Mercato interno e politiche culturali nazionali: La difficile ricerca di un equilibrio nel processo di auto-costituzione dell\u2019ordinamento interindividuale comunitario

This article addresses the interaction between internal market rules, and in particular the freedom of circulation of goods, on one side, and the national cultural policies of Member States, on the other side. The goal is to show how the EC/EU interindividual legal system tends to extend its realm in areas of the law that would appear, at first sight, to be excluded from its scope of application. Culture is a good example thereof. While this might happen, in a number of areas of cultural action, without impinging upon the sovereignties of its Member States, the present article addresses some cases where this extension has the potential of restricting the capability of Member States to pursue their cultural policy aims. Two examples are analysed. First, the abolition of physical controls on goods crossing internal borders is scrutinized, together with the legislation adopted to ensure that goods pertaining to national cultural heritage, which are unlawfully removed from the territory of one Member State, be given back to it. The initial approach followed by Directive 93/7 is compared with the recent Directive 2014/60, and it is shown that, while the former imposed a (partially) uniform approach to the definition of national cultural heritage, thus essentially depriving art. 36 TFEU provision of its effet utile in the field, the latter restores a correct relationship between internal market and national cultural policies. More than just that: the 2014 Directive approach is understood as the only way to really respect fundamental principles of the EU legal system such as democracy, openness, subsidiarity, sincere cooperation, and proportionality. Second, the reach of the prohibition of measures equal to quantitative restrictions in the field of book prices\u2019 policies is taken into account. The article shows how the ECJ case law in this field obstructs the efforts of Member States to promote a coherent policy of promotion of \u201cculture-intensive\u201d publishing, and one of widespread presence of culturally active and specialized bookstores. The relevant case law is analysed as an example of an out-dated approach, that fails to reconcile different but concurring raisons d\u2019\ueatre of the EU project, and is no longer tenable in light of the overall features of the EC/EU interindividual legal system

International Economic Sanctions as a Component of Public Policy for Conflict-of-Laws Purposes

This work analyses international economic sanctions from the point of view of the interaction between international law and the domestic legal systems of the States concerned. In doing so, it may prove useful to resort to the private international law tools. International economic sanctions, when observed through the lens of a municipal legal system in which they claim implementation, take the form of measures interfering in the regulation of private economic intercourse. To better understand how such measures are to be dealt with, the present work sorts out some of these measures by the form they take in their implementation at the municipal level. They can take the form of prohibitive measures directly affecting commercial transactions, seizures, measures consisting in the deprivation of rights or status, the non-recognition of juridical situations as created by non-domestic decisions. The author stresses moreover that the furtherance of the respect of existing legal rules can also be carried out by positive sanctions and measures: inducements that prove sometimes to be far more effective, as they determine the harmonization of municipal law with the international standards and rules whose respect is at stake. To understand how measures of economic sanction become effective, it is important to face the question of their application as raised before a judge vested with the authority of settling a dispute at the municipal level. In dealing with this issue, the work follows in principle European private international law, as shaped by the Rome Convention of 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations. Firstly, the author deals with cases where sanctions are incorporated into the judge’s State legal system. For such cases, he analyses the three alternative situations: the least problematic one is that of the lex fori governing the relationship as a whole. Where lex causae is a foreign law which incorporates international sanctions, the authors thesis is that the lex fori should not prevail on it automatically: a functional comparison of the measures should be carried out, and only in case of violation of the core objectives of the lex fori sanctioning approach should the ordre public limit operate. If however the lex causae does not contain provisions enacting the sanctions that the lex fori wants to be applied, the latter’s provisions will be considered as internationally mandatory. The author then deals with the case in which the law of the forum does not incorporate any sanc- tions against the violator State, but the foreign law which is to be applied under the conflict-of-laws rules of the forum does. In such cases, the sanctioning provisions of the lex causae will normally apply, except in cases where ordre public considerations require a different outcome. The possible adoption of so called blocking regulations will be a straight forward case of such a contrast. Soft law recommending a given sanctioning attitude, on the other end, will significantly reduce the possibility of a judge considering foreign law incorporating sanctions to be contrary to the forum’s public policy. The work then deals with the case of sanctions not incorporated in the lex fori or in the lex causae, but in the law of a third State, and considers the role former art. 7.1 of the Rome Convention, or equivalent approaches, could play: in this framework, an extensive analysis of the relevant case law is carried out. A similar analytical approach is followed when dealing with the recognition of foreign judicial decisions, and their relationship with international economic sanctions. The work then deals with the interplay between international economic sanctions and transnational commercial arbitration, in terms of arbitrability issues, of recognition and enforcement, as well as the setting aside of arbitral awards. Then, the question of the application of international economic sanctions by arbitrators is considered, in the light of the absence of a forum state in strict legal terms. Further, the author assesses the role of internal judges in evaluating the lawfulness of the adopted sanctions, at the international level, and suggests that a non negligible role could be played by judges. Among other things, national judges should take into considerations limitations arising from jus cogens, and in particular a so-called humanitarian exception to a full scale embargo. The last part of the work is devoted to a tentative dogmatic assessment of so-called positive sanctions and measures. Their role in shaping the public policy exceptions, for conflict of law purposes, is finally outlined

La prohibición de las expulsiones colectivas y la corrupción del ordenamiento jurídico de la Unión en sus fronteras exteriores.

