Suchergebnisse

COVER; quartino; INDICE; Premessa; HANS KELSEN'S GOD AND THE STATE: THE THEORY OF POSITIVE LAW AS METHODOLOGICAL ANARCHISM; "UGUAGLIANZA": QUANTIFICATORE UNIVERSALE?; DWORKIN, COLEMAN E L'IDEA DI "CONVENZIONE"; 'TO RESTORE A COMPLEX UNITY ... RICOEUR WITH AND BEYOND DWORKIN'; LEGAL SHAPES AND EFFECTIVENESS; BIBLIOGRAFIA

Il tema dell'eccessiva durata dei processi e delle sue conseguenze pregiudizievoli sull'effettività della tutela giudiziaria rappresenta, da sempre, uno dei principali nodi del rapporto tra giustizia e opinione pubblica.Sin dall'unificazione italiana, la questione è stata affrontata per lo più sul piano delle riforme del processo e dell'ordinamento giudiziario, senza, tuttavia, la predisposizione di adeguati interventi in grado di incidere sull'organizzazione delle strutture e del personale. Se soltanto di recente il nostro ordinamento ha approntato strumenti di tutela diretta al principio della ragionevole durata del processo, formalizzato nell'art. 111 Cost., la responsabilità disciplinare dei magistrati per ritardo nel deposito dei provvedimenti ha rappresentato, sin dall'inizio del Novecento, uno degli strumenti principali non solo per reprimere gli episodi più gravi (oggi determinanti addirittura un danno erariale da disservizio), ma anche per restituire credibilità alla funzione giudiziaria, nell'ambito delle complesse dinamiche relative al rapporto tra magistratura e società.Lo studio mira a valutare se, in assenza di idonei strumenti normativi volti ad evitare o quantomeno a contenere il fenomeno della lunghezza dei procedimenti, gli interventi della giurisprudenza, prima, della Suprema corte disciplinare e, dopo, della Sezione disciplinare del Consiglio superiore della magistratura, chiamate a sanzionare gli illeciti dei singoli magistrati, siano stati in grado, nella difficoltà di trovare un equilibrio tra standard di rendimento e carichi esigibili, di rispondere in maniera soddisfacente al contenimento dei tempi del processo e alla riduzione dell'arretrato, obiettivi tra i principali del PNRR. ; The matter on the excessive duration of the judicial processes and its damaging consequences about the effects of the legal protection has always been one of the main issues in the relationship between justice and public opinion.Since the Italian unification, the problem has been mainly considered from the point of view of both judicial process reforms and judicial system reforms, without, however, providing adequate means to affect the organization of the structure and the personnel.It is just a short time since our legal system provided protection resources based on the principle of a fair duration of the judicial process, established in Article 111 of the Constitution. Whereas, since the beginning of the twentieth century, the disciplinary liability of judges, due to the delay in filing judicial orders, has represented one of the main resource not only to contain the most serious events (nowadays they cause even fiscal damage by disservice) but also to restore credibility in the judicial activity for the complicated dynamics related to the relationship between judiciary and society.Both the matters on the disciplinary liability of judges and the judiciary independence are interwoven in Italian history after unification and they had to find a delicate equilibrium.If during the liberal age and the Fascism, the disciplinary liability – according to the nineteenth-century model of the judge as an officer integrated in the state apparatus – allowed the control over judges – which was largely guaranteed, directly or not, by the executive power –, in republican Italy, instead, it fulfilled the aim to ensure the regular execution of the judicial activity thanks to a self-government system and to a different judge' role inside the judicial system.The disciplinary bodies that were called to evaluate the judges' conduct – the Supreme Disciplinary Court before and then after the year 1958 the Disciplinary Division of the Superior Council of the Judiciary – have realized a balance between the requests for reducing the long time frames in justice and the need to protect the prestige of judges.Referring to the case law of the Disciplinary Division of the Superior Council of the Judiciary, the Castelli reform introduced a standardization of disciplinary wrong, including the delay in filing judicial orders. It is regulated by art. 2 paragraph 1 letter q, of Legislative Decree of 23 february 2006 no. 109, and in accordance with it, the «repeated, serious and unjustified delay to carry out the job in the exercise of their duties» constitutes a wrong; «it is supposed that a delay is not serious when it does not exceed three times the period provided for by the law to carry out the job, except it may be proved otherwise».Such prediction represents already an improvement over the last years, where the disciplinary judge – in the absence of a rule considering the conduct of the 'idle' judge as a particular illegal case – could punish the most striking cases in a discretionary and variable manner, and not without contradiction. So these cases showed a clear violation by the judge who was blamed for a lack of diligence and his negligence was often accompanied by a complaint from the lawyers.At present in accordance with the provisions, three different and concurrent conditions must exist for the delay to be illegal: reiteration, seriousness of the delay and a lack of justification. These conditions (that are here studied according to the case law) are therefore all essential for the punishment of the delays. This study aims to determine if the case law measures, in the absence of suitable regulatory means for avoiding or at least containing the phenomenon of the slowness of proceedings, firstly, by the Supreme Disciplinary Court and, later, by the Disciplinary Division of the Superior Council of the Judiciary which had to punish the wrong of each judge, have been able to find a difficult balance between the standards of performance and a bearable workload. Furthermore if they were able to contain satisfactorily both the judicial process time and the delays, which are some of the main goals of the National Recovery Plan and Resilience.

