Search

Rather than undertaking a detailed analysis on specific issues, the purpose of this paper is providing a clear and systematic overview of collective litigation and clearing up the fundamental features that should preside over its regulation in order to give an adequate answer to the main problems that plague legislators and scholarship in relation to the legal regime of collective actions, particularly in areas such as those related to procedural standing, to the coordination between the collective proceeding and the exercise of related individual actions, to the reach of res judicata etc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On paper, no one doubts the significance that lines the motivation, at the same time, (judicial) duty and right (for the defendant). However, in practice, often one can encounter cases of merely apparent motivation -formal-, but that does not withstand rigorous critical analysis and cannot be identified with a real motivation -material-. Possible causes for this phenomenon obeying are explored in this paper. And, among all of them, it has been chosen, as an object of this study, the absence of clear standards and targets to respond to the questions «what is there to motivate?» and «how much (or how intensely) should be motivated a decision of this kind?» A few guiding rules are proposed, in order to provide an answer to both questions. Upon these bases, it is reviewed the most common type of deficits in justification, in forensic practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of this research is the analysis of the possible connections between the final decision and the judicial truth descending from it. The paper draws a picture on the notion of judicial truth, meant as a result of the evaluation of the themes of the prosecution through the validation of evidence introduced by the parties. Legal certainty and reliability of the final judgment on the merits, no longer subject to further revision, are examined in order to define normative and axiological foundation of the truth arising from the res judicata. In this perspective, the strict respect of the procedural safeguards set forth by the law is not always a sufficient condition for a fair decision, since it does not necessarily aim at the search for truth that the due process model requires presupositum (in which the burden of proof is included) explaining their differences with the presumptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]