The paper looks intothe current state of health of the European Union's legal order, using as a litmus test the functioning of the system of judicial protection in a specific area of the area of freedom, security and justice: the control of the Union's external borders. In this perspective, the paper explores why the prohibition of collective expulsions enunciated in Article 19 § 1 of the Charter does not seem to play any role in the case law of the Court of Justice, despite the increasingly worrying practice of informal pushbacks by Member States and the consequent development of significant case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the corresponding prohibition in Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention. Through the analysis of those phenomena, the study highlights a heavy contradiction of the fundamental equations on which the Union's order is or ought to be based, finally suggesting some possible reform.El estudio cuestiona la salud del ordenamiento jurídico de la Unión Europea, utilizando como tornasol el funcionamiento del sistema de tutela judicialen un ámbito específico del espacio de libertad, seguridad y justicia: el control de las fronteras exteriores de la Unión. En este contexto, el trabajo indaga por qué la prohibición de las expulsiones colectivas enunciada en el artículo 19 § 1 de la Cartano parece desempeñar ningún papel en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia, a pesar de la práctica cada vez más preocupante de las expulsiones informales por parte de los Estados miembros y del consiguiente desarrollo de una importante jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos sobre la prohibición correspondiente del artículo 4 del Protocolo nº 4 del Convenio Europeo. A través del análisis de estos fenómenos, el estudio pone de manifiesto una fuerte contradicción de las ecuaciones fundamentales en las que se basa o debería basarse el ordenamiento de la Unión, sugiriendo finalmente algunas posibles reformas

La prohibición de las expulsiones colectivas y la corrupción del ordenamiento jurídico de la Unión en sus fronteras exteriores

The paper looks into the current state of health of the European Union's legal order, using as a litmus test the functioning of the system of judicial protection in a specific area of the area of freedom, security and justice: the control of the Union's external borders. In this perspective, the paper explores why the prohibition of collective expulsions enunciated in Article 19 § 1 of the Charter does not seem to play any role in the case law of the Court of Justice, despite the increasingly worrying practice of informal pushbacks by Member States and the consequent development of significant case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the corresponding prohibition in Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention. Through the analysis of those phenomena, the study highlights a heavy contradiction of the fundamental equations on which the Union's order is or ought to be based, finally suggesting some possible reformEl estudio cuestiona la salud del ordenamiento jurídico de la Unión Europea, utilizando como tornasol el funcionamiento del sistema de tutela judicial en un ámbito específico del espacio de libertad, seguridad y justicia: el control de las fronteras exteriores de la Unión. En este contexto, el trabajo indaga por qué la prohibición de las expulsiones colectivas enunciada en el artículo 19 § 1 de la Carta no parece desempeñar ningún papel en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia, a pesar de la práctica cada vez más preocupante de las expulsiones informales por parte de los Estados miembros y del consiguiente desarrollo de una importante jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos sobre la prohibición correspondiente del artículo 4 del Protocolo nº 4 del Convenio Europeo. A través del análisis de estos fenómenos, el estudio pone de manifiesto una fuerte contradicción de las ecuaciones fundamentales en las que se basa o debería basarse el ordenamiento de la Unión, sugiriendo finalmente algunas posibles reforma

Brexit and private international law, between Rome, Brussels and Lugano: “How can i just let you walk away?”

Quali sfide pone Brexit per il diritto internazionale privato in materia civile e commerciale, nei rapporti tra UE e Regno Unito? Come affrontare quelle sfide? L’articolo cerca di dare risposta a queste domande, con riferimento ai Regolamenti Roma I, Roma II, Bruxelles I(bis) e alla Convenzione di Lugano del 2007. In tale contesto sono analizzate le regole e i principi giuridici applicabili tanto nella fase del periodo transitorio, quanto in quella successiva. In particolare, si considerano le prospettive di un cliff-edge scenario al termine del periodo transitorio, individuando nell’ambito della giurisdizione i profili in cui il traffico giuridico rischia di subire una pesante compromissione. Il lavoro si chiude con alcune proposte per un percorso negoziale capace di depotenziare quel rischio.What challenges does Brexit pose for private international law in civil and comercial matters, in EU/UK cases? How to address those challenges? The article attempts to answer these questions, with reference to the Rome I, Rome II, Brussels I(bis) Regulations and the 2007 Lugano Convention. In this context, the rules and legal principles applicable both during the transition period and afterwards are analysed. In particular, the prospects of a cliff-edge scenario at the end of the transition period are considered; jurisdiction and recognition of decisions are identified as areas in which legal traffic risks being heavily compromised. The article puts forward some proposals for a negotiating path capable of depotentiating that risk

