Judges and Mass Litigation - a (Behavioural) Law and Economics Perspective

Judicial duties have for decades extended far beyond the scope of traditional adjudication, judges being progressively called upon to occupy the role of social engineers. Meanwhile, contexts in which judges evolve have transformed: mass damage nowadays tends to multiply and create new challenges not only for legal actors, but also for society at large. In spring 2011, the replies received by the European Commission to its public consultation on collective redress indicated European stakeholders’ strong interest in seeing judiciaries play prominent and leading roles in the supervision and monitoring of procedures which enable groups of claimants to seek together compensation for damage caused by mass events. Judges are thus expected to be neutral and robust agents while assuming heavy responsibilities under a considerable burden. Insights from social sciences however invite us to revisit policymakers expectations and may shed new light on current debates about mass litigation.

Aspetti processuali del Regolamento n. 1/2003/Ce

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.

L'utilizzabilità degli atti nella fase investigativa. La prova per le indagini preliminari

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.

Le politiche giudiziarie inglesi degli anni 2000: mutamento di paradigma e rafforzamento dell'incisività politica dei giudici

The Ph.D. dissertation analyses the reasons for which political actors (governments, legislatures and political parties) decide consciously to give away a source of power by increasing the political significance of the courts. It focuses on a single case of particular significance: the passage of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 in the United Kingdom. This Act has deeply changed the governance and the organization of the English judicial system, has provided a much clearer separation of powers and a stronger independence of the judiciary from the executive and the legislative. What’s more, this strengthening of the judicial independence has been decided in a period in which the political role of the English judges was evidently increasing. I argue that the reform can be interpreted as a «paradigm shift» (Hall 1993), that has changed the way in which the judicial power is considered. The most diffused conceptions in the sub-system of the English judicial policies are shifted, and a new paradigm has become dominant. The new paradigm includes: (i) stronger separation of powers, (ii) collective (as well as individual) conception of the independence of the judiciary, (iii) reduction of the political accountability of the judges, (iv) formalization of the guarantees of judicial independence, (v) principle-driven (instead of pragmatic) approach to the reforms, and (vi) transformation of a non-codified constitution in a codified one. Judicialization through political decisions represent an important, but not fully explored, field of research. The literature, in particular, has focused on factors unable to explain the English case: the competitiveness of the party system (Ramseyer 1994), the political uncertainty at the time of constitutional design (Ginsburg 2003), the cultural divisions within the polity (Hirschl 2004), federal institutions and division of powers (Shapiro 2002). All these contributes link the decision to enhance the political relevance of the judges to some kind of diffusion of political power. In the contemporary England, characterized by a relative high concentration of power in the government, the reasons for such a reform should be located elsewhere. I argue that the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 can be interpreted as a result of three different kinds of reasons: (i) the social and demographical transformations of the English judiciary, which have made inefficient most of the precedent mechanism of governance, (ii) the role played by the judges in the policy process and (iii) the cognitive and normative influences originated from the European context, as a consequence of the membership of the United Kingdom to the European Union and the Council of Europe. My thesis is that only a full analysis of all these three aspects can explain the decision to reform the judicial system and the content of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Only the cultural influences come from the European legal complex, above all, can explain the paradigm shift previously described.

La diagnosi genetica preimpianto: argomenti favorevoli e contrari alla sua legittimità

