No description available.

The recent reform in European antitrust enforcement is embodied in Regolation n. 1/2003/ Ce and related Communications. Since 2004 when it came into force, some crytical assessments can already be made. The work starts from some technical analysis of the reform, under a procedural perspective, to assess the proceedings’ real impact on parties’ rights and to criticize its limits. Decentralisation has brought about more complicacies, since community procedural systems are not harmonized, neither in their administrative rules, nor in their civil proceedings, which are all involved in the European antitrust network. Therefore, antitrust proceedings end un as being more jurisdictional in their effects than in their guarentees, which is a flaw to be mended by legislators. National laws shoud be harmonized, community law should be clarified and the system should turn more honestly towards a rationalized jurisdiction-cented mechanism. Otherwise, parties defense rights and the overall efficiency are put into doubt. Italy is a good exemple of how many colmlicacies can outburst from national procedures and national decentralised application. An uncertain pattern of judicial control, together with unclear relationships among the institutions to cooperate in the antitrust network can produce more problems than they aim to solve. As to the private enforcement, Regulation n.1 does not even attempt to give precise regulation to this underdeveloped sector. A continual comparison with U.S. system has brought the Commission to become aware both of the risks and of the advanteges of an increased civil antitrust litigation in fronto of national judges. In order to substain a larger development of this parallel and, presently, difficult way of judicial compensation, it is presently ongoing a consultation among states to find suitable incentives to make private enforcement more appealing and effective. The solution to this lack of private litigation is not to be sought in Regulation n. 1 which calls into action national legislators and proceedures to implement further improvements. As a conclusion, Regulation n. 1 is the outpost of an ambitious community design to create an efficient control mechanism over antitrust violations. It focuses on Commission proceedings, powers and sanctions in order to establish deterrence, then it highlights civil litigation perspectives and it involves directly states into antitrust application. It seems that more could be done to technically shape administrative proceedings in a more jurisdictionally oriented form, then to clarify respective roles and coordination mecanisms in order to prevent difficulties easy to forsee. Some of jurisprudential suggestions have been accepted, but much more is left to be done in the future to improve european antitrust enforcement system.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The doctorate’s theme of research - Abstract My doctorate’s theme of research is about the Investigation in the Italian criminal proceedings. The Italian Code of criminal procedure of 1988 is the fruit of a new ideology that marks a departure from Italy’s prior inquisitorial tradition. According to criminal procedure Code of 1988, an accusatorial system separates the investigation and trial stages and the judge’s decision is based only on evidence collected in oral form in his presence in a public trial containing adversarial dynamics. The Italian Code of 1988 created a separation between criminal investigations and trial. Investigations are conducted by Public Prosecutor: he conducts the investigation phase in order to deem whether to file a formal charge against the defendant or to dismiss the case and the investigative evidence collected should serve only for this purpose. According to so called “inutilizzabilità fisiologica”’s rule, the evidence collected during investigations by prosecutor is not usable during trial by the judge: the results of the investigative efforts displayed by the parties should be kept outside of court. If the proceedings go on to trial, the case shall be deemed with only evidence collected in front of the judge. To create the separation of the trial phase from the investigation stage, there is the double-dossier system. During the investigations, evidence are collected in an investigation dossier. The trial judge will never see the investigation dossier and the trial judge’s decision is based on a new dossier, the trial dossier, with the evidence collected during the trial. The issue of my research is about the investigation, the so called “inutilizzabilità fisiologica”’s rule and also the exclusionary rules that concern the investigative phase and the decisions pronounced during the investigations (for example, the decisions concerning pre-trial confinement). 2 In fact, the exclusionary rule system (so called “inutilizzabilità patologica”) provides that evidence cannot be used in Italian criminal proceedings if it was the result of illegal inquiry.

No description available.

No description available.

Sect. 606, par. 1, e), as modified by Law 46, enacted on Februray 20th, 2006 introduced the chance to appeal to the Court of cassation in case of inconsistent reasoning and extended control on its existence and on other flaws and lack of obvious logic over the text of the contested decision, namely “to other acts the process specified in the grounds of burden”. The renewed provision seems to properly reappoint the “distortion of the evidence”, i.e. the omitted or distorted evidence that could be relevant and conclusive one, in the peculiar context of the grounds' vice. After a general review of the obligation to state reasons for judicial decisions, we analyze the innovative status of the vice of “distortion of evidence” and the conditions and the limits - defined by the law - within we can contest a resolution for illegitimacy. Then, we outline the systematic spin-off brought by the new form of sect. 606, par. 1, e) on some institutions in the code of criminal procedure. Finally, we make the role of the Court of cassation clear in the modern criminal trial, since the 2006 reform gave no definite answer on this fundamental aspect of the question.