Regulation of Sport Activities and Right to Respect to Private Life under the European Convention on Human Rights

In F\ue9d\ue9ration Nationale des Syndicats Sportifs (FNASS) and others v. France (judgment of 18 January 2018, no. 48151/11 and 77769/13), the European Court of Human Rights assessed the compatibility between the right to private and family life and a French Order regulating unannounced anti-doping controls for sport professionals. According to the European Court of Human Rights, the impact of the disputed regulation on sport professionals\u2019 right to private life is not disproportionate with respect to the legitimate necessity to protect public health and assure fairness and equality of opportunities among sport competitors. This decision confirms a specific approach characterising the, albeit limited, case-law elaborated by the European Court of Human Rights on the interplay between sport activities, on one hand, and the right to respect for private and family life, on the other. The European Court of Human Rights tends to highlight the leisure nature of sport activities more than the interests on the part of sport professionals. In relation to professional sport activities, the balancing test seems to place emphasis on public interest linked with the regulation of sport competitions more than on the right to privacy of sport professionals. Instead, when sport activities come into play in relation to their leisure nature, the European Court of Human Rights deeply stresses their importance as a means allowing persons to develop social relations and express personal identity

Il “battesimo del fuoco” della direttiva sui prodotti del tabacco, tra esigenze di armonizzazione e di tutela della salute pubblica

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”)

L\u2019integrazione europea, le giovani generazioni e l\u2019idea di una politica comune per la famiglia

In un'epoca in cui si avverte insoddisfazione e disinteresse verso gli ideali dell'integrazione europea, spesso anche tra i giovani, non va dimenticato che l'UE ha creato uno spazio in cui circolare, lavorare, studiare liberamente, che non ha precedenti nella storia d'Europa, che non ha eguali negli altri continenti e che si \ue8 allargato sempre pi\uf9 nel corso dei decenni. Ai cittadini dell\u2019UE, e specialmente alle giovani generazioni, occorre ricordare che l'UE ha determinato la creazione di una dimensione di libert\ue0 negli ultimi 60 anni che troppo spesso \ue8 data per scontata e alla quale non saprebbe rinunciare chi ha la fortuna di vivere sul territorio dell'Unione. Si possono per\uf2 certamente auspicare ulteriori progressi nella democraticit\ue0 delle Istituzioni europee, in politiche sociali pi\uf9 incisive, e soprattutto nell\u2019adozione di scelte politiche chiare di sostegno diretto alle famiglie.In times of dissatisfaction and disinterest in the ideals of European integration, even among young people, we should not forget that the EU has created an area of freedom where it is possible to circulate, work and study freely. This fact has no precedent in the history of Europe, no equal in any other continent and has expanded ever more over the decades. EU citizens, especially the younger ones, should be reminded that the EU has determined the creation of a dimension of freedom in the last 60 years which is too often taken for granted. To bring people closer to the EU, it would be better to further progress in the democracy of the EU institutions, taking more effective EU social measures, adopting clear EU political choices of direct support to families

Targeting of surface alpha-enolase inhibits the invasiveness of pancreatic cancer cells

Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a highly aggressive malignancy characterized by rapid progression, invasiveness and resistance to treatment. We have previously demonstrated that most PDAC patients have circulating antibodies against the glycolytic enzyme alpha-enolase (ENO1), which correlates with a better response to therapy and survival. ENO1 is a metabolic enzyme, also expressed on the cell surface where it acts as a plasminogen receptor. ENO1 play a crucial role in cell invasion and metastasis by promoting plasminogen activation into plasmin, a serine-protease involved in extracellular matrix degradation. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of ENO1 in PDAC cell invasion. We observed that ENO1 was expressed on the cell surface of most PDAC cell lines. Mouse anti-human ENO1 monoclonal antibodies inhibited plasminogen-dependent invasion of human PDAC cells, and their metastatic spreading in immunosuppressed mice was inhibited. Notably, a single administration of Adeno-Associated Virus (AAV)-expressing cDNA coding for 72/1 anti-ENO1 mAb reduced the number of lung metastases in immunosuppressed mice injected with PDAC cells. Overall, these data indicate that ENO1 is involved in PDAC cell invasion, and that administration of an anti-ENO1 mAb can be exploited as a novel therapeutic option to increase the survival of metastatic PDAC patients