Innocent III was, without any doubt, the pope who gave the greatest contribution to the birth and affirmation of the "Romano-canonical procedure". One in particular, among the legislative measures of this Pope, constitutes the central point of this essay dedicated to the role of writing in the judicial process: the decree Quoniam contra issued in the Fourth Lateran Council and traditionally considered as the decisive factor for the affirmation of a new judicial procedure characterized by the clear prevalence of writing on orality. The subject is dealt with in three sections: the first deals with the situation previuos to the issuing of this decree; the second is devoted to examining the contents of the same text and the third to some reflections on the impact it had on the development of doctrine and legal practice during the late Middle Ages.

Al centro della riflessione si staglia il tema della verità, nella dimensione del giudizio, relativamente all'accertamento della veridicità dei fatti che nascono dalla controversia. L'attenzione verte sul giudizio in senso logico-giuridico sul piano veritativo e dunque creativo ma anche intorno ai processi tecnologici. Negli ultimi anni, i poteri del giudice hanno preso sempre più campo attraverso la presenza più ampia di una interpretazione creativa oramai nucleo essenziale della discrezionalità giudiziale. La dilatazione di spazi di discrezionalità giudiziale apre una riflessione circa la dimensione politica e ideologica della posizione assunta dai giudici e il reale pericolo per le garanzie democratiche. Si aprono altre vie, in particolare quella della tecnica, ma la verità in ogni caso va ricercata perché essa andrà sempre oltre la possibilità di essere di semplice ausilio attraverso la tecnologia. Non possiamo immaginare il giudice macchina, judge in the machine, come un possibile ghost in the machine ma al contrario ricercarne la presenza. ; At the center of the reflection stands the theme of truth, in the dimension of judgment, relative to ascertaining the truthfulness of the facts that arise from the controversy. The attention focuses on the judgment in a logical-legal sense on the truthful and therefore creative level but also about the technological processes. In recent years, the judge's powers have increasingly through the wider presence of a creative interpretation now essential nucleus of judicial discretion. The dilation of spaces of judicial discretion opens a reflection about the political and ideological dimension of the position taken by the judges and about the real danger for democratic guarantees. Other ways open up, in particular the technology, but in any case the truth must be sought because it will always go beyond the possibility of being a simple aid through technology. We cannot imagine the machine judge, judge in the machine, as a possible ghost in the machine but on the contrary to seek his presence.

