Research into the legal status of foreigners in East Adriatic medieval urban communities is, unfortunately, hindered by the lack of sources. This insurmountable obstacle does not permit a deeper and more comprehensive insight into this challenging topic. The legal status of foreigners may only be studied for the period from the second half of the thirteenth and, especially, early fourteenth century onwards. It is in this period and thanks to the revival of the Roman law that East Adriatic urban communes, following the example set by their Italian counterparts, began to set down their own collections of written laws (statutes). The statutes paid attention to the regulation of the legal status of foreigners. The statutes are indeed the richest and the most important sources for this topic. Yet it is important to keep in mind that the diversity of the socio-economic and political concerns of each individual commune shaped their individual attitudes towards foreigners. This diversity makes a general appraisal of the legal status of foreigners in East Adriatic communes difficult. The best we can do is to point out certain trends in the statutory legislations. Following the example set by the twelfth and thirteenth century trading contracts, with which the urban communes regulated free trade between them and ensured the personal and material security of its merchants, many of the statutes' regulations focused on the issues around the property and procedural criminal law, as well as law proceedings. These regulations provided foreigners with legal protection against arbitrary acts committed by the host town and provided a swift legal action in the case of material or personal injury. Yet in order to protect their own interests as well as the interests of their citizens, the communes often applied various exclusions to the regulations concerning foreigners. These exclusions were mostly expressed in the area of the law of obligations (securing obligations, cession, claims, loans, borrowing, purchase contracts etc.) as well as the material law and in particular the property law. The most important exclusion concerning the foreigner's right to property—indeed one that received the greatest amount of attention in the statutes—was the limitation to their ownership of real estate. Limitations in this area were not as rigid as it may seem at first glance, as the statutory regulations in certain communes did give (conditional) right to own real estate. In most cases, purchase of real estate required the concurrence of the communal body in charge, or the bestowal of residence rights (habitator). Yet foreigners who had been granted residence and then moved away at their own will, in some towns faced punishment by confiscation of their immovable assets. In some cases, the rights of the foreigner-owner of the real estate were limited so that s/he was permitted to bequest their real estate only to the persons not subject to secular authorities—ie the clerics. This prohibition, however, applied equally to the town dwellers and to foreigners. Furthermore, with respect to the acquisition of the property, foreigners suffered explicit limitations. An example is the regulation that prohibited the residents to name the foreigner as their heir, or the prohibition from participating in public auctions. Other limitations to the foreigners' right to own property specified in the town statutes referred, for the most part, to their movable assets, that is the products and the commodities they traded (wheat, wine, salt, wood). These goods were of vital importance for the economic life of the commune. Similar limitations may be found in regulations concerning exploitation of communal natural resources. As the examples above indicate, the statutory legislation was first and foremost focused upon the regulation of those questions that the commune considered especially important from a long-term perspective. Yet as sources for the history of the legal status of foreigners in East Adriatic communal societies, the statutes are insufficient.
La presente tesi intende offrire una ricostruzione del fenomeno della partecipazione dei dipendenti al capitale d'impresa, analizzando la disciplina interna anche alla luce del dibattito sul tema sviluppatosi a livello europeo. Nel primo capitolo vengono dunque ripercorsi gli interventi dell'Unione Europea, con particolare attenzione al recente studio "The promotion of employee ownership and participation" del 2014. L'elaborato si sofferma, quindi, sulla letteratura economica in materia di "shared capitalism", addotta dal legislatore comunitario a sostegno di una promozione della partecipazione finanziaria dei lavoratori. La normativa nazionale relativa all'azionariato dei dipendenti, anche nella sua evoluzione storica, è invece analizzata nel terzo capitolo. Infine, sono approfondite le prospettive aperte dal dialogo con il diritto europeo, considerando gli strumenti di gestione collettiva delle azioni e la possibile promozione dell'azionariato dei dipendenti in un'ottica di favore per gli investitori con orizzonte di lungo periodo. Complessivamente, l'elaborato fornisce un'utile chiave di lettura di un istituto sempre più attuale e connotato da importanti spunti interdisciplinari. ; This project aims at setting out the employee share ownership phenomenon, analysing the Italian discipline in the light of the recent European debate. At first, an overview of European Union's initiatives on employee financial participation is presented, focusing on the 2014 published research "The promotion of employee ownership and participation". Secondly, the economic literature on "shared capitalism", as cited by the European legislator in supporting employee financial participation, is studied. In the third chapter, Italian legislation is analysed both from an actual and historical perspective on the issue. Discussion on the employee financial participation scenario deriving from the dialogue between Italian and European law follows, featuring the issues of collective employee share ownership and the promotion of employees as long-term shareholders. Overall, the thesis describes in a comprehensive way employee share ownership, offering a useful key to understand this interdisciplinary issue.
