Access to administrative documents and to public sector information in Italy

Law No. 241 of 1990 on administrative procedure (Italian APA) established general rules on the right of access to administrative documents for the first time in the Italian legal system, which partly reproduced rules defined in sectorial legislations. From such very restrictive regime of access to administrative documents\u2014lately accompanied by a rather demagogical obligation imposed on public administrations to disclose a set of information in the context of the so-called open data policies\u2014Italy has recently moved forth to public access to data and documents held by public administrations

Jhering, Rudolf von

Rudolf von Jhering (1818–1892) was Professor in Roman and Private Law since 1845 and one of the most important German jurists of the nineteenth century. His very rich literary production lasted 50 years. In such a huge period of activity, Jhering’s legal perspective and method changed. Thus his jurisprudence is usually divided into two periods: The first one is considered as the formalist, constructivist, and systematic phase (from 1842 to 1871) and the second period (from 1872 to 1892) represents the realist, teleological, and proto-sociological phase of his production. The passage to the second stage took a transition period from 1859 to 1871, when Jhering expressed a kind of dissatisfaction for a purely formal study of law, which was mainly based on systematic and formalist thinking and scarcely involved with the “substantial element of the law.

Computation, Cybernetics and the Law at the Origins of Legal Informatics

The present contribution aims to address the ways in which legal phi- losophy approached and conceptualised the emergence of information technologies between the 1960s and 1970s. We will do that by examining the contributions of four thinkers, coming from different philosophical and ideological backgrounds: Vittorio Frosini, Mario Losano, Luigi Lombardi Vallauri and Renato Borruso. These authors look into the evolution of law and technology from different perspectives that are representative of different approaches to legal theory: the evolutions of ide- alism (Frosini), analytic philosophy combined with positivism (Losano), anti-positivism in combination with ethical/axiological inquiry (Lombardi Vallauri), as well as the more practical policy-oriented approach of legal practitioners (Borruso)

Terutroban versus aspirin in patients with cerebral ischaemic events (PERFORM): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial

Background: Patients with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) are at high risk of recurrent stroke or other cardiovascular events. We compared the selective thromboxane-prostaglandin receptor antagonist terutroban with aspirin in the prevention of cerebral and cardiovascular ischaemic events in patients with a recent non-cardioembolic cerebral ischaemic event. <p/>Methods: This randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial was undertaken in 802 centres in 46 countries. Patients who had an ischaemic stroke in the previous 3 months or a TIA in the previous 8 days were randomly allocated with a central interactive response system to 30 mg per day terutroban or 100 mg per day aspirin. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of fatal or non-fatal ischaemic stroke, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction, or other vascular death (excluding haemorrhagic death). We planned a sequential statistical analysis of non-inferiority (margin 1·05) followed by analysis of superiority. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study was stopped prematurely for futility on the basis of the recommendation of the Data Monitoring Committee. This study is registered, number ISRCTN66157730. <p/>Findings: 9562 patients were assigned to terutroban (9556 analysed) and 9558 to aspirin (9544 analysed); mean follow-up was 28·3 months (SD 7·7). The primary endpoint occurred in 1091 (11%) patients receiving terutroban and 1062 (11%) receiving aspirin (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·94–1·12). There was no evidence of a difference between terutroban and aspirin for the secondary or tertiary endpoints. We recorded some increase in minor bleedings with terutroban compared with aspirin (1147 [12%] vs 1045 [11%]; HR 1·11, 95% CI 1·02–1·21), but no significant differences in other safety endpoints. <p/>Interpretation: The trial did not meet the predefined criteria for non-inferiority, but showed similar rates of the primary endpoint with terutroban and aspirin, without safety advantages for terutroban. In a worldwide perspective, aspirin remains the gold standard antiplatelet drug for secondary stroke prevention in view of its efficacy, tolerance, and cost

Rationale and design of a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study of terutroban 30 mg/day versus aspirin 100 mg/day in stroke patients: the prevention of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events of ischemic origin with terutroban in patients with a history of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (PERFORM) study.

BACKGROUND: Ischemic stroke is the leading cause of mortality worldwide and a major contributor to neurological disability and dementia. Terutroban is a specific TP receptor antagonist with antithrombotic, antivasoconstrictive, and antiatherosclerotic properties, which may be of interest for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke. This article describes the rationale and design of the Prevention of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular Events of ischemic origin with teRutroban in patients with a history oF ischemic strOke or tRansient ischeMic Attack (PERFORM) Study, which aims to demonstrate the superiority of the efficacy of terutroban versus aspirin in secondary prevention of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PERFORM Study is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study being carried out in 802 centers in 46 countries. The study population includes patients aged > or =55 years, having suffered an ischemic stroke (< or =3 months) or a transient ischemic attack (< or =8 days). Participants are randomly allocated to terutroban (30 mg/day) or aspirin (100 mg/day). The primary efficacy endpoint is a composite of ischemic stroke (fatal or nonfatal), myocardial infarction (fatal or nonfatal), or other vascular death (excluding hemorrhagic death of any origin). Safety is being evaluated by assessing hemorrhagic events. Follow-up is expected to last for 2-4 years. Assuming a relative risk reduction of 13%, the expected number of primary events is 2,340. To obtain statistical power of 90%, this requires inclusion of at least 18,000 patients in this event-driven trial. The first patient was randomized in February 2006. CONCLUSIONS: The PERFORM Study will explore the benefits and safety of terutroban in secondary cardiovascular prevention after a cerebral ischemic event