1,721,028 research outputs found
Tornare a discutere di riviste giuridiche
No full textThe Author traces back the role played by legal magazines over the years, emphasising
their being a mirror representation, genuine, silent and at the same time relentless, of the
different phases of legal theory.
The most recent magazines’ function is to renew the dialogue between legal theory and
case-law; this dialogue should neither be casual, nor a captive of the alternative, as sad as
it is popular, between occasional disapproving distancing and too enthusiastic acceptance in
respect of court’ choices
I diritti dei consumatori dopo la Direttiva 2011/83/UE
No full textIl saggio offre una disamina critica dei contenuti della Direttiva 2011/83/UE, anche in rapporto agli obiettivi annunciati nella Proposta ( e poi abbandonati), soffermandosi particolarmente sulle regole in tema di obblighi di informazione al consumatore.Alla luce di queste regole, la nuova Direttiva si rivela quale ulteriore significativa conferma della scelta che affida l'obiettivo della trasparenza contrattuale a rigide prescrizioni di forma e contenuto dell'informazione, lungo un processo che qui viene definito di "standardizzazione" delle condotte del professionista. L'obiettivo di disclosure viene affidato non a tecniche di controllo e verifica del concreto livello di informazione offerto al contraente "debole" ,bensì a standard predeterminati di trasparenza ritenuti "tollerabili" dai professionisti e per questo imposti in modo generalizzato. Gli obblighi di informazione, ora estesi ai contratti "diversi" da quelli a distanza o negoziati fuori dai locali commerciali, vedono accentuarsi il loro "polimorfismo", presentandosi solo in alcuni casi nella veste "forte" di informazione i cui contenuti costituiscono già parte integrante del contratto. Ciò malgrado, nel solco dei precedenti, la Direttiva non risolve la questione, centrale, dei rimedi alla violazione degli obblighi di informazione, delegandola ancora una volta alle scelte degli Stati membri. Il significato della persistente "neutralità" del legislatore comunitario sul punto viene qui indagato alla luce dell'attuale processo di revisione dell'acquis comunitario e segnatamente con riguardo alle scelte emerse nel Draft Common Frame of Reference e nella Proposta di regolamento per un diritto ccmune della vendita, entrambi significativi nel senso di restituire il regime degli obblighi di informazione al terreno, tradizionale, della responsabilità precontrattuale, lasciando sullo sfondo, irrisolta, la questione posta dalla evidente contiguità tra violazione degli obblighi di informazione e casi di "defect of consent", pure segnalata dalla migliore dottrina europea. Il ritorno all'alveo rassicurante della responsabilità precontrattuale si compie a costo - evidenzia il saggio - di aprire la via ad un forte ridimensionamento della "specialità" del diritto dei contratti di consumo, di cui l'Autore individua quale indice significativo l'estensione della regola di responsabilità a tutti gli obblighi di informazione anche nei contratti tra professionisti(art.29 diritto comune dell vendita). La riflessione critica consente di prospettare la conclusione che la Direttiva segni il livello massimo (pur deludente) di un diritto "di protezione" verosimilmente destinato a perdere la sua specialità e con essa la sua "intensità"
La nuova disciplina dell'impresa agricola e dei contratti agrari e le ricadute nel sistema.
No full text
L'impresa agricola dopo la novella dell'art.2135
No full textIl saggio si sofferma sulla novella dell'art.2135 c.c.ricordandone le premesse e delineandone i contenuti, con l'obiettivo di offrirne una lettura critica in chiave sistematic
Gli obblighi di informazione tra regole di protezione del consumatore e diritto contrattuale europeo uniforme e opzionale
No full textLess ambitious than the original proposals, the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83 focuses on the area of information duties and the right of withdrawal in B2C contracts.
This article analyses the new rules providing information obligations, and highlights some of the unresolved questions particularly concerning the level of consumer protection, and the remedies for the breach of those obligations.