RINVIO PREGIUDIZIALE E RICORSO DI ANNULLAMENTO: PARALLELISMI, INTERSEZIONI E DIFFERENZE

Il contributo affronta i profili di parallelismo, di intersezione e di differenza del rinvio pregiudiziale di validità e del ricorso di annullamento, in relazione al diritto dell'individuo ad una tutela giurisdizionale effettiva. Nello specifico, il lavoro mette in luce anzitutto gli elementi di complementarietà e parallelismo tra ricorso di annullamento e rinvio pregiudiziale di validità, i due canali alternativi di contestazione della validità degli atti dell’Unione che si aprono agli individui, seppur in modi e con limiti diversi . Successivamente, sono delineati i vari tratti di discontinuità tra quei due canali. Si mette così in evidenza come l’accesso diretto al Tribunale sia solo imperfettamente sostituibile con il controllo indiretto svolto dalla Corte, ove si ponga al centro dell’analisi l’esigenza di garantire una tutela giurisdizionale effettiva dei singoli in relazione a quegli atti. Nel far questo ci si soffermerà in primo luogo sulla strutturale differenza tra i due rimedi, in relazione all’iniziativa e alla disponibilità per le parti private. In secondo luogo, si segnala la diversa estensione del contraddittorio per le parti direttamente coinvolte, a seconda che ci si ponga all’interno dell’uno o dell’altro dei procedimenti in questione. In terzo luogo, si rimarca la strutturale inadeguatezza del rinvio pregiudiziale a garantire un adeguato coinvolgimento di quei terzi che pur abbiano intrapreso la via giudiziaria nazionale, in procedimenti diversi da quello a partire dal quale per primo la questione di validità è sottoposta alla Corte. In quarto luogo, si segnala come la diversa estensione dei rispettivi poteri giurisdizionali di Corte e giudice nazionale, e il complesso coordinamento tra essi, confermino la limitata adeguatezza del rinvio pregiudiziale a garantire un pieno accesso dell’individuo al giudice, in relazione all’accertamento dei fatti rilevanti per risolvere la questione di validità. Infine, si appunta l’attenzione sul profilo degli effetti delle sentenze rese, rispettivamente, dalla Corte in esito ad una pregiudiziale di validità e dal Tribunale in esito ad un ricorso di annullamento. L’analisi in tal modo svolta porterà complessivamente a concludere per la maggiore adeguatezza del ricorso diretto ad assicurare una piena tutela giurisdizionale dell’individuo che si dolga dell’invalidità di un atto dell’Unione. A questo punto il lavoro si confronta con gli sviluppi della giurisprudenza sui rapporti tra i due canali di accesso alla Corte, cercando di mostrare come l’estensione della preclusione TWD operata dalla Grande Sezione nella sentenza Georgsmarienhütte del 2018 rischi di andare oltre il segno, rompendo il già fragile equilibrio su cui si basa l’idea di complementarietà espressa nella sentenza Union de Pequeños Agricultores. Ciò vale, come si vedrà, tanto più alla luce dell’innegabile tendenza alla restrizione dell’accesso del singolo al Tribunale che si fa strada nella giurisprudenza

Determinants of radiation dose during right transradial access. insights from the RAD-MATRIX study

Background The RAD-MATRIX trial reported a large operator radiation exposure variability in right radial percutaneous coronary procedures. The reasons of these differences are not well understood. Our aim was to appraise the determinants of operator radiation exposure during coronary right transradial procedures. Methods Patient arrangement during transradial intervention was investigated across operators involved in the RAD-MATRIX trial. Operator radiation exposure was analyzed according to the position of the patient right arm (close or far from the body) and in relation to the size of the upper leaded glass. Results Among the 14 operators who agreed to participate, there was a greater than 10-fold difference in radiation dose at thorax level (from 21.5 to 267 μSv) that persisted after normalization by dose-area product (from 0.35 to 3.5 μSv/Gy*cm2). Among the operators who positioned the instrumented right arm far from the body (110.4 μSv, interquartile range 71.5-146.5 μSv), thorax dose was greater than that in those who placed the instrumented arm close to the right leg (46.1 μSv, 31.3-56.8 μSv, P =.02). This difference persisted after normalization by dose-area product (P =.028). The use of a smaller full glass shield was also associated with a higher radiation exposure compared with a larger composite shield (147.5 and 60 μSv, respectively, P =.016). Conclusions In the context of the biggest radiation study conducted in patients undergoing transradial catheterization, the instrumented right arm arrangement close to the leg and greater upper leaded shield dimensions were associated with a lower operator radiation exposure. Our findings emphasize the importance of implementing simple preventive measures to mitigate the extra risks of radiation exposure with right radial as compared with femoral access