Suchergebnisse

La presente tesi di dottorato tratta lo studio generale della delega legislativa, con riferimento alla sua teoria, in un percorso teorico attraverso gli ordinamenti di Italia, Spagna ed Unione Europea, con un particolare interesse a come questo tipo di legislazione si è maggiormente concretizzata. Durante l'intera opera, tre sono i metodi di ricerca e analisi utilizzati: dapprima teorico-filosofico, poi analitico e infine comparativo. Nel capitolo I, dopo un'introduzione che connette la teoria della delega con la più generale teoria costituzionale, attraversando i sottili confini tra sistemi federali e confederati, per poi giungere ad una necessaria approssimazione al sistema delle fonti dell'Unione Europea – ontologicamente connesso ad entrambi, in quanto sistema "quasi-federale" – si analizza il momento genetico della delega legislativa partendo dal principio di separazione dei poteri e la sua evoluzione tra le dottrine di Locke, Montesquieu e Carl Schmitt, per arrivare all'esercizio ed alla titolarità della delega legislativa, nonché alla necessità di ricorrervi. Il capitolo II, caratterizzato da un metodo di ricerca più analitico e comparatistico, analizza la delega legislativa negli ordinamenti giuridici di due Stati membri dell'UE: l'Italia e la Spagna. Quindi, dopo un'introduzione ai due differenti sistemi, osservando quadro normativo, principi e criteri rettori, la ricerca si sposta sulla volontà di mettere in risalto similitudini e differenze tra i sistemi normativi, sul rispettivo uso dello strumento della delega e sulla trasformazione che questa ha avuto nel corso degli anni, utilizzando altresì un metodo empirico attraverso lo studio dei dati. Il terzo ed ultimo capitolo, previo inquadramento della figura della delega legislativa nel sistema pre e post Lisbona, tratta la legislazione delegata nell'ordinamento giuridico dell'Unione Europea, i suoi limiti e le sue garanzie costituzionali impostegli dalla Corte di Giustizia UE, mediante l'analisi di due dei più celebri casi: il caso Köster ed il caso Rey Soda. Prosegue l'analisi con lo studio degli articoli 290 e 291 TFUE, mediante le conclusioni dell'Avvocato Generale Cruz Villalón, riguardo un altro celebre caso, il caso Biocidi – per poi concludersi con una panoramica sul futuro della legiferazione in Unione Europea ed il programma Better Regulation for Better Results. Lo scopo di questa tesi di dottorato è quindi giungere al punto di arrivo della teoria della delega spiegando, a partire dalla sua originaria ragion d'essere, in che strumento si è tramutata, in un cammino teorico che farà da filo conduttore e che permetterà di rileggere la realtà dei fatti, analizzando le dinamiche della delega legislativa all'interno di tre ordinamenti. ; This is a general study of delegated legislation, with reference to its theory, in a theoretical path throughout the legal systems of Italy, Spain and the European Union, with a particular interest in how this kind of legislation mostly materialises. During the study, we face three methods of research and analysis: theoretical-philosophical, analytical and comparative. Chapter I opens with an introduction that connects the theory of delegation with the more general constitutional theory, crossing the fine boundaries between federal and confederate systems, to then arrive at a necessary approximation to the system of sources of the European Union – ontologically connected to both, as a "quasi-federal" system. Chapter I goes on dealing with the birth moment of legislative delegation, starting from the principle of separation of powers and its evolution between the doctrines of Locke, Montesquieu and Carl Schmitt, to eventually arrive at the exercise and ownership of the legislative delegation, as well as the need to use it. Chapter II, characterised by a more analytical and comparative research method, analyses the legislative delegation in the legal systems of two EU Member States: Italy and Spain. After an introduction to the two different systems, observing the regulatory framework, principles and rector criteria, the research moves on to highlight similarities and differences between the two systems. Chapter II also highlights the use of delegation tools and the transformation that this has had over the years, using an empirical method through the study of data and tables. Chapter III places the figure of the legislative delegation in the pre- and post-Lisbon system, and goes on to deal with the delegated legislation in the legal system of the European Union, its constitutional limits and the guarantees imposed by the Court of Justice. Two of the most famous cases are used to analyse the aforementioned subjects: the Köster case and the Rey Soda case. The analysis continues with the study of articles 290 and 291 TFEU, through the brilliant conclusions of Advocate General Cruz Villalón, regarding another famous case – the Biocides case. Chapter III concludes with an overview of the future of legislation in the European Union and the program Better Regulation for Better Results. The aim of this doctoral thesis is therefore to understand the derivation of the theory of delegation. This thesis attempts to do this by explaining its original raison d'être, what kind of instrument it has become, using a theoretical approach that will act as a guiding framework and which will allow readers to better understand the circumstances surrounding facts.

