Recently entered into force, the administrative code was adopted with the stated purpose of unifying the regulations in the field of public administration, in order to create a normative framework, coming to the aid of individuals, public administration, but also of practitioners. In this respect, a significant part of the provisions were taken identically from the normative acts that were repealed, while there are also new provisions, some of them leaving, unfortunately, the impression of a code adopted in haste. Without claiming a thorough analysis of the entire regulation, the present study aims to address some of the challenges brought by the language used in OUG: 57/2019. Between the two extremes among which the legislator oscillates (either an incomplete or ambiguous language, or an over-regulation), the most relevant problem, in terms of the consequences that it can produce, probably consists in using already legally established notions, with a totally different meaning (such as, for example, the question of competence - exclusive, delegated or shared, or of the capacity or legal personality of public authorities). In addition to altering some already established rules or legal institutions, the code identifies in some places an unnecessary duplication of terms or the use of phrases that can completely change the meaning envisaged by the legislator; furthermore, the new normative act remains in debt (if it does not complicate matters even more) to clarify some problems previously identified by the scholars and the judicial practice (such as, of course, the role of the secretary in assessing the legality of the acts of the local public administration authorities or the majority necessary regarding the decisions related to the patrimony of the administrative-territorial unit).