In the study we propose as follows, we will look at differences in perception between the pandemic constraints imposed by the governmenst of countries affected by the pandemic in view of managing the pandemic and society’s perception that governments have deprived citizens of their freedom by restricting their mobility and imposing restrictions with regard to travel, including in order to attend educational activities. In some cases, the communities affected by the restrictive measures have gone further, accusing governments of the crime of “Illegal Deprivation of Freedom”, which is included by the legislator in the criminal codes of countries. We consider that the accusations brought against the authorities are unfounded, exaggerated, and thoroughly wrong. We believe that they are due to communication gaps in the public domain, the differences in perception of community members in the context of changing paradigms and the insufficient legal education, which leads to confusion between illegal deprivation of freedom and limitations or restrictions. Although, in the legislation, the articles that provide for the criminal offences relevant to the matter are included in the criminal (penal) codes, for example, in the Romanian legislation in Article 205 of the Criminal Code, with the marginal name “Offences against Individual Freedom” of Title I, which bears the marginal name “Offences against the Person”, and falls within the area of ​​interest of legal sciences, we will analyze the effects in relation to the limitations and restrictions imposed by the authorities for the management of the pandemic. To this end, on the one hand we will highlight the aspects of material criminal law necessary for the legal classification of a deed as offence of illegal deprivation of freedom, in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Codes of Romania, Hungary, Republic of Italy, Greece, and on the other hand, we will present some aspects regarding the management of the coronavirus crisis in the area of ​​education.