The value of "precedent" in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the attempt to identify its characteristics within the European Union legal framework cannot be proceeded without the preemptive analysis of the legal reasoning and of the creative role of the judge. The role of the precedent in the legal reasoning and in the interpretation of the European Union law, as well as the unanimously accepted capacity of the judge to "create" law, are to be indented as the pivotal conditions allowing the development of a stare decisis system. The second part of the present thesis is focused on the peculiar features of the judicial precedent in the case law of the Court of Justice. In particular, we could notice, firstly, the absence of a clear definition and distinction between the concept of ratio decidendi and obiter dicta; secondly, we underline the need to overcome the classical distinction between persuasive precedent and binding precedent, in order to properly evaluate the scale of value that the precedent can take following the use and the function that is playing from time to time. Moreover, the analysis of the efficacy of the precedent will be confined, in this second part of the work, to the "self-precedent" of the Court, meaning to the obligation for the judge to follow his own precedent. The analysis will then highlight the role of precedent in case it is overruled or distinguished by the Court: practice that, ultimately, has to be conceived as a confirmation, as well as a recognition, of the precedent's value. Furthermore, in spite of the absence of a doctrine of precedent in the European Union legal system, we recall two circumstances in which the judicial precedent assumes a de facto binding value. Firstly, we analyse the use of precedent in the decision-making activity of the judge, and then those norms of the rules of procedure that required the Court of Justice to decide by explicit reference to the previous judgment. Lastly, the analysis will be focus on the efficacy of the Court's precedent with respect to the Tribunal is the evaluation of the impact of the vertical relationship between the two judges and the extension to which the Tribunal is bound by the Court's as well as in the relationship between the Court and the national judge.

Negli ultimi anni, la Corte di giustizia dell'Unione europea si è pronunciata sul significato e sulle funzioni della clausola d'identità costituzionale degli Stati membri, contenuta nell'art. 4, par. 2, TUE. L'articolo mostra come, in questa giurisprudenza, la funzione della clausola non sia quella di superare l'idea del primato assoluto del diritto dell'Unione, ma di prevenire conflitti tra il diritto dell'Unione e le costituzioni degli Stati membri. In particolare, il rispetto dell'identità costituzionale è stato utilizzato ai tre scopi seguenti: a) per giustificare restrizioni alle libertà di movimento; b) per proteggere il diritto degli Stati membri di scegliere forme e mezzi nell'attuazione del diritto dell'Unione; c) per costituire parametro di validità degli atti dell'Unione. ; The ECJ has addressed the meaning and function of the constitutional identity clause, under Article 4 (2) TEU, in the most recent years. This paper assesses this case-law and shows that in the reasoning of the ECJ the function of Article 4 (2) TEU is not to overcome the idea of absolute primacy of EU law, but to prevent conflicts between EU law and national constitutions. Respect for constitutional identity can play three different roles: (a) justification for restrictions on the freedoms of movement; (b) protection of Member States' right to choose the forms and methods of implementing EU law; (c) ground of invalidity of EU acts.