In Giangastone Bolla's Program for the Review of Agricultural Law (1922) land ownership was a testing ground for the «modern transformations of property law» – on which Enrico Finzi – primarily with the «social function». Bolla observed the shift from ownership to the company; asserted that the link between agriculture and the state required the scholar of agricultural law to undertake the «social and economic reconstruction of the country». In view of the «social function» Arrigo Serpieri – since 1923 Undersecretary of State for Agriculture – promoted various legislative measures for the «integral reclamation»; the policy for agriculture was linked to the organization of the corporate state in fieri (Brugi, Arcangeli). The 1933 Consolidated Law (TU) aimed at the rehabilitation of the land to increase its productivity and improve the conditions of the peasants with land transformations of public interest, with possible expropriation of large estates and forced execution of reclamation works on private lands; from 1946 the Consolidated Law of 1933 will be considered an indication for the agrarian reform (Rossi Doria, Segni). In the first Congress of Agricultural Law, (Florence 1935), Maroi, Pugliatti, Serpieri, D'Amelio, Bolla, Ascarelli, Calamandrei discussed some issues, in the first place agricultural law as a factual experience, linked to rural life, irreducible to a uniform juridical order; hence the 'long duration' of the Jacini Report on the various agricultural Italy. In view of the civil codification, the jurists noted the insufficiency of the individualistic system; placed the request for rules focused on the good and not on the subjects, up to the overcoming of the distinction between public and private law. The most illustrious Italian jurists intervened in the volume promoted by the Confederation of agricultural workers; The Fascist conception of property expressed the detachment from the liberal conception – with an emphasis on land ownership based on work (Ferrara, Panunzio) – and held firm to private initiative (Filippo Vassalli). Bolla reiterated the particularity of land ownership between the corporate system and the civil code project, «a private institution, aided and regulated by the State», with the owner «moderator et arbiter» of his own initiative. In the civil code of 1942, land ownership made sense of the dynamic aspect of productive activity, without contemplating the «social function» as a «new property right» (Pugliatti, Vassalli, D'Amelio).After the fall of the fascist regime, the struggles in the countryside forced Minister Gullo to plan agrarian contracts and regulate the occupation of uncultivated lands, with multiyear concessions to the occupying peasants; the De Gasperi award compensated the sharecroppers. The different economies of the 'different agrarian Italy' did not recommend a uniform agrarian reform; the reorganized political parties aimed at the distribution of expropriated lands, compensation to the private owner, without damaging the right of ownership. The initial action of the State to erode the large estates, with special reform bodies, had as its purpose the enhancement of small peasant property (Segni, Bandini). To combine private property and social interest in Constitution, Mortati motivated his proposal for a «constitutional statute»; Fanfani asked for «an article that speaks expressly of the land». The large estate was the most urgent but divisive issue, between Di Vittorio, who asked for its «abolition», and Einaudi for its «transformation», a choice that was imposed in the name of the various 'rural Italy'; the proposal for a rule intended to hinder large landholdings was not accepted. Article 44 of the Constitution provided for a law to impose «obligations and constraints on private land ownership», in order to «achieve rational land use and fair social relations». Bolla appreciated the choice of «transforming individual property into social property»; Vassalli wrote about a non-original «handbook for resolving the agrarian problem». In the project of the Minister for Agriculture Segni – who managed to launch a contested agrarian reform – art. 44 dictated tasks to the «future legislator»; the Sila law of 21 May 1950, the excerpt law of 21 October 1950 for particularly depressed areas, the bills on agricultural contracts were discussed in the Third Congress of Agricultural Law and in the first International Conference, promoted by Bolla, with interventions by Bassanelli, Segni, Capograssi, Pugliatti, Santoro Passarelli, Mortati, Esposito. Work was considered the architrave of land ownership, «a continually changing right, which must be modeled on social needs» (Bolla). In this context, the theoretical-practical, juridical-political reflection of Mario Bracci, professor of administrative law in Siena, rector, also in charge of teaching agricultural law, is interesting. Representative of the PdA at the National Council in the Agriculture Commission, Bracci proposed to write a «book on the socialization of the land», never published; the personal archive offers a wealth of notes previously unpublished on the subject. Bracci defined land ownership as the lintel of agricultural law and a crossroads of private and public law, between land reclamation laws, civil codification, art. 44 of the Constitution, the agrarian reform, understood as a «problem of justice». From Fascism tothe Republic, Bracci grasped technical continuities and ideological discontinuities in the structure of landed property, considered to be of constitutional significance, in referring to the person, «the conditions of the person are inextricably linked to those of landed property». As a scholar and professor of administrative law and agricultural law, since July 1944 Bracci intended to respond to the conflict in the countryside, mediating between «public purposes of agricultural production and the needs of social justice»; proposed «adequate legal forms which are forms of public law». ; Nel Programma di Giangastone Bolla per la Rivista di diritto agrario (1922) la proprietà fondiaria era banco di prova delle «moderne trasformazioni del diritto di proprietà» – su cui Enrico Finzi – in primo luogo con la «funzione sociale». Nell'azienda agraria Bolla osservava inoltre lo spostamento dalla proprietà all'impresa; asseriva che il legame tra l'agricoltura e lo Stato imponeva allo studioso del diritto agrario l'impegno per la «ricostruzione sociale ed economica del paese». In vista della «funzione sociale» Arrigo Serpieri – dal 1923 sottosegretario di Stato all'Agricoltura – promuoveva diversi provvedimenti legislativi per la «bonifica integrale»; la politica per l'agricoltura si legava all'organizzazione dello Stato corporativo in fieri (Brugi, Arcangeli). Il Testo unico del 1933 mirava al risanamento della terra per aumentarne la produttività e migliorare le condizioni dei contadini con trasformazioni fondiarie di pubblico interesse, con possibili espropri di latifondi ed esecuzione coatta di lavori di bonifica su terre private; dal 1946 il Testo unico del 1933 sarà considerato una indicazione per la riforma agraria (Rossi Doria, Segni). Nel primo Congresso di diritto agrario, (Firenze 1935), Maroi, Pugliatti, Serpieri, D'Amelio, Bolla, Ascarelli, Calamandrei discutevano alcune questioni, in primo luogo il diritto agrario come esperienza fattuale, legato alla vita rurale, irriducibile ad un ordine giuridico uniforme; da qui la lunga durata della 'fortuna' dell Relazione Jacini sulle diverse Italie agrarie. In vista della codificazione civile, i giuristi rilevavano l'insufficienza dell'impianto individualistico; ponevano l'istanza di norme incentrate sul bene e non sui soggetti, fino al superamento della distinzione tra diritto pubblico e privato. I più illustri giuristi italiani scrivevano nel volume promosso dalla Confederazione dei lavoratori dell'agricoltura; La Concezione fascista della proprietà esprimeva il distacco dalla concezione liberale – con l'accento sulla proprietà della terra fondata sul lavoro (Ferrara, Panunzio) – e teneva ferma l'iniziativa privata (Filippo Vassalli). Bolla ribadiva la particolarità della proprietà fondiaria tra ordinamento corporativo e progetto del codice civile, «istituto a base privata, aiutato e disciplinato dallo Stato», con il titolare «moderator et arbiter» della propria iniziativa. Nel codice civile del 1942 la proprietà fondiaria aveva senso dell'aspetto dinamico dell'attività produttiva, senza contemplare la «funzione sociale» come «nuovo diritto di proprietà» (Pugliatti, Vassalli, D'Amelio).Dopo la caduta del regime fascista le lotte nelle campagne imponevano al ministro Gullo di progare i contratti agrari e regolare l'occupazione delle terre incolte, con concessioni pluriennali ai contadini occupanti; il lodo De Gasperi indennizzava i mezzadri. Le differenti economie delle 'diverse Italie agrarie' sconsigliavano una riforma uniforme (Rossi Doria, Serpieri); i riorganizzati partiti politici miravano alla ripartizione delle terre espropriate e ad indennizzi al proprietario privato, senza lesioni del diritto di proprietà. L'iniziale azione dello Stato ad erosione del latifondo, con appositi Enti di riforma, aveva per scopo la valorizzazione della piccola proprietà contadina (Segni, Bandini). Per coniugare proprietà privata ed interesse sociale nella Costituzione Mortati motivava la sua proposta di «statuizione costituzionale»; Fanfani chiedeva «un articolo che parli espressamente della terra». Il latifondo era la questione più urgente ma divisiva; Di Vittorio ne chiedeva l'«abolizione » ed Einaudi la «trasformazione», scelta che si imponeva in nome delle diverse 'Italie rurali'; non si recepiva la proposta di una norma intesa ad ostacolare le grandi proprietà terriere. L'articolo 44 della Costituzione prevedeva una legge a imporre «obblighi e vincoli alla proprietà terriera privata», al fine di «conseguire il razionale sfruttamento del suolo ed equi rapporti sociali». Bolla apprezzava la scelta di «trasformare la proprietà individuale in proprietà sociale»; Vassalli scriveva di un non originale «prontuario di risoluzione del problema agrario». Nel progetto del Ministro per l'agricoltura Segni – che riusciva a far varare una contrastata riforma agraria – l'art. 44 dettava compiti al «legislatore futuro»; la legge Sila 21 Maggio 1950, la legge stralcio del 21 Ottobre 1950 per le zone particolarmente depresse, i progetti di legge sui contratti agrari erano discussi nel Terzo congresso di diritto agrario e nel primo Convegno internazionale, promosso da Bolla, con interventi di Bassanelli, Segni, Capograssi, Pugliatti, Santoro Passarelli, Mortati, Esposito. Il lavoro era considerato l'architrave della proprietà della terra, «diritto continuamente cangiante, che deve modellarsi sui bisogni sociali» (Bolla). In questo quadro è interessante la riflessione teorico-pratica, giuridico-politica di Mario Bracci, docente di diritto amministrativo a Siena, rettore, incaricato anche dell'insegnamento di diritto agrario. Rappresentante del PdA alla Consulta nazionale nella Commissione agricoltura, Bracci si proponeva di scrivere un «libro sulla socializzazione della terra», mai pubblicato; l'Archivio personale offre una mole di appunti finora inediti sul tema. Bracci collocava nella storia la proprietà della terra, che aveva senso nel «lavoro»; la definiva architrave del diritto agrario e crocevia di diritto privato e pubblico, tra le leggi di bonifica, la codificazione civile, l'art. 44 della Costituzione, la riforma agraria, intesa come «problema di giustizia». Dal fascismo alla Repubblica Bracci coglieva continuità tecniche e discontinuità ideologiche nell'assetto dell'istituto di rilevanza costituzionale, «le condizioni della persona sono indissolubilmente legate a quelle della proprietà fondiaria». Da studioso e docente di diritto amministrativo e diritto agrario dal luglio 1944 Bracci intendeva rispondere al conflitto nelle campagne, mediando tra «fini pubblici della produzione agraria e le esigenze della giustizia sociale»; proponeva «forme giuridiche adeguate e che sono forme di diritto pubblico».
