(1) Background: Regulations governing food supplements vary considerably across countries, allowing products that are prohibited in one jurisdiction to be legally sold in another. Furthermore, online sales enable and facilitate this practice. Regarding pharmaceutical malpractice, the absence of a standardized European framework complicates the evaluation of pharmacist liability. As a result, the specific elements of the liability framework are defined by the national legislation of each Member State. The aim of our review is to map the global regulatory landscape of food supplements and to examine the pharmacist’s professional responsibilities, including instances of malpractice related to this area. (2) Methods: A literature review covering publications from January 2020 to December 2024 was performed using four databases: Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. The search retrieved 8243 records, of which 77 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The extracted data were organized into five main themes: pharmacist responsibility and malpractice, food supplement regulation, consumer safety, health claims, and pharmacist knowledge. (3) Results: The literature reviewed indicated a relatively low number of malpractice cases within the pharmacy profession compared to other professions. A higher incidence of cases is observed among male pharmacists and those practicing in the private sector. Notably, no cases have been identified addressing pharmacists’ responsibilities in the dispensing of food supplements. In the context of food supplement regulation, the reviewed literature highlights a lack of standardized terminology and harmonized legislation across different jurisdictions. Therefore, products may be classified differently across jurisdictions. Another observed barrier is the considerable variation in market access requirements across countries. Regarding consumer safety, several irregularities have been observed. Substantial non-compliance in both product composition and labeling has been observed, reflecting insufficient quality control measures. Concerning health claims, significant regulatory non-compliance with European Union regulations has been documented. In addition, widespread misleading advertising practices have been observed. With respect to pharmacists’ knowledge, the reviewed literature identifies several professional challenges within pharmacy practice, particularly those concerning the dispensing of food supplements. (4) Conclusions: This research offers a comprehensive analysis of the literature published over the past five years concerning pharmaceutical malpractice cases, as well as an examination of food supplement regulation and the professional responsibilities of pharmacists. A recurring barrier identified is the absence of unified regulatory frameworks worldwide. This results in uncertainty concerning the pharmacist’s professional role and responsibilities.

Background: The modern pharmacist is no longer just a person who prepares medicines, but has become an important health care provider involved in public health, including pharmaceutical care, prevention, chronic disease management and digital health. Such a transition requires the need for professional independence, supported by effective regulation. Deontological codes guarantee this independence and duties but variability in legal frameworks across Europe limits consistent innovation in pharmaceutical care. Objectives: The study analyses the deontological framework for pharmacist professional independence across 30 European jurisdictions and evaluates how effectively each national framework protects independence as a precondition for the development of pharmaceutical care, taking into account professional mobility and changes in healthcare system requirements. Methods: A comparative analysis examined deontological codes and professional ethics from 27 EU countries, the UK, Norway, and Switzerland. Data were collected using a 14-criterion protocol on topics like legal status, professional independence, conscientious objection, confidentiality, advertising, inter-professional relations, competition, errors, telepharmacy, digitalization, continuity of care, professional development, salary regulation, pharmaceutical services, and incompatibilities. These criteria were organized into five thematic clusters for comparison. Results: Three regulation models were identified regarding the legal status of deontological codes: (a) incorporation into primary health legislation, (b) delegation to professional bodies to establish binding corporatist codes, and (c) implementation of soft-law professional standards. While all models share an ethical focus, emphasizing patient priority and confidentiality, they differ considerably in terms of legal bindingness, sanctions, and structural safeguards of professional independence—such as pharmacists’ salaries, ownership rights, and incompatibilities. Telepharmacy is governed by different regulatory frameworks, whereas the application of AI in pharmacy practice has not yet been incorporated into existing deontological codes. Conclusions: The current deontological framework affirms professional independence but offers uneven protection; its effectiveness relies more on the legal structure, enforceability, and safeguards than on explicitly enshrined independence. EU-wide harmonization is neither legally feasible nor essential; instead, a shared minimum standard advocated by professional organizations could facilitate European coordination. The digital and AI gap is the most urgent area for deontological updates.

Long debated in terms of the challenges and the opportunities it offers, artificial intelligence is also of major relevance in the judicial system. The purpose of this study is to analyze how digital applications influence the current conduct of administrative disputes, as well as the premises for their evolution, considering the fundamental principles, procedural requirements, and ensuring transparency and trust in the court (including from the point of view of the right to a fair trial). Determining a transgression from the traditional sphere, the use of artificial intelligence in the resolution of administrative disputes brings substantial changes in terms of reducing the duration of the procedure (by reference to the reasonable term, which is a standard also recognized at European level), eliminating possible human errors both in the preliminary procedure (from the perspective of a possible lack of objectivism from the public authorities when they are seized with the revocation of administrative acts) and in the actual trial phase, through the automatic filtering of submitted claims and the prediction of solutions based on the relevant jurisprudence (it may even transform the concept of "administrative court"). All these "reconfigurations" of the judicial procedure must be carried out with a sense of responsibility to ensure a balance between innovation and the interests of litigants.