The article contains an analysis of litigation on reducing military service pensions recalculated/revised by Law no. 119/2010 and by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 1/2011, in relation to those retained by the High Court of Cassation and Justice in Decision no. 29/2011, given in solving interesting appeal in law, on the application of the provisions of Law no. 29/2011. From the perspectives of the Decision no. 29/2011 the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the analysis is presented on two levels. First, targeting issues of constitutionality of the Law. 119/2010 and, second, conventional control of the law courts, in assessing the application effects in concreto of national standards, by reference to the European Convention on Human Rights.

According to the Romanian laws in the matter, the President of Romania, the senators, the deputies, the presidents of the county councils, the mayors, the county counselors and the local counselors are elected by the people by direct vote. Instead, the vice-presidents of the county councils and the deputy mayors of the local councils shall be elected by the indirect vote of the representatives elected in the county councils and respectively, in the local councils. Examining this issue regulated in several laws successively amended and supplemented, which results in a series of confusions regarding the enforcement, the author concludes that it would be reasonable and advisable for the vice-presidents of the county councils and for the deputy mayors of the local councils to be elected by a direct vote.

The trust that the patient grants to the medicine professionals for applying the prevention or treatment methods corresponding to his health condition, under the lowest risks, depends on correct and complete information regarding his prevention, diagnostic and treatment activities. Actually, the breach of this deontological duty represents an act of betrayal of his trust, as he could not choose the best solution corresponding to his own interests, in the circumstances in which the patient is free to decide about his own fate. From the legal point of view, this breach of duty results in the civil liability incurred for the prejudices caused to the patient. Considered from the perspective of the biomedical ethics, the physician’s duty to inform the patient brings into focus an interesting subject of research: the manner in which the observance of the patient’s autonomy affects the mechanism of adopting the medical decision related to the diagnostic, the care, the treatment or determining him to undergo certain scientific experiments. From this perspective, the study tries to provide a new approach of the duty of information, but this time from the ethical point of view related to the consideration due to the dignity of the patient human being who is so vulnerable and suffering. The selection of the case law solutions rendered completes the exposure of the legal consequences regarding the breach of this duty.

This study describes a series of aspects regarding: the form of the state, the structure of the state and the governing form, insisting upon their features and divisions, at the same time pointing out the classifications of the structures of the state (the unitary state, the composite state); respectively, the monarchy (absolute and constitutional) and the republic (presidential, semi-presidential or parliamentary).

The study approaches the issue of the recrimination of the offence of usury according to the new Romanian Criminal Code. The author examines the criminal, contravention and civil involvements of lending money on interest and emphasizes the part that the National Bank of Romania has for authorizing the persons entitled to lend money on interest.

From the point of view of the legal content, the execution of the prison sentence under supervision represents the penultimate way as regards the difficulty of the execution regime, being more facile than the regime involving deprivation of liberty. This execution method disposed by the trial court produces immediate effects, so that the sentence imposed is not actually executed, however, during the supervision period, the person convicted must observe the supervision measures set forth by law, the obligations imposed by the court and to fully perform the civil obligations set forth in the judgment of conviction. If the person convicted does not commit any new offence and he/she complies the supervision measures and with the abovementioned obligations during the supervision period, this execution method produces final effects as the sentence imposed is deemed to be executed by operation of law. In exchange, in case the person convicted does not comply with the supervision measures set forth by law, with the obligations imposed by the court or with the civil obligations set forth in the judgment of conviction during the supervision period, the court is obliged to revoke the advantage of suspending the sentence execution under supervision and to dispose its execution by deprivation of liberty. If the person convicted commits a new offence during the supervision period, the trial court is obliged to establish the sentence for the respective offence, to revoke the suspension of the execution of the sentence under supervision and to apply the sentence according to the second offence rules or to the rules of the intermediary plurality.