Questa tesi ricostruisce la storia della giurisprudenza italiana che ha riguardato la legittimità o meno dell’impiego della diagnosi genetica preimpianto nell’ambito della procreazione medicalmente assistita, dall’emanazione della legge 40 del 2004 a tutt’oggi. Ed in particolare questa tesi si prefigge due obiettivi: uno, individuare ed illustrare le tipologie di argomenti utilizzati dal giurista-interprete per giudicare della legittimità o meno della pratica della diagnosi preimpianto degli embrioni prodotti, mediante le tecniche relative alla procreazione assistita; l’altro obiettivo, mostrare sia lo scontro fra i differenti argomenti, sia le ragioni per le quali prevalgono gli argomenti usati per legittimare la pratica della diagnosi preimpianto. Per raggiungere questi obiettivi, e per mostrare in maniera fenomenologica come avviene l’interpretazione giuridica in materia di diagnosi preimpianto, si è fatto principalmente riferimento alla visione che ha della detta interpretazione la prospettiva ermeneutica (concepita originariamente sul piano teoretico, quale ermeneutica filosofica, da H.G. Gadamer; divulgata ed approfondita sul piano giusfilosofico e della teoria dell’interpretazione giudica in Italia, fra gli altri, da F. Viola e G. Zaccaria). Così, in considerazione dei vari argomenti utilizzati per valutare la legittimità o meno della pratica della diagnosi preimpianto, i motivi per i quali in ultimo il giurista-interprete per giudicare ragionevolmente, deve ritenere legittima la pratica della diagnosi preimpianto sono i seguenti. I principi superiori dell’ordinamento e talune direttive giuridiche fondamentali dell’ordinamento, elaborate della giurisprudenza, le quali costituiscono la concretizzazione di detti principi e di una serie di disposizioni normative fondamentali per disciplinare il fenomeno procreativo, depongono per la legittimità della diagnosi preimpianto. Le tipologie degli argomenti impiegati per avallare la legittimità della diagnosi preimpianto attengono al tradizionale repertorio argomentativo a cui attinge il giurista, mentre la stessa cosa non si può dire per gli argomenti usati per negare la legittimità della diagnosi. Talune tipologie di argomenti utilizzate per negare la legittimità della diagnosi preimpianto costituiscono delle fallacie logiche, per esempio l’argomento del pendio scivoloso, e soprattutto le tipologie degli argomenti utilizzati per sostenere la legittimità della diagnosi preimpianto sono per lo più caratterizzate dalla ragionevolezza ed applicate per lo più opportunamente. Poi, si può osservare che: determinati argomenti, associati dal giurista-interprete ai principi i quali depongono per l’illegittimità della diagnosi preimpianto, facendo leva sulla categoria della possibilità, ed equiparando attualità e possibilità, privilegiano l’immaginazione alla realtà e portano a risultati interpretativi non razionalmente fondati; mentre gli argomenti associati dal giurista-interprete ai principi i quali depongono per la legittimità della diagnosi preimpianto, facendo leva sulla categoria della attualità, e tenendo ben distinte attualità e possibilità, privilegiano l’osservazione della realtà e portano a risultati razionalmente fondati.

La nutrizione-idratazione artificiale è terapia? All'interfaccia tra scienza, diritto e bioetica, il fine vita in Italia, secondo una prospettiva di comunicazione della scienza post-accademica e Science&Technologies Studies (STS)

The question “artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) is therapy or not?” is one of the key point of end-of-life issues in Italy, since it was (and it is also nowadays) a strategic and crucial point of the Italian Bioethics discussion about the last phases of human life: determining if ANH is therapy implies the possibility of being included in the list of treatments that could be mentioned for refusal within the living will document. But who is entitled to decide and judge if ANH is a therapy or not? Scientists? The Legislator? Judges? Patients? This issue at first sight seems just a matter of science, but at stake there is more than a scientific definition. According to several scholars, we are in the era of post-academic Science, in which Science broaden discussion, production, negotation and decision to other social groups that are not just the scientific communities. In this process, called co-production, on one hand scientific knowledge derives from the interaction between scientists and society at large. On the other hand, science is functional to co-production of social order. The continuous negotation on which science has to be used in social decisions is just the evidence of the mirroring negotation for different way to structure and interpret society. Thus, in the interaction between Science and Law, deciding what kind of Science could be suitable for a specific kind of Law, envisages a well defined idea of society behind this choice. I have analysed both the legislative path (still in progress) in the living will act production in Italy and Eluana Englaro’s judicial case (that somehow collapsed in the living will act negotiation), using official documents (hearings, texts of the official conference, committees comments and ruling texts) and interviewing key actors in the two processes from the science communication point of view (who talks in the name of science? Who defines what is a therapy? And how do they do?), finding support on the theoretical framework of the Science&Technologies Studies (S&TS).

