Unlike the previous legislation, which did not contain any reference to the progressive offence, the new Criminal Code indicates the time from which the prescription period starts to run for this type of offence, without regulating, however, other aspects referring to the criminal treatment applicable to the acts falling within the legal category in question. This task lays further on case-law and doctrine, but, having regard to the numerous contradictory solutions and controversies noted, some regulations to ensure a uniform settlement of the noticed aspects shall be required, de lege ferenda.

This study examines the regulation of the Civil Code, entered into force on 1 October 2011, in respect of non-essential clauses, standard clauses, external clauses or extrinsic and unusual clauses, in the process of conclusion of contracts. Despite the intention of simplification which the Civil Code had in view, the risks and the issues generated by these legal instruments can be imagined, even in this early stage of its application. Within this analysis, there are also reported some problems, as well as some possible solutions in this respects.

Starting from the semantics of the term „parental authority” and from its normative background, this study raises for discussion the issue of the intention of the authors of the current Romanian Civil Code to reaffirm the „parental power”, as a legal solution for „calming down” the trend of „early emancipation” of the child. The viability of this terminological option is analyzed both in relation to the provisions of some international and internal normative acts in the field of protection of the child’s rights and in light of the Civil Code rules regulating various aspects of authority (power) within the relationships between parents and child.

Dignity of human being is one of the most obvious and complex notions which lawyers had to study thoroughly in the last years. The complexity of dignity arises from its almost non-legal nature: dignity is a fundamental attribute of the human being or a postulate of civilization of which law should take note. It can not be conceived that dignity can be denied or that legal order ignore it. As an expression of human value, dignity tends to be confused with the notion of humanity. The presence of a principle of dignity in our legal order is undeniable; but respect for a person’s dignity can also reveal itself as a subjective right, as shown in Article 72 (1) of the Civil Code. Having in view the uncertainties arisen in the debates around dignity, the authors’ approach is an attempt to reflect, on the one hand, on the conceptual notion of dignity by the analysis of the object and of the legal nature of dignity and, on the other hand, on the functional point of view which allows to determine what dignity serves for; in other words, the functions of dignity and its practical applications. The regulation of the right to dignity in the Civil Code should be regarded as a timely novelty.

Pursuant to Article 1541 (1) b) of the new Romanian Civil Code, which entered into force on 1 October 2011, the court may reduce the amount of the penal clause if „the penalty is clearly excessive as compared to the prejudice which could have been provided by the parties upon the conclusion of the contract”. The author considers that the text is incomplete, in the sense that it does not specify whether the reduction of the penalties may be ordered by the court only on the debtor’s request (the system referred to in BGB – the German Civil Code) or also ex officio (a system presently regulated by the French Civil Code). The author believes that the reduction of the amount of penalties in question can not occur ex officio because fundamental principles of civil proceedings (especially the principle of availability) are violated. Finally, the author proposes an amendment of Article 1541 (1) b) of the Civil Code in order to be expressly stated whether the reduction of penalties occurs only on request or also ex officio.

Given the absence of solutions expressly provided by law, national criminal courts now apply, with more courage and in the interest of justice, fundamental principles of criminal process as laid down by the Constitution, the Criminal Procedure Code and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which provides free access to justice, including judicial control on the acts of the prosecutor. In this context, the old adage „Justice is blind” may be replaced with a new concept, better suited to new national, European and international economic and social relations – „Justice is not always blind”.