regard to the legal relations in which those who pursue professional activities participate, regulations on the special status of the participants in the legal relations intended for professional activities, the trading companies and the trading professionals who are natural persons, regulations on the contracts and guarantees specific to professional activities (leasing contract, franchise contract, banking contracts and guarantees), regulations on credit titles, the regulation of the insolvency procedure, updated for all areas of professional activity.

By the provisions of Article 657 (2) of the Civil Code it is regulated the situation in which the destruction of a smaller part of a building takes place, destruction that does not affect the building as a whole nor in a proportion of no more than half of its value, in which situation the co-owners are bound to contribute to the restoration of the common parts proportionally to the quota-share of each of them. The law establishes the obligativity of those co-owners who either do not want or can not participate in the restoration, to assign the quota-shares of the right of forced joint ownership to the other co-owners, meaning that it establishes a modality of extinguishing the right of private property, which, in our opinion, is likely to give rise to some situations that are hard to accept.

This study presents a possible legislative incoherence, generated by the current form of Article 130 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code, concerning the invocation of the lack of competence of private order of the courts, which may lead to the situation of an incompetent court hearing a request, an abnormal situation in the conduct of a civil legal procedure.

The author’s approach is intended for a partially critical analysis of the Decision of the Constitutional Court No 225 of 4 April 20172, by which the phrase „likely to prejudice the prestige of the profession” within Article 14 a) of the Law No 51/1995 was declared unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court has held that the criticized text is devoid of precision, clarity and predictability, as it does not circumstantiate the scope of the offences likely to cause the unworthiness in the profession of lawyer. The author considers that this solution of unconstitutionality makes an exaggerated interpretation of the incidental legal provisions, unduly restricting the right of appreciation of the competent structures of the professional organization of lawyers and of the judge called to settle any possible disputes. Within this study it is noted that there are various other situations in which the right of appreciation of the judge can not be challenged in our legal system. The approach included in this study also insists on the consequences which can be determined by the analysed solution of unconstitutionality, due to the existence of some identical or very similar provisions in respect of other liberal legal professions as well. A cavalcade of pleas of unconstitutionality, based on similar considerations, could raise for discussion other important institutions of law as well, such as those concerning the disciplinary, contraventional, civil or even criminal liability.

The Decision of the Constitutional Court of Romania No 405/2016, referring to the plea of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 246 of the Criminal Code of 1969, of Article 297 (1) of the Criminal Code and of Article 132 of the Law No 78/2000 on preventing, discovering and sanctioning of corruption acts (hereinafter referred to as „Decision No 405”)1, is not a mere interpretative decision2 whereby, following the admission of a plea of unconstitutionality, it is established that a text of law is constitutional only provided that a certain wording has a certain meaning3. The recitals of the Decision No 405, to which there have been added, shortly after, those included in the Decision No 392/2017, referring to the plea of unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 248 of the Criminal Code of 1969, of Article 297 (1) of the Criminal Code and of Article 132 of the Law No 78/2000 on preventing, discovering and sanctioning of corruption acts4 (hereinafter referred to as „Decision No 392”), have emphasized the fact that the current rules of incrimination of the deeds of abuse of office, once clarified the meaning of the phrase „defectively fulfils”, still establish a criminal liability that rather acts with priority, and not according to ultima ratio principle, and the constitutive elements of the offence do not meet the standards of drafting of such legal norms identified in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as „ECHR”), the United Nations Convention against Corruption5, as well as in various reports and positions assumed by the European Union bodies on this subject. For the assumption that these observations of the Constitutional Court would determine the legislator to reflect on the necessity to reconfigure the legal provisions in question, the Court has indicated certain points of reference that should be considered in order to ensure a regulation compatible with the international and European standards mentioned.