Cover; Quartino; INDICE; PREMESSA METODOLOGICA E DELIMITAZIONE DELL'INDAGINE; CAPITOLO I -- LE ORGANIZZAZIONI DI INTEGRAZIONE REGIONALE IN EUROPA ED IN AMERICA; CAPITOLO II -ELEMENTI DI ANALISI DEGLI ORGANISMIGIURISDIZIONALI OGGETTO DI INDAGINE; CAPITOLO III -- L'ESPERIENZA EUROPEA; CAPITOLO IV -- L'ESPERIENZA AMERICANA; CAPITOLO V -- UNA LETTURA TRASVERSALE DELLE CARATTERISTICHE DEGLI ORGANISMI GIURISDIZIONALI ANALIZZATI; CAPITOLO VI -I CARATTERI DI UN MODELLO "TIPICO" DIORGANISMO GIURISDIZIONALE ALL'INTERNO DIUN'ORGANIZZAZIONE DI INTEGRAZIONE REGIONALE; INDICE DEGLI AUTORI; Volumi pubblicati.

Printed at the Daily Malta Chronicle, Valletta. ; English version, titled "Remarks of the Chamber of Advocates of Malta addressed to His Majesty's government, to both Houses of Parliament, and to the Malta Government upon those parts of the report of the Malta Royal Commission published on the 22nd April 1912, which concern judicial procedure and the language question in Malta" can be found at https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar//handle/123456789/16875 ; Observations of the Chamber of Advocates of Malta on those parts of the report of the Royal Commission on Malta published April 22, 1912 relating to judicial procedure, and the language question. ; N/A

La diffusione del processo penale telematico è ostacolata da molteplici cause. Aspetti di natura normativa poiché, tra l'altro, non è ancora possibile esimersi dal deposito cartaceo della notizia di reato ai sensi dell'art 109 Disp. Att.c.p.p. e degli atti successivi anche se telematicamente trasmissibili senza, però, poter essere, per ragioni tecniche, firmati digitalmente. Inoltre la segretezza delle indagini preliminari e le esigenze garantistiche proprie del processo penale sono state un deterrente all'implementazione dei sistemi informativi nel corso degli anni. Aspetti di natura tecnica, in quanto, in ambito penale, vengono utilizzati diversi sistemi informativi a differenza del processo civile dove l'applicativo è unico. Aspetti di natura organizzativa: la peculiarità propria dell'ufficio giudiziario consiste nella coesistenza di due differenti tipologie di categorie lavorative: da un lato i magistrati che si caratterizzano per le forti logiche d'azione autonoma e dall'altro il personale amministrativo, categoria all'interno della quale i rapporti sono regolati rigidamente. Tale profonda differenza ha ostacolato la diffusione dei sistemi informativi negli uffici giudiziari e l'unica soluzione realisticamente percorribile, per arginare il problema, consiste in un approccio conciliativo e di mediazione tra le differenti tipologie dei soggetti operanti nel settore giustizia italiano, come confermato dalle interviste effettuate negli uffici stessi. Approccio finalizzato alla condivisione dell'importanza della diffusione dell'Information Technology, che, se condivisa dal personale togato e non, arginerebbe, fin dall'inizio, il rischio di rigetto del sistema informativo. Condivisione non solo degli obiettivi da perseguire, ma anche delle problematiche informatiche, giuridiche ed organizzative che le due tipologie di organizzazione si trovano a dover affrontare nel corso dell'implementazione del sistema informativo al fine di trovare di volta in volta soluzioni concrete, ragionate collettivamente, al problema specifico che si deve risolvere. ; The spread of the criminal justice process is hampered by multiple causes. It is not yet possible, among other things, to exclude paper filing of the crime reports under art 109 Disp. Att.c.p.p. And subsequent acts Legislative aspects, even though it can be telematicly transmissible without, if technically possible, being digitally signed. Moreover, the secrecy of preliminary investigations and the safeguarding needs of the criminal process have been a deterrent to the implementation of a telematic informative systems over the years. Aspects of a technical nature, a criminal justice process uses different telematic information systems unlike the civil process where a unique telematic application is used. Organizational aspects: the peculiar nature of the judicial office consists in the coexistence of two different types of work categories: on one hand, magistrates are characterized by the strong logic of independent action and, on the other hand, the administrative staff, a category within which relations are rigidly regulated. Such a profound difference has hindered the spread of information systems in the judicial offices, and the only realistic solution to solve this problem lies in a conciliatory approach and mediation between the different types of people working in the Italian justice sector, as confirmed by the interviews Carried out in our offices. An approach towards sharing the importance of the dissemination of Information Technology, which, if shared by the hired staff and freelancers, would eliminate the risk of rejection of the information system. Sharing not only the objectives to be pursued, but also the IT, legal and organizational issues that the two types of organizations face when implementing the information system in order to find concrete collective solutions, to specific problems that needs to be resolved.