Il lavoro esamina brevemente l'impatto dell'attuale emergenza sanitaria COVID-19, che ha portato a restrizioni di viaggio in tutto il mondo senza precedenti e ha causato quasi un arresto dei viaggi in Europa, su vettori, organizzatori di pacchetti turistici e fornitori di altri servizi turistici come parte di pacchetti turistici. Ciò nonostante, l'attuale normativa dell'UE, che prevede una serie di diritti per passeggeri e viaggiatori, rimane pienamente applicabile. In base a tale normativa, in caso di cancellazione di un viaggio o di un pacchetto turistico, i passeggeri e i viaggiatori hanno diritto a ottenere un rimborso. Tale rimborso può essere effettuato tramite un voucher, ma solo con l'accordo del consumatore. Ebbene, in Italia l'articolo 88-bis del d.l. 18/2020 non offre ai passeggeri e ai viaggiatori la scelta tra il rimborso in contanti e il rimborso sotto forma di buoni. L'articolo esamina i profili di contrasto tra tale disposizione nazionale e le norme nonché i principi generali dell'UE. ; The work briefly examines the impact of the current COVID-19 health emergency, which has led to unprecedented worldwide travel restrictions and have caused almost a standstill of travels in Europe, on carriers, organisers of package tours and providers of other tourism services as part of package tours. Nonetheless, the current EU legislation, which provides for a set of rights for passengers and travelers, remains fully applicable. According to such legislation, in the event of a cancellation by the carrier or if a package trip is cancelled, passengers and travelers have the right to obtain a reimbursement. Such reimbursement can be made by means of a voucher only if the consumer agrees. Well, in Italy Article 88-bis of law decree 18/2020 doesn't give passengers and travelers the choice between cash reimbursement and reimbursement in the form of a voucher. The article questions if such national provision is incompatible with EU law and general principles.

I. Introduzione. II. Esigenze di armonizzazione e obiettivi di politica sanitaria. III. Il bilanciamento tra la tutela della salute e altri diritti e libertà enunciati dalla Carta dei diritti fondamentali. ; On 4 May 2016, the ECJ delivered three judgments concerning the validity of the "Tobacco Products Directive". This article focuses on the legal basis of this controversial act and on the fundamental rights' restrictions provided for therein. As for the legal basis, the ECJ's judgments found that, in order to avoid the negative impact of divergent national legislations on the internal market, the EU is allowed to exercise its harmonizing competence in the field of public health, despite this policy being essentially reserved to the Member States. This finding was essentially based on ECJ's previous case law. With regard to the issue of the fundamental rights' restrictions raised by private parties in two of the judgments, the Court found these restrictions to be justified under the general limitation clause of art. 52 of the Charter. In more specific terms, the Court affirmed that, in the cases at hand, the EU was allowed to strike a fair balance between the need to respect fundamental rights and freedoms and the need to protect public health. This conclusion was predicated on the provisions of the TFEU and the Charter concerning the attainment of "a high level of protection" of human health. As suggested in this study, this approach of the ECJ can be read as part of a recent attitude towards referring more extensively to art. 35 of the Charter ("Health care").

Il saggio presenta alcuni spunti di riflessione riguardo agli studi sulla criminalità organizzata nella prospettiva del diritto internazionale e dell'Unione europea. Si sostiene che tali studi possono offrire un contributo prezioso per comprendere la strategia della Comunità internazionale nel contrasto alla criminalità organizzata transnazionale; per evidenziare le sue attuali criticità e i riflessi che essa produce negli ordinamenti interni, e quindi riguardo all'azione preventiva e repressiva degli Stati. Il saggio illustra, in particolare, i caratteri fondamentali del regime giuridico internazionale ed europeo in via di formazione, i risultati conseguiti e le possibilità future nell'armonizzazione delle legislazioni penali statali sulla criminalità organizzata; nell'aggressione ai patrimoni delle organizzazioni criminali; ed infine nella cooperazione giudiziaria e di polizia in materia penale. Il saggio si conclude con alcune osservazioni critiche in merito alle lacune che caratterizzano le politiche internazionali ed europee alla base dei due regimi giuridici in fieri.