Quantifying the Economics of Medical Malpractice - A View from a Civil Law Perspective

Life is full of uncertainties. Legal rules should have a clear intention, motivation and purpose in order to diminish daily uncertainties. However, practice shows that their consequences are complex and hard to predict. For instance, tort law has the general objectives of deterring future negligent behavior and compensating the victims of someone else's negligence. Achieving these goals are particularly difficult in medical malpractice cases. To start with, when patients search for medical care they are typically sick in the first place. In case harm materializes during the treatment, it might be very hard to assess if it was due to substandard medical care or to the patient's poor health conditions. Moreover, the practice of medicine has a positive externality on the society, meaning that the design of legal rules is crucial: for instance, it should not result in physicians avoiding practicing their activity just because they are afraid of being sued even when they acted according to the standard level of care. The empirical literature on medical malpractice has been developing substantially in the past two decades, with the American case being the most studied one. Evidence from civil law tradition countries is more difficult to find. The aim of this thesis is to contribute to the empirical literature on medical malpractice, using two civil law countries as a case-study: Spain and Italy. The goal of this thesis is to investigate, in the first place, some of the consequences of having two separate sub-systems (administrative and civil) coexisting within the same legal system, which is common in civil law tradition countries with a public national health system (such as Spain, France and Portugal). When this holds, different procedures might apply depending on the type of hospital where the injury took place (essentially whether it is a public hospital or a private hospital). Therefore, a patient injured in a public hospital should file a claim in administrative courts while a patient suffering an identical medical accident should file a claim in civil courts. A natural question that the reader might pose is why should both administrative and civil courts decide medical malpractice cases? Moreover, can this specialization of courts influence how judges decide medical malpractice cases? In the past few years, there was a general concern with patient safety, which is currently on the agenda of several national governments. Some initiatives have been taken at the international level, with the aim of preventing harm to patients during treatment and care. A negligently injured patient might present a claim against the health care provider with the aim of being compensated for the economic loss and for pain and suffering. In several European countries, health care is mainly provided by a public national health system, which means that if a patient harmed in a public hospital succeeds in a claim against the hospital, public expenditures increase because the State takes part in the litigation process. This poses a problem in a context of increasing national health expenditures and public debt. In Italy, with the aim of increasing patient safety, some regions implemented a monitoring system on medical malpractice claims. However, if properly implemented, this reform shall also allow for a reduction in medical malpractice insurance costs. This thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 1 provides a review of the empirical literature on medical malpractice, where studies on outcomes and merit of claims, costs and defensive medicine are presented. Chapter 2 presents an empirical analysis of medical malpractice claims arriving to the Spanish Supreme Court. The focus is on reversal rates for civil and administrative decisions. Administrative decisions appealed by the plaintiff have the highest reversal rates. The results show a bias in lower administrative courts, which tend to focus on the State side. We provide a detailed explanation for these results, which can rely on the organization of administrative judges career. Chapter 3 assesses predictors of compensation in medical malpractice cases appealed to the Spanish Supreme Court and investigates the amount of damages attributed to patients. The results show horizontal equity between administrative and civil decisions (controlling for observable case characteristics) and vertical inequity (patients suffering more severe injuries tend to receive higher payouts). In order to execute these analyses, a database of medical malpractice decisions appealed to the Administrative and Civil Chambers of the Spanish Supreme Court from 2006 until 2009 (designated by the Spanish Supreme Court Medical Malpractice Dataset (SSCMMD)) has been created. A description of how the SSCMMD was built and of the Spanish legal system is presented as well. Chapter 4 includes an empirical investigation of the effect of a monitoring system for medical malpractice claims on insurance premiums. In Italy, some regions adopted this policy in different years, while others did not. The study uses data on insurance premiums from Italian public hospitals for the years 2001-2008. This is a significant difference as most of the studies use the insurance company as unit of analysis. Although insurance premiums have risen from 2001 to 2008, the increase was lower for regions adopting a monitoring system for medical claims. Possible implications of this system are also provided. Finally, Chapter 5 discusses the main findings, describes possible future research and concludes.

Monismo e dualismo nei rapporti tra Cedu e ordinamento costituzionale interno. Fonti e processi interpretativi

