The higher interest of the child is the only finality of the actions of parents and the only criterion that justifies the intervention of the State in the relations between parents and children. In the new Civil Code the main concern of the Romanian legislator is to detension the relationships between spouses and their minor children, recognizing that the higher interest of the children is, first of all, that of being affected to the smallest extent by the effects of the parents’ divorce, thus allowing both divorced spouses to exercise their parental authority. By reference to the previous regulation – the Family Code, it is a radically different vision, „a true revolution in the field”, „a modern solution” according to which, after the divorce, the parental authority is not split up between the parents, but they exercise it together, as recommended by Article 18 paragraph 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The new Civil Code has established the principle of shared parental authority in order to allow the parents to continue to be, despite their separation, partners in a proactive and effective manner in all important decisions relative to the health, education, training and recreation of their common children, a principle that becomes thus an ideal to be achieved. This study analyzes these aspects.

According to the monist conception regarding the private law, the current Civil Code (Law no. 287/2009) inserted in the scope of its regulation the trade, including bank agreements – the current bank account, the bank deposit, the credit facility, the rental of safety deposit box for valuables. The specificity of the scope, mainly, „the publicity” and the reiterative nature of banking operations, left the essential, not only the technical aspects, within the scope of special regulations – prevalent, numerous and difficult to be codified. This study reveals the items set up by the current Civil Code regarding the typically bank agreements, the more so as no substantial right of them has existed until the adoption of this legislative instrument.

Take Ionescu was one of Romania’s most remarkable politicians at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the next one, especially before and during the First World War. He was active in politics over 30 years, especially within Conservative Party, whose leader wanted to become, but without success, the competition being intense along with great figures of the Romanian politics of those times: Petre Carp, Alexandru Marghiloman, Nicolae Filipescu, George Gr. Cantacuzino and others. He was one of the brightest orator in the Romanian Parliament, being known and feared by the close logic of his interventions and his great popularity, which attracted close to him many and valuable persons, among them: Constantin Dissescu, Nicolae Titulescu, the historian Xenopol, Dr. C. Istrati, etc. Among his qualities were seriousness and competence, approaches on multiple plans, which was why he was minister in seven governments and, towards the end of his career, was for the short time Prime Minister of the Government. He formed a dissident Conservative Party, which played an important role in the first decades of the 20th century, participating in the exercise of power with other political parties. Take Ionescu was one of the most conscious fighters for the cause of the Great Union of all the Romanians, tirelessly militating for participation in the World War I, along with the Entente countries, which they supported. He was intended to play an important role at the Peace Conference in Paris, but vanities and politicking games made to be absent from this event, where his contribution would have been particularly useful. In the end, as Foreign Minister in the Government of General Averescu, Take Ionescu was the architect of the Balkan Pact, which his disciple Nicolae Titulescu put into practice.

The philosophical inquiry of law, unlike the positive legal sciences, is concerned to find answers and arguments as nuanced and deep as possible to questions and issues such as: the origin and meanings of the law and of the legal phenomenon, the legitimacy of the legal norms or the finality of law. This analysis, mostly philosophical, is not a simple rational exegesis, but it also has a practical importance since, depending on the answers and the solutions adopted, there can be formulated, interpreted and applied the principles of law, as well as the concrete, positive legal norms and, mostly, there can be understood the complex relationships between man and society, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, it can be better known the legal system in its unity or in its historical determinations and configurations. In this study we summarize the historical evolution of the main theories and conceptions on the origin, meanings and finality of law, as ideological subsystem. Arguments are brought in favour of the topicality and importance of jusnaturalist theories (of the natural law), because, in relation to man and to rationality, they best explain the unity and stability of the law not only as normative system, but rather as value and rational reality, which, by establishing some rights inherent to the human being, intangible, rational and inalienable rights, proves the atemporality of law, as expression of some rational paradigms valid in all times and which can be distinguished and understood in the historical evolution and fluctuation of the positive law.

Throughout this study the author intends to emphasize some innovative aspects introduced by the new Criminal Procedure Code concerning the criminal prosecution stage, and also some legal provisions insufficiently conceptualized and corroborated with the regulation in its entirety. Aspects related to the referral and the jurisdiction of criminal prosecution bodies are analysed, as well as those pertaining to the beginning and progress of the criminal prosecution, and to the decision not to indict. The author also makes some proposals de lege ferenda meant, in his opinion, to remove or clarify those legal provisions which he appreciates as being contradictory.