Nel nostro tempo, la disciplina degli investimenti stranieri forma oggetto di norme di diversa provenienza formale. Dalla prassi degli Stati, specie legislativa, al diritto internazionale consuetudinario, negli ultimi cinquant'anni il diritto pattizio si è grandemente sviluppato lasciando uno spazio residuale ad alcune norme di soft law in materia. Tramite tali trattati gli Stati contraenti assumono determinati obblighi reciproci a favore degli investitori quali, ad esempio, il trattamento "giusto ed equo", il divieto di espropriazione anche indiretta senza pieno indennizzo, la libertà di riesportare il capitale investito ed i profitti. Soprattutto, quei trattati prevedono il diritto dell'investitore di iniziare un arbitrato internazionale diretto contro lo Stato ospite nelle forme dell'arbitrato commerciale internazionale o presso il centro all'uopo costituito (ICSID) presso la Banca Mondiale.

La Direttiva 2012/29/UE che istituisce norme minime in materia di diritti, assistenza e protezione delle vittime di reato introduce, in capo a una platea potenzialmente assai ampia di operatori (del diritto, sociali, sanitari) che possano trovarsi a entrare in contatto con 'vittime di reato' il dovere di effettuare una valutazione individuale delle specifiche esigenze di protezione da rischi di vittimizzazione secondaria o ripetuta, intimidazione o ritorsione, che ciascuna vittima possa presentare in concreto. Né la Direttiva stessa, né il legislatore nazionale all'atto della sua trasposizione, hanno dettagliato modalità e soggetti specificamente deputati a effettuare tale valutazione. I ricercatori del progetto internazionale 'Victims and Corporations. Implementation of Directive 2012/29/EU for victims of corporate crimes and corporate violence' hanno elaborato uno specifico insieme di linee guida utili a indirizzare gli operatori nell'individuazione degli elementi da prendere in considerazione nello svolgimento di tale valutazione, con particolare riferimento a una tipologia di soggetti potenzialmente 'vulnerabili', ma spesso neppure percepiti come vittime di reato: le vittime di 'corporate violence', ossia di reati commessi da imprese commerciali nel corso della loro attività lecita, e implicanti danni per la vita, la salute e l'integrità psico-fisica delle persone. ; Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime sets down the duty to make an individual assessment of each victim's specific needs of protection from secondary and repeat victimisation, from intimidation and from retaliation; a duty which is potentially incumbent on a wide range of professionals (be they legal, social or health workers). Neither the Directive, nor the Italian transposition law, provide details about the specific individuals charged with the task and the specific ways to perform it. The researchers of the international project 'Victims and Corporations. Implementation of Directive 2012/29/EU for victims of corporate crimes and corporate violence' have developed a set of specific guidelines which may help all interested professionals in identifying the elements to be taken into account while performing said individual assessment, with specific reference to a typology of potentially vulnerable people, who, however, often fail even to be recognised as victims. They are the victims of corporate violence, i.e. people having suffered harms to life, health or personal integrity due to crimes committed by corporations in the course of their legitimate activity.