An extensive catalogue of information is now to be given in distance and off-premises contracts; and – according to the existing rules within the Directives on Timeshare Contracts and Package Travel - this catalogue forms an integral part of the contract. According to the Author’s opinion, the option for a detailed provision of the elements that must be disclosed to the consumers, on the one hand , combined with the imposition of formal requirements to be fulfilled in providing informations, demonstrate how the Directive keeps on enhancing the “standardization” of the B2C contractual relationship instead of trying to introduce a more personalized information.
Information duties are now to be fulfilled by the trader also in a contract other than a distance or an off-premises one, even if , due to many exceptions, the spectrum of “other” contracts to which this obligation applies is much narrower than at first glance. However, in contrast to the information requirements in distance and off-premises contracts, the Directive does not stipulate that there is a reversal of the burden of proof in “other” contracts; the catalogue of information to be given doesn’t form, in this case, an integral part of the contract. The Author stresses how the Directive, while going on in implementing the range of information duties, has not chosen – unlike the Proposal - to opt for a more systematic approach . No single rule tells the consumer what remedies can be used to enforce the failing of the information duties by the professional, so that the Directive fails the attempt to bring coherency to existing rules and particularly misses its chance to harmonize the remedies in European contract law for breaches of duties of disclosure. Once again, it’s to the Member States to provide “effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties”, but, due to the principle of full harmonization, the level of consumer protection could hardly be increased by domestic rules:
The main limit of the Directive – under Author’s opinion – is that the European legislator seems to consider in the same way precontractual information duties and those informations that, according to the foreseen provisions, has become content of the contract, and can’t therefore be assumed as “precontractual”, better concerning the formation of a valid contract.
The current review of the acquis should have included the strengthening of the available remedies and, as some scholars suggest, should have explored, in the case, the proximity between failure of disclosure and the defect of consent itself . The Green Paper on the Review of the Consumer Acquis, on the other hand, suggested that “”there would be different remedies for breaching different groups of information obligations”
On the contrary, the Directive replicates the acquis approach and the option now adopted in the DFCR as well as in the Proposal for a Common European Sales Law : the breach of information obligations seems to be considered only in the framework of pre-contractual liability, as demonstrate both the insertion on the general good faith principle and the provision of a right of damages for the consumers. The conclusion of the paper is that the Directive fits very well into a scenario which could lead to reduce the role played by consumer law as lex specialis which should derogate to general contract law
Distribuzione di energia elettrica e oneri di sbilanciamento: un caso emblematico di difficile compatibilità tra diritti dei consumatori e regole di mercato
No full textThe article aims to explore to what extent consumers protection, as principle constitutionally guaranteed by art.38 of EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, should affect the rules governing the electricity dispatching service and the balancing system. On a market such as the electricity market, where demand is inflexible and the product concerned cannot be stored, electricity dispatching service is designed to ensure that, within the national transmission system, the supply of electricity matches demand, thereby guaranteeing security and continuity in the energy supply. Transparent market-based mechanisms for the supply and purchase of electricity needs to be combined with balancing measures, whose aim should be the best allocation of the unbalancing costs, particularly the ones due to non- programmable sources of electricity: only adequate programming strategies adopted by this operators could reduce unbalancing costs that will be passed on consumers. After a thorough preliminary investigation, carried on by the Italian Regulatory Authority for Electricity and Gas, many operators have recent been found guilty of irregular behavior in the wholesale electricity markets, particularly in balancing, The paper addresses the question whether public policies and regulatory action concerning balancing costs can be regarded only as a problem of competition law and market regulation. According to EU and domestic law (2009/72/EC Directive and its implementation) national regulatory authorities should play an active role to ensure that balancing tariffs would be non-discriminatory and cost-reflective. Moreover, consumer interests are at the heart of this Directive which particularly focuses on information rights. In recent judgments our Administrative Courts, by referring only to the non-discrimination principle, argued that the reform