International audience ; A qui appartient mon corps ? Suis-je maître de ma vie et de ma destinée ? Et si ce corps est le mien, puis-je décider de le commercialiser ? Suis-je libre de changer de sexe ou de choisir ma mort? Les torts causés à soi-même et qui ne portent pas préjudice à autrui sont-ils nécessairement immoraux ?Ces questions traversent la philosophie politique et morale et leur réponse détermine la relation qu'entretient l'individu avec lui-même et avec son intimité. Le mouvement féministe, porté par les avancées techniques en matière de contraception, a permis de porter sur la scène publique la question de la disponibilité de soi et de son corps. Cette problématique n'est pourtant pas nouvelle, elle constitue l'un des fondements du rapport au pouvoir, entendu comme contrainte de vie et de mort dans l'Ancien Régime ou en tant que discipline permanente sur le vivant, depuis l'ère moderne, comme l'a mis en lumière Michel Foucault. Si les avancées technologiques permettant d'objectiver le corps ont bien renouvelé le débat bioéthique, son ancrage demeure toutefois bien plus ancien. Les Romains organisaient la vie politique à partir de la summa divisio entre alieni iuiris et sui iuris séparant la communauté d'hommes libres et maîtres d'eux-mêmes des autres (femmes, étrangers, enfants, esclaves…) se trouvant nécessairement sous tutelle. Plus tard, la tradition chrétienne généralisera ce dispositif tutélaire en fonction d'autres critères moraux, désormais le corps n'appartient plus au chrétien. Il est le temple de Dieu, comme l'enseigne Saint Paul : « Le corps n'est pas pour l'inconduite, il est pour le Seigneur et le Seigneur pour le corps » (I, Cor.6.13.), « celui qui se livre à l'inconduite pèche contre son propre corps » (ibid., 6, 18). Le corps, porteur provisoire de l'âme, est sacré et doit être respecté par les autres comme par celui qui l'habite. L'Église n'hésite pas à utiliser la figure de l'usufruit pour caractériser le rapport de l'individu à son corps. Reprenant la tradition, Pie XII, dans son ...
International audience ; A qui appartient mon corps ? Suis-je maître de ma vie et de ma destinée ? Et si ce corps est le mien, puis-je décider de le commercialiser ? Suis-je libre de changer de sexe ou de choisir ma mort? Les torts causés à soi-même et qui ne portent pas préjudice à autrui sont-ils nécessairement immoraux ?Ces questions traversent la philosophie politique et morale et leur réponse détermine la relation qu'entretient l'individu avec lui-même et avec son intimité. Le mouvement féministe, porté par les avancées techniques en matière de contraception, a permis de porter sur la scène publique la question de la disponibilité de soi et de son corps. Cette problématique n'est pourtant pas nouvelle, elle constitue l'un des fondements du rapport au pouvoir, entendu comme contrainte de vie et de mort dans l'Ancien Régime ou en tant que discipline permanente sur le vivant, depuis l'ère moderne, comme l'a mis en lumière Michel Foucault. Si les avancées technologiques permettant d'objectiver le corps ont bien renouvelé le débat bioéthique, son ancrage demeure toutefois bien plus ancien. Les Romains organisaient la vie politique à partir de la summa divisio entre alieni iuiris et sui iuris séparant la communauté d'hommes libres et maîtres d'eux-mêmes des autres (femmes, étrangers, enfants, esclaves…) se trouvant nécessairement sous tutelle. Plus tard, la tradition chrétienne généralisera ce dispositif tutélaire en fonction d'autres critères moraux, désormais le corps n'appartient plus au chrétien. Il est le temple de Dieu, comme l'enseigne Saint Paul : « Le corps n'est pas pour l'inconduite, il est pour le Seigneur et le Seigneur pour le corps » (I, Cor.6.13.), « celui qui se livre à l'inconduite pèche contre son propre corps » (ibid., 6, 18). Le corps, porteur provisoire de l'âme, est sacré et doit être respecté par les autres comme par celui qui l'habite. L'Église n'hésite pas à utiliser la figure de l'usufruit pour caractériser le rapport de l'individu à son corps. Reprenant la tradition, Pie XII, dans son ...