La tesi di dottorato ha come oggetto di studio gli aspetti sostanziali della vendita giudiziale da un punto di vista comparatistico tra Spagna e Italia. Si tratta di un tema che non è stato analizzato profondamente dalle più recenti dottrine spagnola e italiana, che è caratterizzato da una notevole complessità tecnica visto il suo forte carattere interdisciplinare (in particolare, processuale-sostanziale) e la cui vigenza attuale è stata intensificata dalla grande quantità di processi di esecuzione che in questo periodo di instabilità economica sono una constante nei Tribunali spagnoli e italiani. Il fatto che costituisca un'istituzione giuridica inquadrata nell'ambito del processo di espropriazione forzata fa sì che questa possieda un accentuato carattere processuale e, infatti, è il legislatore processuale che si occupa per la maggior parte del suo regime giuridico. Tuttavia, al di là di questa sua natura evidentemente processuale, essa produce una serie di effetti sostanziali di enorme importanza, che sono proprio l'oggetto della tesi di dottorato, nello specifico ambito dei beni immobili (considerando la grande importanza economica e pratica dei diritti di questa natura nella nostra realtà socio-economica). ; The PhD thesis seeks the study of the civil aspects of the judicial sale from a comparative point of view between Italy and Spain. It is a subject which hasn't been deeply analyzed by the recent Italian and Spanish doctrine, and which is characterized by a considerable technical complexity due to its interdisciplinary nature (mainly, procedural and civil). It is also a current issue in this period of economic crisis in which foreclosure processes are a day by day reality of our Courts. The fact of being an institution framed in the foreclosure process outlines its procedural nature, but that cannot hide the fact of producing important civil effects of great importance which are precisely the aim of the PhD thesis.