of the balancing system (aimed at developing a more cost reflective distribution of the costs by reducing the difference in the treatment of programmable and non- programmable sources) had been adopted by the Regulatory Authority (in 2012) with breach of the rights of producers of non-programmable sources, because the two categories of operators are non in a comparable situation. On the other hand, the Administrative Court held that it is left to the Authority and its discretional power to decide if and how charging consumers of these costs. The A. criticizes such approach and the implied hierarchy between non-discriminatory principle and transparency principle adopted by national Courts. And she attempts to show how transparency requirements regarding contractual terms and conditions in consumers contracts, according to the recent developments in ECJ case-law, should play a key role, in the case, in requiring the development of a cost reflective regulatio
« NULLITÀ DI PROTEZIONE » E POTERI DEL GIUDICE TRA CORTE DI GIUSTIZIA E SEZIONI UNITE DELLA CORTE DI CASSAZIONE
No full textABSTRACT
The “nullità di protezione” in the rulings of the European Court of Justice and in the recent judgments of the Joint Sections of the Italian Supreme Court. The Italian legislator provides, as a consequence of the unfairness of a term in consumers contracts, the remedy of nullity, which can only occur to the advantage of the consumer, whereby the court has jurisdiction to declare the term void on its own motion. This is the concept of “protective nullity“ (nullità di protezione) adopted in article 36 of the Italian Consumer Code, and framed by the European Court of Justice. It remains unclear, in such a rule especially when read in the framework of Italian law, whether the court is entitled to declare the term void even if the consumer expressly wishes to be bound by the clause. Moreover, in Italian law, several rules provide the nullity to the advantage of one party, but they generally state thatthe clause or the contract as a whole can be declared void only upon the weaker ’s party request, without saying anything about the ex officio declaration. Thus, it remains controversial whether the court can declare the nullity on its own motion and the regime of art. 1421
c.c. applies, where the rule is silent. The essay focuses on the general question whether the interest of the consumer — with no doubt at the basis of the remedy under consideration — is compatible with the general, public interest and
with the duty of the court to declare the nullity ex officio, perhaps in contrast with the individual interest of the “protected” party; particularly where the remedy occurs beyond the special case of the (partial) nullity of the unfair clause, and the alternative between total nullity or maintenance of the contract is concerned. The question isnowaddressed by two recent judgments of the Joint Sections of the Italian Supreme Court, concerning the powers of the courts when dealing with the nullity provided to the interest of one party. The main question referred to the Supreme Court concerned the duty of the court to declare the contract void on its own motion even if the party had claimed only the judicial termination in case of non performance. emarkably, theSupremeCourt, in both the decisions (of 2012 and 2014), assumes a general approach and also considers the role of the court when the “protective nullity” is concerned. In the first decision—
Cass. SS.UU. n. 2012 n. 14828—the Supreme Court held that, when the nullity can only occur to the advantage of one party to the contract, the court has no jurisdiction to declare it on its own motion. Thiswouldbe the only exception to the general principle which requires the ex officio declaration of the nullity. In themorerecent decision, Cass. n. 12642 del 2014, the Joint Sections completely revise their view and hold that the court must always declare the nullity by its own motion,
but when the nullity is provided in the interest of one party the court must (only) point out the nullity and not declare it if the party (the consumer) opposes to that. The paper criticizes this approach and the following principle which applies the “Pannon ruling”, and points out how the morerecent Banif Plus has refined that ruling even when the partial nullity is concerned. If, as in the reasoning of the Supreme Court, the duty of
the court to declare the nullity ex officio aims to guarantee a general interest and even the values held by the Constitution — the A. argues— there is no way the party can “oppose” to the ex officio declaration
and express her own (private) interest to preserve the contract. The paper concludes that the regime of the “protective nullity” provided in art. 36 Italian Consumer Code, and shaped by the European Court of
Justice, fits (only) to the partial nullity in case of unfairness assessment, and cannot be assumed as a general rule. Perhaps, the A.suggests, a different remedy would appear to be an ‘appropriateconsumer protection measure’, in case of violation of imperative rules devoted to the protection of the weaker party: as Eva Martín Martín clarifies, the “non-binding nature” of the clause or of the contractviolating statutes for the protection of only one of the parties to thecontract, which the Directives require, should be achieved without calling in question the concept of nullity
- …