International audience ; A qui appartient mon corps ? Suis-je maître de ma vie et de ma destinée ? Et si ce corps est le mien, puis-je décider de le commercialiser ? Suis-je libre de changer de sexe ou de choisir ma mort? Les torts causés à soi-même et qui ne portent pas préjudice à autrui sont-ils nécessairement immoraux ?Ces questions traversent la philosophie politique et morale et leur réponse détermine la relation qu'entretient l'individu avec lui-même et avec son intimité. Le mouvement féministe, porté par les avancées techniques en matière de contraception, a permis de porter sur la scène publique la question de la disponibilité de soi et de son corps. Cette problématique n'est pourtant pas nouvelle, elle constitue l'un des fondements du rapport au pouvoir, entendu comme contrainte de vie et de mort dans l'Ancien Régime ou en tant que discipline permanente sur le vivant, depuis l'ère moderne, comme l'a mis en lumière Michel Foucault. Si les avancées technologiques permettant d'objectiver le corps ont bien renouvelé le débat bioéthique, son ancrage demeure toutefois bien plus ancien. Les Romains organisaient la vie politique à partir de la summa divisio entre alieni iuiris et sui iuris séparant la communauté d'hommes libres et maîtres d'eux-mêmes des autres (femmes, étrangers, enfants, esclaves…) se trouvant nécessairement sous tutelle. Plus tard, la tradition chrétienne généralisera ce dispositif tutélaire en fonction d'autres critères moraux, désormais le corps n'appartient plus au chrétien. Il est le temple de Dieu, comme l'enseigne Saint Paul : « Le corps n'est pas pour l'inconduite, il est pour le Seigneur et le Seigneur pour le corps » (I, Cor.6.13.), « celui qui se livre à l'inconduite pèche contre son propre corps » (ibid., 6, 18). Le corps, porteur provisoire de l'âme, est sacré et doit être respecté par les autres comme par celui qui l'habite. L'Église n'hésite pas à utiliser la figure de l'usufruit pour caractériser le rapport de l'individu à son corps. Reprenant la tradition, Pie XII, dans son ...
International audience ; A chi appartiene il mio corpo? Sono padrone della mia vita e del mio destino? E se questo corpo è mio, posso decidere di farne commercio? Sono libero di cambiare sesso o di scegliere la morte? I torti arrecati a sé stessi e che non causano danno ad altri sono torti necessariamente immorali? Tali questioni attraversano la filosofia politica e morale e la loro risposta determina la relazione che l'individuo ha con sé stesso e con la sua intimità. Il movimento femminista, sostenuto dai progressi tecnologici in materia di contraccezione, ha permesso di portare sulla scena pubblica la questione della disponibilità di sé e del proprio corpo. Si tratta, tuttavia, di una problematica che non è nuova: essa costituisce uno dei fondamenti del rapporto con il potere inteso come facoltà di vita e di morte nell'Ancien Régime o in quanto governo permanente del vivente in epoca moderna, come messo in luce da Michel Foucault. Se i progressi tecnologici che permettono di oggettivare il corpo hanno rinnovato il dibattito bioetico, le sue origini sono tuttavia più antiche. I Romani organizzavano la vita politica a partire dalla summa divisio tra alieni iuris et sui iuris, divisione che separa la comunità degli uomini liberi e padroni di sé dagli altri: donne, stranieri, bambini, schiavi, ecc. i quali sono necessariamente sotto tutela. Più tardi, la tradizione cristiana generalizzerà questo dispositivo tutelare in funzione di altri criteri morali, in funzione dei quali il corpo non appartiene più al cristiano. Esso è il tempio di Dio, come insegna San Paolo: "Il corpo non è per l'impurità è per il Signore e il Signore è per il corpo" (Corinzi I, 6.13). ; A qui appartient mon corps ? Suis-je maître de ma vie et de ma destinée ? Et si ce corps est le mien, puis-je décider de le commercialiser ? Suis-je libre de changer de sexe ou de choisir ma mort? Les torts causés à soi-même et qui ne portent pas préjudice à autrui sont-ils nécessairement immoraux ?Ces questions traversent la philosophie politique et morale ...
International audience ; A qui appartient mon corps ? Suis-je maître de ma vie et de ma destinée ? Et si ce corps est le mien, puis-je décider de le commercialiser ? Suis-je libre de changer de sexe ou de choisir ma mort? Les torts causés à soi-même et qui ne portent pas préjudice à autrui sont-ils nécessairement immoraux ?Ces questions traversent la philosophie politique et morale et leur réponse détermine la relation qu'entretient l'individu avec lui-même et avec son intimité. Le mouvement féministe, porté par les avancées techniques en matière de contraception, a permis de porter sur la scène publique la question de la disponibilité de soi et de son corps. Cette problématique n'est pourtant pas nouvelle, elle constitue l'un des fondements du rapport au pouvoir, entendu comme contrainte de vie et de mort dans l'Ancien Régime ou en tant que discipline permanente sur le vivant, depuis l'ère moderne, comme l'a mis en lumière Michel Foucault. Si les avancées technologiques permettant d'objectiver le corps ont bien renouvelé le débat bioéthique, son ancrage demeure toutefois bien plus ancien. Les Romains organisaient la vie politique à partir de la summa divisio entre alieni iuiris et sui iuris séparant la communauté d'hommes libres et maîtres d'eux-mêmes des autres (femmes, étrangers, enfants, esclaves…) se trouvant nécessairement sous tutelle. Plus tard, la tradition chrétienne généralisera ce dispositif tutélaire en fonction d'autres critères moraux, désormais le corps n'appartient plus au chrétien. Il est le temple de Dieu, comme l'enseigne Saint Paul : « Le corps n'est pas pour l'inconduite, il est pour le Seigneur et le Seigneur pour le corps » (I, Cor.6.13.), « celui qui se livre à l'inconduite pèche contre son propre corps » (ibid., 6, 18). Le corps, porteur provisoire de l'âme, est sacré et doit être respecté par les autres comme par celui qui l'habite. L'Église n'hésite pas à utiliser la figure de l'usufruit pour caractériser le rapport de l'individu à son corps. Reprenant la tradition, Pie XII, dans son ...