La tesi analizza i rapporti tra l’ordinamento italiano e la Cedu, in particolare la collocazione della Cedu all’interno del sistema delle fonti alla luce della modifica dell’art. 117, comma 1 Cost. Si tratta di un tema molto dibattuto in dottrina, specialmente a seguito dell’entrata in vigore del Trattato di Lisbona. Questa tematica risulta strettamente connessa al profilo dell’interazione tra la Corte di Strasburgo e la Corte costituzionale e i giudici ordinari. L’analisi del profilo statico concernente lo status della Cedu nel sistema italiano deve quindi essere accompagnata dall’esame del profilo dinamico, relativo al ruolo della giurisprudenza della Corte di Strasburgo nell’esperienza dell’ordinamento nazionale. Entrambi i profili di indagine sono esaminati alla luce delle indicazioni provenienti dalla giurisprudenza della Corte costituzionale, della Corte di Cassazione e della Corte di Strasburgo. Prima di essere esaminate singolarmente, queste tematiche richiedono la preliminare ricognizione dei termini della dicotomia tra i due modelli concettuali di riferimento in tema di rapporti interordinamentali: il monismo e il dualismo. Trasferite nel peculiare contesto del sistema Cedu, tali categorie dogmatiche si arricchiscono di ulteriori profili, che esorbitano dalla sistemazione del rapporto tra fonti. La tenuta dei due paradigmi concettuali, che sono nati ed operano nel contesto della teorica delle fonti, deve essere verificata anche rispetto all’attuale fenomeno della produzione europea di diritto giurisprudenziale ed alla capacità paradigmatica assunta dalla giurisprudenza di Strasburgo. Il diritto e le istituzioni giuridiche tendono ad assumere sempre più sembianze giurisdizionali, generando un’osmosi che porta a trasferire il focus dai rapporti interordinamentali ai rapporti tra giurisprudenze.

L'evoluzione della tutela cautelare nel processo amministrativo

L’effettività della tutela cautelare, intesa come tutela tempestiva, adeguata e piena, è stata la linea cardine dell’evoluzione della giustizia amministrativa, che, nel corso di un periodo durato più di un secolo, grazie all’opera della giurisprudenza e della dottrina, si è strutturata oggi su un vero processo. Approdo recente, e allo stesso tempo, simbolo di questa evoluzione, è sicuramente il Codice del processo amministrativo emanato con il d. lgs. 2 luglio 2010, n. 104. La ricerca, di cui questo contributo costituisce un resoconto, è iniziata contestualmente all’entrata in vigore del nuovo testo, e quindi è stata anche l’occasione per vederne le prime applicazioni giurisprudenziali. In particolare la lettura del Codice, prescindendo da una mera ricognizione di tutto il suo lungo articolato, è stata fatta alla luce di una ponderazione, nell’attualità, non solo del principio di effettività, ma anche del principio di strumentalità che lega tradizionalmente la fase cautelare con la fase di merito. I risultati della ricerca manifestano la volontà del legislatore di confermare questo rapporto strumentale, per fronteggiare una deriva incontrollata verso una cautela dagli effetti alle volte irreversibili, quale verificatasi nell’applicazione giurisprudenziale, ma contestualmente evidenziano la volontà di estendere la portata della tutela cautelare. Guardando a cosa sia diventata oggi la tutela cautelare, si è assistito ad un rafforzamento degli effetti conformativi, tipici delle sentenze di merito ma che si sono estesi alla fase cautelare. I giudici, pur consapevoli che la tutela cautelare non sia una risposta a cognizione piena, bensì sommaria, intendono comunque garantire una tutela tempestiva ed effettiva, anche per il tramite di tecniche processuali particolari, come quella del remand, cui, all’interno della ricerca, viene dedicato ampio spazio. Nella sua ultima parte la ricerca si è focalizzata, sempre volendo guardare in maniera globale agli effetti della tutela cautelare, sul momento dell’esecuzione e quindi sul giudizio di ottemperanza.

The Impact of Cooperation on Defendants' Rights before the ICC: A Contextual Approach

The present study locates the challenges faced by defendants during cooperation proceedings in the context of the unique structural system of the Court, and the inherent tensions and limitations that characterize the ICC’s functioning. The study is divided into two parts. The first part sets out the institutional and jurisdictional context in which cooperation plays out at the ICC. Chapter 2 addresses the ICC dependence on cooperation from an institutional, a political and a normative dimension, showing that compliance with requests for cooperation is ultimately tied to State political willingness and international political pressure; Chapter 3 delves into the connection between cooperation and the complementary jurisdiction of the Court, criticising the ‘positive approach’ to complementarity endorsed by the Prosecutor in order to enhance states cooperation. The second part of the study addresses the impact that cooperation occurring in the above-explained context has on the right to liberty of defendants and on equality of arms. Chapter 4 and 5 analyse the ICC’s law protecting the selected rights, as well as the practice regarding allegations of violations of these rights brought forward by some defendants. It concludes that, so far, the organs of the Court (i.e., the Prosecutor and the judges) have failed to engage with the structural tensions and limitations of the Court with a view of protecting the rights of suspects and accused.