Suchergebnisse

This paper addresses the principle of law in the interest of law, pursuant to Article 363 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure which is a clear expression of the nomophylactic function of the Court of Cassation. In Section first, this paper addresses the origins and historical evolution of the principle of law in the interest of the law with particular reference to the Law Decree of February 2nd, 2006, n° 40 through which the legislator has intended to strengthen the nomophylactic function of the Court of Cassation. In Section second, with the aim at pointing out the peculiarities of the art. 363 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, this paper addresses the enunciation of the principle of law in the interest of the law and other cases of principles of law stated by the Court of Cassation. The Section third of this paper deals with the general characters and function of the principle of law in the interest of the law. By the Law Decree of February 2nd, 2006, n° 40, the scope of the legality review performed by the Court of Cassation has been broadened. In the Italian legal system, protective measures – lacking the features of decision-making and being final – were not reviewed by the Court of Cassation. The latest widening of the legality review to these acts not covered by the Court of Cassation, pursuant to Article 111 of the Italian Constitution, is a telling aspect of the 2006 reform. In the Section fourth, this paper addresses the procedural rules applicable in case of enunciation of the principle of law in the interest of the law pursuant to art. 363 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure. Finally, in the Section fifth, this paper addresses a comparative assessment on the principle of law in the interest of the law with particular reference to French and Belgian legal systems.

AbstractDirect‐to‐consumer genetic tests (DTCGT) provide individualized risk profiles for common diseases through social web techniques. Academic debates have predominantly denounced them as a potentially harmful commercialization of genetics and focused on how laypeople might (mis)understand and (mis)use this information. DTCGT has also stimulated a heterogeneous set of methods and theoretical perspectives in the social sciences, which have drawn on but also complicated a purely medical understanding.DTCGT is unanimously deemed disruptive, albeit for a variety of reasons. The different underlying notions of disruptiveness correspond to an implicit sociology of information resonating with a main sociological framework, namely, rational actor theory, governmentality studies, and ecological approaches to digital practices and infrastructures. Accordingly, three corpora are identified. The first conceives of disruption in terms of medical impact on prospective patients. The second proposes a biopolitical interpretation by framing DTCGT as vectors of new governmentality based on making individuals responsible for disease prediction and prevention. The third scrutinizes users' engagements with data and infrastructures at the intersection of informatics and genomics and locates DTCGT within the broader process of blossoming health digitalization. Accordingly, the disruptive issues at stake mainly concern political and economic aspects related to data sharing and crowdsourcing.