Bibliographical references. ; La teorica dei publici servigi.--La teorica economica della municipalizzazione dei publici servigi.--La teorica politica della municipalizzazione dei publici servigi.--La teorica finanziaria della municipalizzazione dei publici servigi. ; Mode of access: Internet.
The recent default of important Italian agri-business companies provides a challenging issue to be investigated through an appropriate scientific approach. The events involving CIRIO, FERRUZZI or PARMALAT rise an important research question: what are the determinants of performance for Italian companies in the Italian agri – food sector? My aim is not to investigate all the factors that are relevant in explaining performance. Performance depends on a wide set of political, social, economic variables that are strongly interconnected and that are often very difficult to express by formal or mathematical tools. Rather, in my thesis I mainly focus on those aspects that are strictly related to the governance and ownership structure of agri – food companies representing a strand of research that has been quite neglected by previous scholars. The conceptual framework from which I move to justify the existence of a relationship between the ownership structure of a company, governance and performance is the model set up by Airoldi and Zattoni (2005). In particular the authors investigate the existence of complex relationships arising within the company and between the company and the environment that can bring different strategies and performances. They do not try to find the "best" ownership structure, rather they outline what variables are connected and how they could vary endogenously within the whole economic system. In spite of the fact that the Airoldi and Zattoni's model highlights the existence of a relationship between ownership and structure that is crucial for the set up of the thesis the authors fail to apply quantitative analyses in order to verify the magnitude, sign and the causal direction of the impact. In order to fill this gap we start from the literature trying to investigate the determinants of performance. Even in this strand of research studies analysing the relationship between different forms of ownership and performance are still lacking. In this thesis, after a brief description of the Italian agri – food sector and after an introduction including a short explanation of the definitions of performance and ownership structure, I implement a model in which the performance level (interpreted here as Return on Investments and Return on Sales) is related to variables that have been previously identified by the literature as important such as the financial variables (cash and leverage indices), the firm location (North Italy, Centre Italy, South Italy), the power concentration (lower than 25%, between 25% and 50% and between 50% and 100% of ownership control) and the specific agri – food sector (agriculture, food and beverage). Moreover we add a categorical variable representing different forms of ownership structure (public limited company, limited liability company, cooperative) that is the core of our study. All those variables are fully analysed by a preliminary descriptive analysis. As in many previous contributions we apply a panel least squares analysis for 199 Italian firms in the period 1998 – 2007 with data taken from the Bureau Van Dijck Dataset. We apply two different models in which the dependant variables are respectively the Return on Investments (ROI) and the Return on Sales (ROS) indicators. Not surprisingly we find that companies located in the North Italy representing the richest area in Italy perform better than the ones located in the Centre and South of Italy. In contrast with the Modigliani - Miller theorem financial variables could be significant and the specific sector within the agri – food market could play a relevant role. As the power concentration, we find that a strong property control (higher than 50%) or a fragmented concentration (lower than 25%) perform better. This result apparently could suggest that "hybrid" forms of concentrations could create bad functioning in the decision process. As our key variables representing the ownership structure we find that public limited companies and limited liability companies perform better than cooperatives. This is easily explainable by the fact that law establishes that cooperatives are less profit – oriented. Beyond cooperatives public limited companies perform better than limited liability companies and show a more stable path over time. Results are quite consistent when we consider both ROI and ROS as dependant variables. These results should not lead us to claim that public limited company is the "best" among all possible governance structures. First, every governance solution should be considered according to specific situations. Second more robustness analyses are needed to confirm our results. At this stage we deem these findings, the model set up and our approach represent original contributions that could stimulate fruitful future studies aimed at investigating the intriguing issue concerning the effect of ownership structure on the performance levels.
Guns are mere objects. Preventing people from owning them, or limiting their availability, is an infringement of the natural right to property. Guns are also a peculiar good, since they are the key for the protection of liberty and property. In this perspective, gun control is not about guns: it is about control. In fact, government growth may be slowed by private gun ownership. A tyranny is unlikely to occur where people are armed. Historical evidence confirms this point: for example, Adolf Hitler disarmed the German Jews as a premise to their genocide. Moreover, statistics show that private gun ownership does not increase gun accidents or crime; indeed, when private citizens are armed, criminals tend to strike less, or to strike in less lethal ways. Criminals fear armed citizens much more than police forces. Gun control laws, however, are extremely effective in the disarmament of lawabiding citizens; much less in disarming outlaws. The right to keep and bear arms should be maintained where it is recognized, and restored elsewhere. Italy belongs to the latter category. Libertarians' efforts to reduce the size of government require private gun ownership, because privately owned weapons are the only, sensible obstacle to the rise of Political power.