The EU legal system can be considered a phénomène nouveau in the international setting. It has felt, since the time immediately following its foundation, the need to affirm its effectiveness and, over the years, the institutions – thanks to the decisive role played by the Court of Justice – have sought the tools able to ensure their policies the highest degree of enforcement. Among those tools, the affirmation of obligations to protect, at national level, the Community rights is of course included. The structural asymmetry that characterizes the European Union, endowed with regulatory powers but not equipped with its own administrative-judicial structure, requires Member States to de facto realize what EU law provides. Thus, each national system is called, considered the principle of sincere cooperation (Article 4, paragraph 3, TEU), to make their substantial and procedural means available for the implementation of the discipline emanating from the European Union, within the constraints of equivalence and effectiveness imposed by the Court of Justice. In order to make any legal system effective, it is necessary, in addition to its ability to protect citizens' rights, that it can adopt preventive and repressive measures, so that it can avoid the risk of non-compliance with the rules deriving from it. Without the ability to impose sanctions, a legal system would be deprived of one of the essential tools to prove itself authentically effective. Within the broad genus labelled "sanctions" – which includes different types of measures – a prominent role has been attributed to criminal law, considered as a preventive and dissuasive tool. Since the Maastricht Treaty, the European Union has been given progressively more extensive powers in criminal matters, today enshrined by Article 83 TFEU. The second paragraph of this provision allows the institutions to adopt directives containing minimum rules concerning offences and sanctions when the approximation proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy, already subject to harmonisation measures. This provision clearly shows the possibility to use criminalization as a tool to ensure better enforcement of the regulatory system adopted by supranational institutions. At present, only two directives have been adopted based on Article 83, paragraph 2, TFEU. The former, approved in 2014, concerns sanctions for market abuse; the latter, adopted in 2017, deals with the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests. These directives allow an initial analysis on the ability of criminal offences to ensure a deeper degree of effectiveness of the European legal system. The use of directives based on Article 83, paragraph 2, TFEU has been invoked in further areas: among these, the protection of the environment and competition. The objective, in this sense, consists in verifying the prospects for intervention by the European Union and investigating the effects that this could achieve.

Il massiccio afflusso di persone, che si teme possa seguire alla crisi che ha investito i paesi del Nord Africa, solleva seri interrogativi sugli strumenti giuridici utilizzabili a livello internazionale e, in particolare, europeo. Si pone in particolare la questione su come attuare il principio della ripartizione degli oneri (burden sharing) introdotto dal Trattato di Lisbona. A fronte delle richieste avanzate dal governo italiano, l'Unione europea è finora intervenuta solo avviando, con anticipo rispetto al previsto, un'operazione congiunta di Frontex, l'Agenzia per i controlli alle frontiere esterne della Ue. Nel complesso, è emerso in piena luce quanto siano ancora fragili le basi delle politiche di immigrazione e asilo dell'Ue. Anche in considerazione degli imprescindibili obblighi di tutela dei diritti fondamentali delle persone, sarebbe auspicabile che l'Ue desse prova di effettiva solidarietà e di un'efficace capacità di risposta.

My dissertation deals with the topic of Services of general economic interest (SGEIs) in the European Union. The research is mainly focused on competition and State aid law aspects, in order to understand whether and to what extent an economic activity carried out by an undertaking entrusted with a public mission can be exempted from the application of competition law rules. The thesis primarily focuses on the definition of "Services of general economic interest", which differs from the national concepts of "public service". After an analysis of the pertinent case-law, it will be held that such a notion represents a balance between economic and social concerns on one hand, and between national and EU competence on the other. The dissertation then proceeds to examine the State aid rules applicable to SGEIs: it will deal in particular with the conditions of admissibility of public funding in this sector, as set out by the Court's case-law and by the Commission's decision making practice. Lastly, in the final part of the dissertation, the new Treaty legal basis relating these services will be analyzed, in order to understand whether a greater attention to social aspects has developed (or should develop) in this field.

The Regulation No 4/2009 abolishes the exequatur for the decisions given in a Member State bound by the 2007 Hague Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations. As a consequence, the public policy exception is no longer available, in order to refuse the recognition of a decision based on family patterns which differ from the traditional ones and are unknown in the requested State. However, the claim of maintenance may sometimes be rejected under Art. 6 of the 2007 Hague Protocol, which allows for a ̔special defence̕ against maintenance claims between same sex partners. This ̔defence̕, although it is not ascribed to the mechanism of public policy, as it is obviously raised by the defendant, is meant to pursue the same goal. Conversely, an exequatur is still necessary for decisions given in a Member State not bound by the 2007 Hague Protocol (UK and Denmark), as well as for decisions given in a State party to the 1973 Hague Maintenance Enforcement Convention (and in the future to the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention). Family law has undergone a radical change over the last twenty years or so. The recent decades have seen the rise of new legal institutions affording a measure of legal protection to couples outside traditional marriage (registered partnerships, same-sex marriages, etc.) as well as to the new frontiers of the establishment of parenthood (surrogacy and adoption by an unmarried person). As a result, the landscape of family law is extremely various. There are States, such as Italy, that do not recognize those institutions as possible sources of maintenance obligations. How these countries cope the issue of the recognition of decisions founded on unknown family patterns? Public policy is actually weakening? In this respect does the application of a possible common concept of European public policy play any specific role?

