Littérature scientifique sur le sujet « Judge-made law – Italy »

In early 1995, Italy ordered the extradition from Argentina to Italy of Erich Priebke. The request was made on the basis of an arrest petition against Priebke issued by the Judge in charge of the preliminary investigation before the Military Justice of Rome. Priebke was accused of ‘having been a member of the German Army, an enemy of the Italian State, in cooperation with … odier German soldiers, widi … executive action of … criminal design and acting with cruelty on people … causing the death of 335 people most of them Italian citizens, military men and civilian people who were not taking part in military operations, and premeditated shooting some shots against them, in “Cave Ardeatine”, Rome, on 24 March 1944 during the time of the war between Italy and Germany.’

AbstractMedical malpractice law and tort reform are contentious issues. In this paper, we focus on Italy as an example of a civil law jurisdiction. Italian medical malpractice law is essentially judge-made law. However, its effectiveness is likely to be curtailed by excessive delays in litigation. Several reforms have been enacted since the late 1980s to correct this situation. By making use of the decisions of the Italian Court of Cassation (which have shaped medical malpractice law) from 1970 to 2009, we show that these reforms had no general statistically significant impact on delays. Recent reduction of delays does not seem to be related to legal reforms but rather explained by other factors.

Introduction The transformational processes occurring in Ukraine today have necessitated the search for new forms of the judicial system organization. The system should be effective, simple and accessible to the public. Most of these requirements correspond to the Peace Court, which under different names has been successfully operating in England, Israel, Italy, Switzerland, the USA and Canada.T herefore, today it is important to study the practice of its formation and development.Goal: based on the analysis of the normative framework of the peace courts functioning in 1917-1919, their judicial practices and conditions of activity, to determine the degree of effectiveness of local justice and its role in establishing the rule of law and order in the Volyn province during the National Revolution.Results After the formation of the Ukrainian governments, the judicial reforms were launched, which changed the structure and competence of local courts. In 1917-1919, the Higher Regional Courts were closed, and their cases were transferred to peace courts. From 1919, the latter could consider the claims worth up to 10,000 rubles and criminal cases with losses of up to 60,000 rubles. Peace judge Petro Ilkevich, commenting on these changes, with pride and sadness said: "No state in the world has such a judicial individual power with such an extensive competency as our peace justice!" The judge's doubts and anxieties were due to big amounts work that judges had to perform then.The Ukrainization of the judicial process became a difficult issue during the judicial reform. The relevant law was adopted on March 1st, 1918, but it was not fully implemented. The shortage of funds, professionals and time prevented its implementation. However, given the enthusiasm of the Volyn judges, their documentation was conducted in Ukrainian already in 1918. The increased attention to the jurisdiction normalization and the improvement of the judicial system testified the Government's desire to ensure the priority of the laws and their strict observance by practical steps. At the same time, the complicated internal political situation, that forced the government to balance on the verge and find compromises, did not allow to fully control the implementation of laws on the ground. The implementation of legislative innovations, as practice shows, completely depended on the initiative and commitment of regional managers and officials, including judges, to the Ukrainian endeavor.The overthrow of autocracy and the proclamation of the national power in the face of the Central Rada, along with the wave of popular upheaval and revolutionary enthusiasm, caused the growth of crime, looting and local anarchy. In 1917-1919, one judge at Zhytomyr Peace Congress on average considered 404 criminal and 287 civil cases, with 60% of the proceedings being completed within two or three months, 39.5% lasting to six months and only 0.5% due to independent reasons lasting more than a year. At the same time, only 7% of the sentences were appealed in higher courts. These indicators convincingly prove the effectiveness of the legal process and the professionalism of the judges who made decisions regardless of the political conjuncture, taking into account only the laws and the sense of justice.Difficult financial situation made it complicated for peace judges to fulfill their duties. For example, V. Lebedinsky, the head of the peace congress, wrote: "Although the judge is a representative of the supreme power in the province, but is forced to lead a poverty-like life – ragged clothes, unable to provide a decent education to his children, be treated if necessary and hold servants, he lives half-starved." The housing issue also remained unresolved. The influx of refugees to the province, as well as the destruction of buildings through military operations, made it virtually impossible to rent a decent room for the court The buildings for courts were allocated on a residual principle, which meant their low quality and high cost. Due to small salaries, the court offices remained without scribes and secretaries. This made judges, tired of their direct duties, stay late in the evening to complete the documents themselves.Conclusion. In 1917-1919s, the Volyn peace courts continued to administer justice in the region and provide qualified legal assistance to the population. Ukrainian governments have taken measures to build the structure and increase the competence of local courts, but ignored the logistical support of judicial activities. At the same time, education, rich professional and life experience helped peace judges partially solve these difficulties.