Lo scritto affronta il tema della sicurezza sul lavoro con riferimento al problema della titolarità del trattamento dei dati personali dei lavoratori sulla vaccinazione antiCovid-19 in ambito non sanitario. Al riguardo, l'Autrice si sofferma sul recente provvedimento del Garante privacy, n. 198 del 13 maggio 2021, che attribuisce al medico competente la titolarità esclusiva del trattamento dei dati vaccinali, per esaminare il ruolo e le funzioni del medico competente e del datore di lavoro tra disciplina giuslavoristica e normativa sulla protezione dei dati personali. The paper addresses the issue of workers' safety with reference to the problem of the ownership of the processing of workers' personal data on antiCovid-19 vaccination in the non-healthcare environment. In this regard, The Autor dwells on the recent provision of the privacy Authority, n. 198 of May 13, 2021, which attributes the exclusive ownership of the treatment of vaccination data to the occupational physician, to examine the role and functions of the occupational physician and the employer between labour law and personal data protection legislation.
Dopo alcuni essenziali riferimenti ai principi della Costituzione italiana in merito alla proprietà immobiliare, il saggio dapprima illustra le caratteristiche dei Piani urbanistici di tradizione e l'importante ruolo che essi assegnavano alle espropriazioni per pubblica utilità, quindi espone il cambiamento degli strumenti urbanistici in riferimento alle nuove esigenze di governo delle trasformazioni urbane. Nel mutato contesto, sono discussi gli effetti della pianificazione urbanistica sul regime immobiliare ed illustrate le ragioni che motivano la diffusione, nei Piani comunali delle città italiane, della perequazione urbanistica. Il campo di analisi si espande quindi dai principali interventi del legislatore nazionale in materia di determinazione delle indennità di esproprio per pubblica utilità alla fiscalità immobiliare locale, quindi ai diritti edificatori che i Piani comunali possono riconoscere a vario titolo alla proprietà immobiliare ed infine al partenariato pubblico privato. Nella parte conclusiva sono riportate le questioni al centro del dibattito attuale. / After some initial references to essential principles of the Italian Constitution on property ownership, this paper describes in the first place, the characteristics of traditional urban development plans and the important function that these assigned to expropriation caused by public use, and subsequently exposes the change in the urban tools in relation to the new needs of urban land management. In this new context, the effects of urban planning on property management are examined and the reasons of the propagation of the urban comparison are explained, in the local development plans of Italian cities. The field of analysis is expanded from the main interventions of national legislation with regard to the determination of the compensation through expropriation caused by public use on local property. Building rights which can be recognised for different motives in the local development plans, for property ownership and private associations, are then analysed. Questions lying at the heart of the current debate are discussed in the final section. ; After some initial references to essential principles of the Italian Constitution on property ownership, this paper describes in the first place, the characteristics of traditional urban development plans and the important function that these assigned to expropriation caused by public use, and subsequently exposes the change in the urban tools in relation to the new needs of urban land management. In this new context, the effects of urban planning on property management are examined and the reasons of the propagation of the urban comparison are explained, in the local development plans of Italian cities. The field of analysis is expanded from the main interventions of national legislation with regard to the determination of the compensation through expropriation caused by public use on local property. Building rights which can be recognised for different motives in the local development plans, for property ownership and private associations, are then analysed. Questions lying at the heart of the current debate are discussed in the final section. ; Este ensayo describe, después de algunas referencias a los principios esenciales de la Constitución Italiana sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria, en primer lugar, las características de los Planes Urbanísticos tradicionales y la importante función que esos asignaban a la expropiación por causa de utilidad pública y, a continuación, expone el cambio en las herramientas urbanas en relación con las nuevas necesidades de gestión urbana. En este nuevo contexto, se examinan los efectos de la planificación urbana sobre la gestión inmobiliaria y se explican las razones de la propagación, en los Planes Municipales de las ciudades italianas, de la equiparación urbana. El campo de análisis se expande desde las principales intervenciones de la legislación nacional con respecto a la determinación de la indemnización por expropiación por causa de utilidad pública a la fiscalidad inmobiliaria local, luego se analizan los derechos de edificación que los Planos Municipales pueden reconocer, por razones distintas, a la propiedad inmobiliaria y, por último, a las asociaciones privadas. En el último capítulo se exponen las cuestiones que están en el centro del debate actual. ; Aquest assaig descriu, després d'algunes referències als principis essencials de la Constitució Italiana sobre la propietat immobiliària, en primer lloc, les característiques dels Plans Urbanístics tradicionals i la important funció que aquests assignaven a l'expropiació per causa d'utilitat pública i, a continuació, exposa el canvi en les eines urbanes en relació amb les noves necessitats de gestió urbana. En aquest nou context, s'examinen els efectes de la planificació urbana sobre la gestió immobiliària i s'expliquen les raons de propagació, en els Plans Municipals de les ciutats italianes, de l'equipació urbana. El camp d'anàlisi s'expandeix des de les principals intervencions de la legislació nacional respecte a la determinació de la indemnització per expropiació per causa d'utilitat pública a la fiscalitat immobiliària local, després s'analitzen els drets d'edificació que els Plans Municipals poden reconèixer, per diferents raons, a la propietat immobiliària i, per últim, a les associacions privades. En l'últim capítol s'exposen les qüestions que estan en el centre de l'actual debat. ; Peer Reviewed