ll tema dell'eccessiva durata dei processi e delle sue conseguenze pregiudizievoli sull'effettività della tutela giudiziaria rappresenta, da sempre, uno dei principali nodi del rapporto tra giustizia e opinione pubblica. Sin dall'unificazione italiana, la questione è stata affrontata per lo più sul piano delle riforme del processo e dell'ordinamento giudiziario, senza, tuttavia, la predisposizione di adeguati interventi in grado di incidere sull'organizzazione delle strutture e del personale. Se soltanto di recente il nostro ordinamento ha approntato strumenti di tutela diretta al principio della ragionevole durata del processo, formalizzato nell'art. 111 Cost., la responsabilità disciplinare dei magistrati per ritardo nel deposito dei provvedimenti ha rappresentato, sin dall'inizio del Novecento, uno degli strumenti principali non solo per reprimere gli episodi più gravi (oggi determinanti addirittura un danno erariale da disservizio), ma anche per restituire credibilità alla funzione giudiziaria, nell'ambito delle complesse dinamiche relative al rapporto tra magistratura e società. Lo studio mira a valutare se, in assenza di idonei strumenti normativi volti ad evitare o quantomeno a contenere il fenomeno della lunghezza dei procedimenti, gli interventi della giurisprudenza, prima, della Suprema corte disciplinare e, dopo, della Sezione disciplinare del Consiglio superiore della magistratura, chiamate a sanzionare gli illeciti dei singoli magistrati, siano stati in grado, nella difficoltà di trovare un equilibrio tra standard di rendimento e carichi esigibili, di rispondere in maniera soddisfacente al contenimento dei tempi del processo e alla riduzione dell'arretrato, obiettivi tra i principali del PNRR. ; The matter on the excessive duration of the judicial processes and its damaging consequences about the effects of the legal protection has always been one of the main issues in the relationship between justice and public opinion. Since the Italian unification, the problem has been mainly considered from the point of view of both judicial process reforms and judicial system reforms, without, however, providing adequate means to affect the organization of the structure and the personnel. It is just a short time since our legal system provided protection resources based on the principle of a fair duration of the judicial process, established in Article 111 of the Constitution. Whereas, since the beginning of the twentieth century, the disciplinary liability of judges, due to the delay in filing judicial orders, has represented one of the main resource not only to contain the most serious events (nowadays they cause even fiscal damage by disservice) but also to restore credibility in the judicial activity for the complicated dynamics related to the relationship between judiciary and society. Both the matters on the disciplinary liability of judges and the judiciary independence are interwoven in Italian history after unification and they had to find a delicate equilibrium. If during the liberal age and the Fascism, the disciplinary liability – according to the nineteenth-century model of the judge as an officer integrated in the state apparatus – allowed the control over judges – which was largely guaranteed, directly or not, by the executive power –, in republican Italy, instead, it fulfilled the aim to ensure the regular execution of the judicial activity thanks to a self-government system and to a different judge' role inside the judicial system. The disciplinary bodies that were called to evaluate the judges' conduct – the Supreme Disciplinary Court before and then after the year 1958 the Disciplinary Division of the Superior Council of the Judiciary – have realized a balance between the requests for reducing the long time frames in justice and the need to protect the prestige of judges. Referring to the case law of the Disciplinary Division of the Superior Council of the Judiciary, the Castelli reform introduced a standardization of disciplinary wrong, including the delay in filing judicial orders. It is regulated by art. 2 paragraph 1 letter q, of Legislative Decree of 23 february 2006 no. 109, and in accordance with it, the «repeated, serious and unjustified delay to carry out the job in the exercise of their duties» constitutes a wrong; «it is supposed that a delay is not serious when it does not exceed three times the period provided for by the law to carry out the job, except it may be proved otherwise». Such prediction represents already an improvement over the last years, where the disciplinary judge – in the absence of a rule considering the conduct of the 'idle' judge as a particular illegal case – could punish the most striking cases in a discretionary and variable manner, and not without contradiction. So these cases showed a clear violation by the judge who was blamed for a lack of diligence and his negligence was often accompanied by a complaint from the lawyers. At present in accordance with the provisions, three different and concurrent conditions must exist for the delay to be illegal: reiteration, seriousness of the delay and a lack of justification. These conditions (that are here studied according to the case law) are therefore all essential for the punishment of the delays. This study aims to determine if the case law measures, in the absence of suitable regulatory means for avoiding or at least containing the phenomenon of the slowness of proceedings, firstly, by the Supreme Disciplinary Court and, later, by the Disciplinary Division of the Superior Council of the Judiciary which had to punish the wrong of each judge, have been able to find a difficult balance between the standards of performance and a bearable workload. Furthermore if they were able to contain satisfactorily both the judicial process time and the delays, which are some of the main goals of the National Recovery Plan and Resilience.

La giustizia di transizione cilena. Uno studio della giustizia di transizione cilena da un punto di vista storico, che attraverso una ricostruzione del periodo permetta di spiegare la scelta di giustizia sulle violazioni dei diritti umani accadute nel regime militare precedente al ritorno alla democrazia in Cile. Insieme a quello, lo studio del "Caso Letelier" come esempio della giustizia di transizione, valutando allo stesso tempo l'influsso della politica nelle procedure giudiziarie durante la transizione cilena. Transitional justice in Chile. A study of the Chilean transitional justice from a historical point of view, through the reconstruction of the transitional context and the way that the Chilean new democracy faced to the past human rights violations. Also, the study of the "Letelier Case" that was a judicial process that involves the Chileans justice courts for almost two decades, analysing the impact of the political decisions in the justice during the transitional contexts.

The article highlights the decline of the duty to state reasons both in administrative acts and judicial decisions. Essentially, albeit not exclusively, case law plays a key role in depreciation of the general duty to state reasons for administrative acts. This happens through different manifestations (lack of reasoning, implicit statement of reasons, sufficient or posthumous statement of reasons) and concerns even discretionary administrative acts. Likewise, the duty to state reasons for judicial decisions is going through a process of progressive emptying, both by legislature initiatives and case-law. Even in this case, the phenomenon is general and transversal, covering both administrative courts and civil courts decisions. It has different manifestations, such as simplified statement of reasons or statement of reasons per relationem. The decline of the duty to state reasons leads to a return to the past, when all that matter was the decision. The statement of reasons relates instead to legitimization and rationalization of public power. The lack of the statement of reasons is the essential means of arbitrary exercise of power.