L'articolo si propone di commentare la sentenza del 14 aprile 2015, nella causa C-409/13, con cui la Corte di Giustizia ha risolto un antico contrasto di tesi giuridiche (e politiche) tra il Consiglio dell'Unione europea e la Commissione europea, avente ad oggetto la questione se quest'ultima possa ritirare una proposta legislativa e, se sì, a quali condizioni e in quali casi. Respingendo il ricorso del Consiglio, la Corte ha risolto il conflitto a favore della Commissione, ma ha anche dato alcune indicazioni riguardo a requisiti di ordine sia procedurale che sostanziale che devono essere rispettati ai fini di un "legittimo" esercizio del potere di ritiro. L'articolo si propone anche di sottolineare il ruolo che la Corte ha riservato a se stessa nell'equilibrio istituzionale, ruolo che si ricollega al particolare valore che la Corte assegna al principio di leale cooperazione ed agli accordi interistituzionali. ; The aim of this article is to explore the power of the European Commission to withdraw proposals that it has submitted to the Council and the European Parliament and the limits surrounding this power, in light of the Judgment ECJ of 14 April 2015, in case C-409/13.

This article contributes to further understanding the meaning of 'cultural diversity' as it has developed in the external relations of the European Union (EU). The notion of cultural diversity described here adheres to the definition adopted by the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (UNESCO Convention). This article assumes that the concept of cultural diversity touches upon both economic interests and socio-cultural spheres that have an influence on people's lives. Using an approach that analyses the law in context, emphasizing the socio-political framework in which this concept has taken shape, this article explores how cultural diversity is depicted in international trade relations. This analysis aims at explaining how cultural diversity was addressed in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada. During these negotiations, cultural issues have, in fact, been among some of the most debated topics. Canada and the EU share similar, but not identical, understanding of the concept of cultural diversity in international trade. In order to disclose their different positions, this article analyses the development of cultural diversity within the broader contexts in which this notion has taken shape and the conflicting interests involved in its negotiation, promotion and protection. This article examines how the notion of cultural diversity has been portrayed within World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations on audiovisual services and the contribution of the UNESCO Convention to its development. An analysis of the 2009 China-Publications and AV Products case settled by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body offers insight into how the complex legal and political framework of the EU's external relations impacts its role in protecting and promoting cultural diversity. Finally, this paper contributes new observations about how CETA has influenced understandings of cultural diversity and offers a few conclusions about the impact that this agreement may have on its effectiveness as a concept. It also includes considerations on how this notion may be shaped by the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and reflections on the concept of protectionism.

This thesis deals with the question as to whether the public and the private enforcements of European competition law, as currently shaped, are able to generate a sufficient and effective deterrence level. Proposals aimed at addressing certain possible gaps and shortages in this respect, in particular the criminalization of cartel conducts, are eventually put forward. More in details, sections I and II carry out a preliminary assessment of the real level of deterrence stemming from public and private enforcement tools with respect to violations of European competition law. Section III poses the question as to whether a possible criminalization of certain anticompetitive conducts in breach of European competition law, in particular cartels, along the line of what already occurred in many jurisdictions over the last decades, might contribute to enhance the current level of deterrence in this context. Section IV analyzes specific legal issues connected to a possible criminalization of cartel conducts in breach of art. 101 TFUE through directive, such as the identification of an appropriate legal basis pursuant to the Treaties of the European Union, the definition of the criminal offence, the penalties that could be provided, the interplay between criminal sanctions and leniency programs, the coordination between competition authorities and criminal judges, and certain further issues.