Europe’s vision for 2030 relies on the impact of European and international actors’ policies on European local and regional governments while strengthening their local autonomy with a view to make it evolve their role and, why not, saving the European project. Local governments are the most able to exercise much more powers over their territories and to take responsibility for their execution; as for the Nation-State, it must be more focused on its roles as controller and evaluator of the local public action. In addition, local and regional governments can provide the necessary solutions that Nation-States cannot solve alone; to save money those international institutions impose. In order to solve the challenges of our time, a special attention is paid to state reform, the status of local public officials (dealing with issues related to basic public services) and the evaluation of the local public action by fighting against the formulas of the privatization of public action, while promoting, but framing them, the public-private partnerships.

In practical situations with medical implications, the nature of the expertise must be established as a matter of priority. This matter involves a series of discussions on the differences between forensic expertise and specialized medical expertise. Nowadays, forensic expertise continues to be approached from an obsolete perspective, without detecting its limits in medical or legal matters. Highlighting the differences between the two categories of expertise and the shortcomings of the relevant legislation has major practical consequences. The utility of this study lies in terms of analyzing the legal significance of respecting the medical specialty and the object of the medical expertise – a new category of expertise, which seems to be of no practical use, despite its great importance. This respects the principle of medical specialty and takes into account also the level of development of medical science in the field of expertise. Adherence to incidental medical guidelines or protocols can be verified only by a specialized medical expertise, the only one able to analyze the compliance of the medical conduct. Instead, the limits of forensic expertise are revealed by its object, which is just another expertise in medical law, without encompassing the entire medical or legal matter, in a single specialty. The two types of work must be clearly delimited in judicial practice, for the full clarification of legal situations with medical implications, regardless of their nature.

The study approaches from an interdisciplinary perspective the problems generated by alcohol consumption while driving. The perspectives from which this problem is viewed are both the legal one and the psychological one, but the analysis is also based on statistical data. These data are capitalized in the sense of observing the particularities involved by this phenomenon, by reference to the age categories that are most often found in known statistics, but are also compared with the way in which the issue is regulated in the legislation of other states. All these elements are likely to lead to the conclusion that the national legislation governing sanctions or limits on alcohol consumption in the context of driving a vehicle on public roads requires significant improvements.

Against the background of the interpenetration of the forms of legal liability for the same illicit deed, whether it is criminal, administrative, contraventional or disciplinary liability, in conjunction with the case law of the European courts attributing criminal character to some accusations beyond the legal qualification of the deed in the domestic law, a double criminal liability may be reached, thus posing the problem of the cumulation of these liabilities in terms of respecting the right not to be punished twice (ne bis in idem). Although no matter can be an exception, the issue arises mainly in areas where there are various forms of liability in the domestic law and different authorities with supervisory and sanctioning powers, such as tax evasion, public order, forestry or environmental offences or, finally, labour protection, which is of interest here. Thus, in the field of safety and health at work, the employer’s liability in the event of accidents at work may be exemplary for such situations, given that he is liable for both a criminal liability incurred by the judicial bodies and a contraventional liability established by the special bodies of the labour inspection, following that our approach will address this issue in the context of the current case law of the European courts of law (such as Case A and B v. Norway, Grand Chamber of the E.C.H.R., or the C.J.E.U. cases, Luca Menci, Garlsson Real Estate SA and Enzo Di Puma, Consob).