The comparison of three e-justice platforms (EJP) leads to the identification of a common dynamic – called double normalization – which makes EJP development an institutional and constitutional issue, not just a functional one. The case study analysis of Trial on Line in Italy, e-Curia (Court of Justice of the European Union) and Kwaliteit en Innovatie rechtspraak in the Netherlands shows how EJPs, establishing the working environment for judges, lawyers, and clerks, create more powerful constraints than those provided by the law. The normalization carried out by legal standards to make judicial procedures predictable and homogeneous and grant equal treatment is supplemented by the digital working environment. Hence technology provides an additional layer of normalization, steering the behaviour of judges in predetermined directions and inhibiting other action pathways. The process challenges the right of the judge to interpret procedural law and require appropriate judicial governance mechanisms to safeguard fair trial.

AbstractA century ago the Rijksprentenkabinet in Amsterdam acquired a 19th-century album containing 56 rapid sketches in black chalk after 17th-century, mostly Dutch paintings (Note 1). The sketches, which are numberd, have the names of the painters wrillen on them in the artist's own hand. They were first published in 1895 (Note 2) by E. W. Moes, who concluded that they were by a Delft artist, and C. Hofstede de Groot, who convincingly attributed them to Leonaert Bramer (1596-1674) and identified two of the paintings in question. Since then various other paintings have been identified (Notes 5, 7, 8, 11 and 12), notably by A. Blankert, who has made his findings available for the present publication, and other drawings belonging to the series have been found, Frits Lugt leading the way here (Notes 9 and 10). The present study, the first to be undertaken in depth since 1895, has brought to light three more sketches after paintings by Bramer himself (cat. nos.9-11) and one probably after Wouwerman (cat. no.65), while seven more paintings have been identified and one of the sketches without a name has proved to be after a painting by Antonio Maria Viani. Two lists of the sketches so far found are given here: that of State I reproduces the original order, that of State II gives the artists in alphabetical order as they appear in the catalogue published here. These sketches are of exceptional documentary value, since they have not only given us the names of some previously unknown painters, such as M. de Berch, J. Garbaal, P. Monincx and A. Pick, but they have also revealed unexpected aspects of some well-known ones, e.g. a still life by P. van Groenewegen, a Dutch landscape by J.B. Weenix and a genre piece of a very Utrecht character by L. de Jongh. Moreover, the sketches afford a fine glimpse of collecting in Holland in the 17th century, a subject otherwise known uirtually only from non-visual documents. On the back of one of the drawings (cat. no.6) appears a list of the owners of the pictures sketched (Fig. I), possibly written by Bramer himself. This is reproduced here in an amplified version of Moes' transcription, with one completely new name yielded by the present study. The styles given in the list suggest that the men concerned appear in it in order of their social standing. The first, Simon Graswinckel (c.1611-71), was a member of a wealthy Delft family of brewers and regents. He owned a great deal of property in and around Delft, but is reported by his brothers-in-law to have spent his time in gaming-houses and taverns (Note 30). His will of 1663 is known, but no paintings are mentioned in it. The second man on the list was probably a Van Beresteijn, another family from the wealthy upper echelons of Delft society. His precise identity came to light in a roundabout way via the inventory of 28 February 1652 of Adriaen van Vredenburg, in which are listed a number of paintings that were very probably sketched by Bramer (Note 32), notably one of Jezebel, this mention and Bramer's sketch being virtually unique indications of this subject in Dutch 17th-century painting. Vredenburg does not appear in the list of owners of the paintings, but on his death his property went to his stepdaughter, whose guardian he had been and who married Theodorus van Beresteijn in November 1652. Antonie van Bronchorst is known only from the commission he gave Bramer in 1653 to painl frescoes in his house (Note 34), while Capitein van der Bon..., Nicolaas van der Werch and Johan Persijn have not yet been traced in the Delft archives. Willem de Langue (1599-1666), on the other hand, was a lawyer and a connoisseur of paintings unparalleled in Delft in the mid 17th century (Note 36). He himself made the inventories of the paintings in important estates and he numbered many artists among his clientele (Note 37). Portraits of him and his wife by Van Vliet are known (Note 38), while he also appears as an officer in a militia piece of 1648 by Jacob Willemsz Delff (Fig. 2). Abraham de Cooge (before 1600-after 1680) was the most versatile person in the list, being an engraver, painter, dealer in tulip bulbs, organs and paintings and pottery manufacturer (Note 39). He was registered in the Guild of St. Luke in Delft in 1632 and two paintings by him are known (Note 40). In 1646 Leonaerl Bramer made illustrations to the picaresque novel Lazarilo de Tormes for him (Note 17). In the 1650's De Cooge was increasingly involved in art-dealing and that on no small scale. He also had representatives in Antwerp, so was probably among the biggest art-dealers in the Northern Netherlands. Adam Pick (c. 1622-before 1666) enrolled in the Guild of St. Luke in Delft in 1642 (Note 43) and was active in the town up to the early 1650's as a painter of landscapes, genre pieces and still lifes (Fig.3) and also as the keeper