ITALIANO: La svolta epocale che si registra nell'ambito del processo fra la fine del XII secolo e i primi decenni del Duecento non è che il punto di arrivo di un lungo percorso che ha le sue origini in quel fenomeno chiamato dalla storiografia giuridica "Rinascimento giuridico medievale" e che conosce uno dei suoi momenti decisivi nelle riforme del grande pontefice Innocenzo III destinate a segnalarsi fra gli apporti più rilevanti forniti dalla Chiesa sulla via dell'edificazione di un nuovo procedimento che sarà chiamato "romano-canonico". Uno in particolare dei molti interventi normativi del papa giurista in materia processuale è il punto centrale del presente contributo che, dedicato al ruolo della scrittura nel processo, è facilmente identificabile nella costituzione Quoniam contra del Concilio Lateranense IV, tradizionalmente considerata come il fattore decisivo per l'affermazione di un nuovo rito processuale caratterizzato dalla netta prevalenza della scrittura sull'oralità. Il discorso si articola in tre parti dedicate rispettivamente alla situazione precedente all'emanazione di tale norma, all'esame dei contenuti della norma stessa e ad alcune riflessioni sull'impatto che essa ebbe sulla dottrina e sulla prassi bassomedievale. / ENGLISH: Innocent III was, without any doubt, the pope who gave the greatest contribution to the birth and affirmation of the "Romano-canonical procedure". One in particular, among the legislative measures of this Pope, constitutes the central point of this essay dedicated to the role of writing in the judicial process: the decree Quoniam contra issued in the Fourth Lateran Council and traditionally considered as the decisive factor for the affirmation of a new judicial procedure characterized by the clear prevalence of writing on orality. The subject is dealt with in three sections: the first deals with the situation previuos to the issuing of this decree; the second is devoted to examining the contents of the same text and the third to some reflections on the impact it had on the development of doctrine and legal practice during the late Middle Ages

Abstract The appointment of judges to supranational and international courts has long been a neglected area of sovereign activity. However, the growing role and significance of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), by now one of the most significant players within the European political and constitutional space, demands reforms which also affect its architecture. The creation of the advisory panel under article 255 TFUE, whose task is to provide the Council with opinions on candidates suitability, it could be considered one of the most interesting novelties introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. Indeed, the panel is definitely a way to improve judicial independence and proficiency but also a means to centralize judicial selection process at the supranational level. we argue that panel activity is much more influential than the modesty of its formal powers let suppose. After a deep analysis on judicial selection procedures for the ECJ, we underline the strength and the weakness points of the new panel 255. This study let us to believe that the new panel is an important step forward a stronger European integration. In the second part, adopting a comparative approach, we propose some judicial selection models for supranational and international courts. In this way, the thesis contextualizes art.255 TFUE within a general trend present at a comparative level. Finally the thesis offers a critical reading of art.255 TFUE analyzing some important cross-cutting issues concerning independence, transparency, democracy and diversity in judicial nominations. To this extent, this doctoral thesis shows how judicial selection procedures may have important substantial implications: especially with regard to ECJ legitimacy.

Administrative twinning projects are one of the instruments used by the EU preaccession strategy to adapt the membership candidate to the Copenhagen criteria. They set up a relation between national administrations of old & new members, aimed to exchange know how, best practices & organizational models. In the field of judicial reforms, twinning has been used to finance activities, to build capacities & to change the organization of the judiciary. The relations between old & new members, the supply of models & best practices put forward by the NGOs & the international think tanks & the appropriateness of the policy solutions proposed intervene as facilitating conditions in the process of diffusion of normative inputs. The paper analyses the mechanisms of selection & diffusion of know how & models & the conditions the twinning projects have created to foster judicial cooperation in the enlarged EU. Tables, References. Adapted from the source document.