Search

Technological evolution brings with it two negative consequences: the emergence of new computer crimes and the exponential increase of common crimes committed through the use of computer tools. The aim of this research was to understand how the issue of judicial cooperation in criminal matters could also benefit from the recent opening to the signing of the Second Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention: if the States are not able to agree on the provision of procedural rules common for the purpose of ascertaining crimes of a supranational nature, according to a federal logic which should be pursued, if nothing else, at the European level, a fundamental defect of the current structure emerges. The entry into force of the law of 18 March 2008, n. 48 represented a fundamental step for the adaptation of the Italian criminal-procedural system to shared standards, just as significant is the circumstance that the Second Protocol was opened for signature under the Italian presidency of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe . At first reading, the enrichment of the tools made available to the national judicial authorities is evident - just think of the new provisions on videoconferencing and joint investigative teams, pursuant to articles 11 and 12 – which aims to fix the regulatory framework in the absence of other specific provisions among the authorities called to operate. The real challenge will be to understand whether the Cybercrime Convention, due to the timeliness and foresight with which it was drafted – fully embracing the needs of substantial criminal protection, innovation and harmonization of procedural discipline and investigative tools, as well as cooperation international level – will effectively represent an efficient bulwark against the most modern forms of crime, to be countered at a supranational level, precisely in the light of the Second Additional Protocol.

Il volume analizza la materia del diritto della previdenza sociale nella prospettiva dell'esame universitario o delle necessità del pratico, non senza approfondire tuttavia alcuni punti istituzionali., The volume analyzes the subject of Italian social security law with a view to university study or to the needs of the practical, but also with a complete examination of some institutional points.

Il contributo riflette sulle strategie legislative basate sull'idea dello scambio tra tutele interne al rapporto di lavoro subordinato e protezioni sul mercato, in termini di politiche di sostegno al reddito e di politiche attive del lavoro., The essay reflects on legislative strategies based on the idea of exchange between contractual protections for subordinate employment and market protections, in terms of income support policies and active employment policies.

4409, open, Independence and impartiality of the judges are distinctive characteristics of the judicial function. The position of the judge outlined by the Constitution is characterized by the alienation from the interests involved in the res iudicanda and by the absence of prejudice (implicitly defined by articles 3 and 101 of the Constitution), as well as by full independence from the parties of the proceedings, from the other State powers and from the judicial organization itself (articles 101 and 104 of the Constitution). Even the main international conventions in the field of human rights and criminal trial recognize the need for the judge to be independent and impartial. However, impartiality is highlighted in a different view, not as objective guarantee, but as a right of the individual, as assumption of the wider right to a fair trial. Reference is made to article 6 paragraph 1 of European Convention on Human Rights, article 14 paragraph 1 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and to article 10 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948, although this is not a real binding act,. The two essential requirements of the judge nature, even if with an undeniable conceptual autonomy, do not seem susceptible of separate protection, making it hard to confirm the existence of one without the other. Moreover, the same constitutional jurisprudence has repeatedly stated that there is a relationship of close connection, since << the principle of independence is intended to ensure the impartiality of the judge or better [...] the exclusion of any risk of partiality, so as to ensure the judge a clear 'super partes' positon >> (C. cost., sent. 3 April 1969 n. 60). Incompatibility, abstention, recusal and remission are guarantees both of impartiality both of "functional independence", i.e. as non subjection to others in their judicial function, always in relation to any individual trial. However, it remains in the background the '' organic independence, Tra i caratteri distintivi della funzione giurisdizionale assumono un rilievo particolare l’indipendenza e l’imparzialità dei soggetti chiamati al suo esercizio. La figura del giudice delineata dalla Costituzione è connaturata da una posizione di estraneità rispetto agli interessi coinvolti nella res iudicanda e di assenza di pregiudizi (sancita implicitamente dagli art. 3 e 101 Cost.), nonché di piena autonomia dalle parti processuali, dagli altri poteri dello Stato e dalla stessa organizzazione giudiziaria (art. 101 e 104 Cost.). Anche le principali convenzioni internazionali in tema di diritti della persona e di processo penale riconoscono la necessità che il giudice sia indipendente e imparziale; tuttavia, l’imparzialità viene in risalto in un’ottica diversa, non più come garanzia di regolare svolgimento della giurisdizione, ma come diritto del singolo, presupposto del più ampio diritto ad un giusto processo. Ci si riferisce all’art. 6 comma 1 Conv. eur. dir. uomo, all’art. 14 comma 1 Patto intern. dir. civ. pol., nonché, pur non trattandosi di una vera e propria fonte vincolante, all’art. 10 della Dichiarazione universale dei diritti dell’uomo del 10 dicembre 1948. I due requisiti essenziali della qualità stessa di giudice, pur dotati di una indubbia autonomia concettuale, non sembrano suscettibili d separata tutela, risultando difficile affermare l’esistenza dell’uno in assenza dell’altro. Del resto, la stessa giurisprudenza costituzionale ha ribadito più volte l’esistenza di un rapporto di stretta connessione, poiché ‹‹il principio dell’indipendenza è volto ad assicurare l’imparzialità del giudice o meglio […] l’esclusione di ogni pericolo di parzialità, onde sia assicurata al giudice una posizione assolutamente ‘super partes’›› (C. cost., sent. 3 aprile 1969 n. 60). Gli istituti dell’incompatibilità, dell’astensione, della ricusazione e della rimessione si presentano quindi come garanzie sia dell’imparzialità sia di quell’aspetto dell’indipendenza che può de, No, embargoed_20190318, Remelli, A, Remelli, A