În situația în care, pe perioada procesului de divorț între pãrinți, minora a fost încredințatã mamei prin hotãrâre judecãtoreascã, iar mama o influențeazã pe minorã sã refuze contactul cu tatãl ei și, în același timp, mama refuzã sã execute sentința judecãtoreascã prin care s-a stabilit programul de vizitare a minorei de cãtre tatã, instanța este în drept sã oblige pe ambii pãrinți sã se prezinte cu minora la centrul de consiliere (psihologicã) din cadrul direcției generale județene de asistențã socialã și protecția copilului (cu notã aprobativã).

The judicial individualization of the sentence shall be carried out by a complex operation using all those individualization criteria set forth by law (general and special criteria); the need for taking into consideration all the grounds for sentence modification is included within these criteria, as well. Drawn by this need, the Romanian Criminal Code into force (since 1968) contains regulations regarding the manner in which the various grounds for sentence modification must be enforced, when they concur, regulations contained in the provisions of art. 80. Likewise, the new Romanian Criminal Code contains such regulations in art. 79. In this study, the authors have emphasized several systems of sentence determination in case of the concurrence between the grounds for sentence modification. Both the Criminal Code into force and the new Criminal Code adopted an objective criterion concerning the manner in which the various grounds for sentence modification must be enforced, being sensitive to multiple interpretations and contradictory solutions. The Romanian Criminal Code of 2004 – abrogated, before becoming effective, through the new Criminal Code – which forwarded a system based upon a subjective criterion, by granting the judge the freedom to assess the predominance (prevalence) of the grounds for sentence modification and to give them the due legal effect. From the point of view of the authors of the study, this system seems to be more adequate to settle the problems raised by the concurrence between the grounds for sentence modification.

Romania, by adhering in July 1961, to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, adopted in New-York as at 10 June 1958, on that occasion formulated a reserve, in the sense that our country shall enforce the Convention „only to disputes arising from lawful contractual or non-contractual relations being deemed as commercial by the national law”. Since as at the 1st October 2011 the current Romanian Civil Code entered into force (Law no. 287/2009, as republished as at 15 July 2011), as well as Law no. 71/2011 for the enforcement of the current Civil Code, both of them having a monist character (without considering the commercial law as an autonomous discipline of law), but recognizing further the category of merchants (a component of the professionals’ category) the authoress considers that, on one hand, the above mentioned reserve shall be construed as referring exclusively to the legal relations among merchants, and, on the other hand, as opposed to what the law is, that Romania is about to waive the concerned reserve at issue in the future.