Premessa

Introduzione al volume sui Diritti economici, sociali e culturali. Importanza storica di questa categoria di diritti fondamentali. Importanza di questa pubblicazione nel quadro della collana "Diritti della persona e comunit\ue0 internazionale"

Mercato unico e libertà di circolazione nell'Unione europea

illustrazione, attraverso l'esame della giurisprudenza,. delle libertà di circolazione previste dal Trattato

La ricusazione e la sostituzione degli arbitri

I. L’indipendenza dell’arbitro. - II. L’«obbligo di disclosure». - III. La cessazione dell’arbitro dalla sua funzione; le dimissioni dell’arbitro. - IV. La sostituzione dell’arbitro e la rinnovazione degli atti compiuti prima della sostituzione. - V. Il c.d. «truncated arbitral tribunal». - VI. La ricusazione degli arbitri. - VII. Autonomia delle parti e competenza dei giudici nazionali in materia di ricusazione. - VIII. La ricusazione ai sensi del Reg. ICC. - IX. La ricusazione ai sensi del Reg. UNCITRAL. - X. La ricusazione ai sensi del Reg. Milano. - XI. Cenni di diritto comparato in materia di ricusazione degli arbitri. - XII. La ricusazione nella L.M. UNCITRAL. - XIII. La ricusazione ai sensi della Conv. ICSID e del Reg. ICSID

Diritti, doveri e responsabilit\ue0 degli arbitri

I. Fonti dei diritti e degli obblighi dell\u2019arbitro; il contratto con l\u2019arbitro. - II. Principali diritti e obblighi dell\u2019arbitro. - III. Inadempimento e responsabilit\ue0 dell\u2019arbitro; - IV. (segue) previsioni di immunit\ue0 a favore degli arbitri (e loro carattere relativo); - V. (segue) regimi di responsabilit\ue0 limitata nello svolgimento delle funzioni arbitrali. - VI. Inadempimento e responsabilit\ue0 delle istituzioni arbitral

La tutela della salute tra competenze dell\u2019Unione europea e degli Stati membri

1. Le competenze dell'UE e il "nocciolo duro" dei poteri degli Stati membri in campo sanitario. - 2. Le misure dell\u2019UE di sostegno, coordinamento e completamento dell\u2019azione degli Stati membri a protezione della salute umana. - 3. La competenza concorrente in ordine a \u201cproblemi comuni di sicurezza in materia di sanit\ue0 pubblica\u201d. \u2013 4. Basi giuridiche per l\u2019armonizzazione normativa in materia sanitaria da parte dell\u2019UE. \u2013 5. La giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia sulla competenza dell\u2019UE ad adottare atti di armonizzazione in materia sanitaria. \u2013 6. La protezione della salute alla luce dell\u2019art. 35 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali. \u2013 7. La (limitata) rilevanza dell\u2019art. 35 della Carta a sostegno di pretese individuali. \u2013 8. Il riferimento a norme di diritto primario diverse dall\u2019art. 35 della Carta nel riconoscimento di spazi di tutela della salute per i singoli individui. \u2013 9. La salute come bene pubblico e il suo bilanciamento con altri diritti e libert\ue0 sanciti dal diritto primario dell\u2019UE.The aim of this article is to show the relevance of healthcare in current EU Law and Policy. Various provisions of the TFEU make explicit reference to healthcare, reflecting the potential impact of EU actions in this field. Nevertheless, public health is a matter essentially reserved to national policies, especially for what concerns the choices relating to the management of healthcare systems. This study points out different legal bases that allow EU to adopt either harmonizing acts or \u201cincentive measures\u201d to Member States\u2019 actions in order to protect and improve human health. Within this framework of complementary (and overlapping) competences, it is worth examining to what extent individual needs are taken into consideration in the ECJ\u2019s case-law, particularly in light of the specific provision of healthcare in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (art. 35). So far, the Court has not made reference to the fundamental individual right \u201cto have access to preventive health care and to benefit from medical treatment\u201d as set out in the first sentence of art. 35. Indeed, this study highlights the Court\u2019s recent attitude towards relying extensively on the objective of attaining a high level of protection of human health (art. 35, second sentence of the Charter), in connection with public policy interests. While dealing with the proportionality of restrictions to fundamental rights and freedoms stemming from EU or Member States acts aiming at the protection of health, the Court often strikes a balance with the other rights at stake, acknowledging the primary role of human health among the interests protected in EU Law