of the Toelast ( Wine Cask) inn. He probably moved to Leiden, where he is mentioned in 1654 as a vintner, in 1653, perhaps as a consequence of the death of his first wife in 1652, f or he certainly sold the inn that year. The inventory of their joint property drawn up in 1653 includes a list of paintings, which tally with nos.8(?) -98 in the State I list. Only one painting by Pick is known (Fig.3), plus the sketch by Bramer after another (cat. no.44). Reinier Jansz Vermeer (1591-1652, Note 46), the father of Johannes, started out as a silk weaver, but appears in 1629 as an innkeeper and in 1631 was registered in the Guild of St. Luke in Delft as an art-dealer. From then on he came into frequent contact with local painters, Bramer included, but his dealing was probably only a sideline of his innkeeping. He died in October 1652. The last owner on the list is Bramer himself, who returned to Delft in 1628 after a lengthy period in France and Italy (1614-27, Note 49). He played a leading part in the Guild of St. Luke and was among the most successful painters in Delft around the middle of the 17th century. Later in life, however, he was often in financial difficulties (Note 50). He was one of the very few Dutch fresco painters (Note 51), as well as a painter of history and genre pieces and a prolific draughtsman and illustrator (Note 52), while just one document provides evidence of his dealing in paintirtgs (Note 54). The presence of works by Bramer himself among the sketches seems to rule out the theory that he made them as an aide mémoire for his own use (Note 15), while their very rapid character makes it unlikely that they were produced for one of the owners as an art-object. It also seems highly improbable that the collectors/owners would have wanted their collections of paintings sketched together in one book. The most acceptable suggestion appears to be that they were made in connection with a forthcoming sale of pictures, particularly as three of the owners listed were involved in art-dealing, while in the cases of Vermeer, Pick and Van Beresteijn there was every reason for paintings from their collections being sold around the end of 1652 or beginning of 1653: Vermeer's death left his family in dire financial straits, Pick will probably have sold his pictures (as he did his inn) before moving to Leiden and Van Beresteijn will probably have wanted to realize some money on his wife's inheritance. Thus the dates of Vermeer's burial in October 1652 and Pick's inventory of March 1653 would seem to provide crucial clues to the dating of the sketches, which were probably made in rapid succession, to judge from the unity of style, despite the great diversity of the models, and the straightforward consecutive numbering. Presumably the intention was to bring these pictures from Delft collections together for a sale (Note 18) and Bramer was commissioned to make sketches in advance (or even to make a certain selection, Note 19) possibly to give an idea of what was on offer to collectors or dealers elsewhere (which might explain the 'inking in' of the painters' names originally written in chalk on five of the drawings, cat. nos. 17, 35, 36, 47 and 64). Bramer made such chalk inscriptions on ten of the drawings (Note 20), probably while sketching them. Afterwards he inscribed and numbered all of them in ink (Note 5). Notes in another 17th-century hand appear on cat. nos.22 and 24. The sheets may all have been of the same size originally, but have since been cut down, often wholly or partly along the framing lines around the sketch. This may well have been done by Bramer himsef or the dealer he made them for. Just over half of them remained together and were stuck into the present album in the 19th century. There are no portraits among the sketches and only two stll lifes and two marine paintings, but eleven Italianate landscapes and 22 history paintings. Thus the subjects differ somewhat from the categories arrived at by Montiasfor mid 17th-century Delft from his study of inventories (Note 56). The preference for history pieces is probably to be explained by the high social standing of the owners. The majority of the pictures were very modern for that time and of the 41 artists, 28 were still alive in 1652-3 and eight of them were only 35 or younger. Bramer's material contradicts Montlas' conclusion that Delft collectors showed a preference for local painters (Note 58), whose work amounted to 40-50% of that listed in the inventories. Of Bramer's 41 painters, only thirteen were from Delft (Note 59) and only five are found in Montias' list of the most common painters in Delft inventories. Thus the pictures sketched by Bramer fall outside the 'normal Delft pattern' and evince a less provincial taste. However, the collectors were still not among the leading figures of their day in this field by comparison with, for example, Boudewijn de Man of Delft (Note 62), whose collection included works by Goltzius, Bloemaert, Rubens, Rembrandt and Ter Brugghen in 1644. The pictures sketched by Bramer were presumably to be brought together for public auction and the sketches may very probably have been made with an eye to the sale catalogue. While sale catalogues are known in the second half of the 17th century, they only relate to very important collections, which makes these sketches very unusual as a documentation of a sale of pictures from average well-to-do collectors and dealers. The collection of sketches as such certainly has no parallel at this period (Note 64).

Defence date: 29 November 1991
Examining board: Prof. B. de Witte, I.U.E., superviseur ; Prof. L.M. Diez-Picazo, I.U.E. ; Prof. J.C. Escarras, Toulon ; Prof. A. Pizzorusso, Pise ; T. Renoux, Aix-Marseille ; Prof. M. de Villiers, Nantes
PDF of thesis uploaded from the Library digitised archive of EUI PhD theses completed between 2013 and 2017