Dopo alcuni essenziali riferimenti ai principi della Costituzione italiana in merito alla proprietà immobiliare, il saggio dapprima illustra le caratteristiche dei Piani urbanistici di tradizione e l'importante ruolo che essi assegnavano alle espropriazioni per pubblica utilità, quindi espone il cambiamento degli strumenti urbanistici in riferimento alle nuove esigenze di governo delle trasformazioni urbane. Nel mutato contesto, sono discussi gli effetti della pianificazione urbanistica sul regime immobiliare ed illustrate le ragioni che motivano la diffusione, nei Piani comunali delle città italiane, della perequazione urbanistica. Il campo di analisi si espande quindi dai principali interventi del legislatore nazionale in materia di determinazione delle indennità di esproprio per pubblica utilità alla fiscalità immobiliare locale, quindi ai diritti edificatori che i Piani comunali possono riconoscere a vario titolo alla proprietà immobiliare ed infine al partenariato pubblico privato. Nella parte conclusiva sono riportate le questioni al centro del dibattito attuale. / After some initial references to essential principles of the Italian Constitution on property ownership, this paper describes in the first place, the characteristics of traditional urban development plans and the important function that these assigned to expropriation caused by public use, and subsequently exposes the change in the urban tools in relation to the new needs of urban land management. In this new context, the effects of urban planning on property management are examined and the reasons of the propagation of the urban comparison are explained, in the local development plans of Italian cities. The field of analysis is expanded from the main interventions of national legislation with regard to the determination of the compensation through expropriation caused by public use on local property. Building rights which can be recognised for different motives in the local development plans, for property ownership and private associations, are then analysed. Questions lying at the heart of the current debate are discussed in the final section. ; After some initial references to essential principles of the Italian Constitution on property ownership, this paper describes in the first place, the characteristics of traditional urban development plans and the important function that these assigned to expropriation caused by public use, and subsequently exposes the change in the urban tools in relation to the new needs of urban land management. In this new context, the effects of urban planning on property management are examined and the reasons of the propagation of the urban comparison are explained, in the local development plans of Italian cities. The field of analysis is expanded from the main interventions of national legislation with regard to the determination of the compensation through expropriation caused by public use on local property. Building rights which can be recognised for different motives in the local development plans, for property ownership and private associations, are then analysed. Questions lying at the heart of the current debate are discussed in the final section. ; Este ensayo describe, después de algunas referencias a los principios esenciales de la Constitución Italiana sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria, en primer lugar, las características de los Planes Urbanísticos tradicionales y la importante función que esos asignaban a la expropiación por causa de utilidad pública y, a continuación, expone el cambio en las herramientas urbanas en relación con las nuevas necesidades de gestión urbana. En este nuevo contexto, se examinan los efectos de la planificación urbana sobre la gestión inmobiliaria y se explican las razones de la propagación, en los Planes Municipales de las ciudades italianas, de la equiparación urbana. El campo de análisis se expande desde las principales intervenciones de la legislación nacional con respecto a la determinación de la indemnización por expropiación por causa de utilidad pública a la fiscalidad inmobiliaria local, luego se analizan los derechos de edificación que los Planos Municipales pueden reconocer, por razones distintas, a la propiedad inmobiliaria y, por último, a las asociaciones privadas. En el último capítulo se exponen las cuestiones que están en el centro del debate actual. ; Aquest assaig descriu, després d'algunes referències als principis essencials de la Constitució Italiana sobre la propietat immobiliària, en primer lloc, les característiques dels Plans Urbanístics tradicionals i la important funció que aquests assignaven a l'expropiació per causa d'utilitat pública i, a continuació, exposa el canvi en les eines urbanes en relació amb les noves necessitats de gestió urbana. En aquest nou context, s'examinen els efectes de la planificació urbana sobre la gestió immobiliària i s'expliquen les raons de propagació, en els Plans Municipals de les ciutats italianes, de l'equipació urbana. El camp d'anàlisi s'expandeix des de les principals intervencions de la legislació nacional respecte a la determinació de la indemnització per expropiació per causa d'utilitat pública a la fiscalitat immobiliària local, després s'analitzen els drets d'edificació que els Plans Municipals poden reconèixer, per diferents raons, a la propietat immobiliària i, per últim, a les associacions privades. En l'últim capítol s'exposen les qüestions que estan en el centre de l'actual debat. ; Peer Reviewed
Many authors, although they express very different positions on the use of public property in defending common goods, in any case consider juridical rationality to be a fundamental tool in pursuing this aim. Therefore, they undervalue the supremacy that economic rationality is exer-cising today both on juridical rationality and the predominant ways of dwelling in the world. In this regard, it is not simply a question of replacing common goods as things with the common as a political principle. Indeed, the movements that claim the collective or public ownership of certain "things" also shed light on the crucial crisis of our dwelling relationship with the common world, first of all as a material world. Main reference authors: Settis, Marella, Ostrom, Dardot, Laval, Arendt, Mattei.
