Forced Heirship in Italy

2020 ◽  
pp. 108-138
Author(s):  
Alexandra Braun

Civil law systems do not generally grant testamentary freedom without limitations. Often, the most significant constraints on the freedom to dispose of assets on death derive from legislative provisions that protect the interests of close family members by way of a forced share, even against the wishes of the deceased. These restrictions can be more or less extensive. In the case of Italy, they are significant, both in terms of how little the testator can sometimes freely dispose of, whether on death or during her lifetime, and in terms of the limited degree of autonomy with which she can modify or reduce the forced share in the estate and enter into agreements with those entitled to a forced share. This chapter provides an historical overview of forced heirship in Italy and examines its main features as well as the mechanisms that are in place to protect forced shares. It evaluates the various proposals to reform forced heirship, including proposals to abolish forced heirship altogether, none of which have been implemented. It argues that Italian law in this area is in an unsatisfactory state, for not only do forced heirship provisions impinge on a person’s freedom of testation and her freedom to make gratuitous transfers during her lifetime, they also affect the interests of donees and other third parties, ultimately hampering the free movement of goods. What is more, the provisions that are in place, including those on the calculation of the forced share and on anti-avoidance, are of considerable complexity. A reform of this area of law is therefore highly desirable.

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-223
Author(s):  
Ioan-Gabriel Popa

AbstractIn order to understand the principles of public procurement in Romania, it is necessary to analyze, on the one hand, the European directives that regulate the actual public procurement and, on the other hand, the context in which the European directives were adopted. Even with the directives in force, the more general provisions contained in the Treaty of the European Economic Community (EEC) in Rome, hereinafter referred to as the Treaty, are applied, as well as many more general principles of law that will guide the interpretation of these directives. The Treaty was adopted in Rome, in 1957 and became applicable from January 1, 1958. It is considered that the source of the principles of public procurement is the Treaty. Even if in Treaty contained no specific provisions regarding the field of public procurement, it reflects the principles and the general framework for the functioning of the single market, a market characterized through the prism of the fundamental freedoms established by the Treaty: the free movement of goods, services, capital and persons. As the field of public procurement is closely linked to the free movement of goods, this principle is promoted and implemented in the practice of this field based on the regulations, directives and decisions of the Community institutions. The role of the free movement of goods is to harmonize the relationships involved in the process of purchasing goods, but also to ensure the homogeneity, coherence and balance of this process.


Author(s):  
John Anthony McGuckin

Chapter 1 gives Biographical background and studies the historical context(s) of Gregory of Nyssa and his close family members, situating them as aristocratic and long-established Christian leaders of the Cappadocian area. It offers along with the course of Gregory’s Vita a general outline of the main philosophical and religious controversies of his era, particularly his ecclesiastical involvement in the Neo-Nicene apologetical movement associated with the leadership of his brother Basil (of Caesarea), which he himself inherited in Cappadocia, with imperial approval, after 380. It concludes with a review of Gregory’s significance as author: in terms of his style as a writer, his work as an exegete, his body of spiritual teaching, and lastly, the manner in which his reputation waxed and waned from antiquity to the present.


Author(s):  
Robert Schütze

European Union Law uses a distinctive three-part structure to examine the constitutional foundations, legal powers, and substantive law of the European Union. This third edition includes an updated dedicated chapter on the past, present, and future of Brexit. Part I looks at the constitutional foundations including a constitutional history and an examination of the governmental structure of the European Union. Part II looks at governmental powers. It covers legislative, external, executive, judicial, and limiting powers. The final part considers substantive law. It starts off by examining the free movement of goods, services, and persons. It then turns to competition law and finally ends with an analysis of internal and external policies.


Author(s):  
Mirko Bagaric

The hardship stemming from prison goes well beyond the pain experienced by offenders. The family and dependants of prisoners often experience significant inconvenience and hardship. Family members of prisoners have not engaged in wrongdoing and hence arguably their suffering should be a mitigating consideration in sentencing. However, this approach potentially unfairly advantages offenders with close family connections and undermines the capacity of courts to satisfy a number of important sentencing objectives, including the imposition of proportionate penalties. The courts and legislatures have not been able to find a coherent manner in which to reconcile this tension. There is conflicting case law regarding the circumstances in which family hardship can mitigate the severity of criminal penalties. This article examines these competing positions and proposes that family hardship should mitigate penalty severity only when incarcerating the offender would cause severe financial hardship to his or her dependants.


2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-115
Author(s):  
Joshua S. Hanan

This essay (re)presents my own experiences living with attention deficit disorder (ADD) as a child and adult to provide a radically historical, contextual, and critical autoethnographic conceptualization of this “learning disability.” Specifically, by building upon Ragan Fox’s “auto-archeological” method, a critical perspective that “unite[s] autoethnography and Foucault’s theories of discourse,” I draw upon institutional artifacts, psychiatric diagnoses, and interviews with close family members to show that ADD is a “technology of the self” that economizes the body in accordance with a distinctly neoliberal temporality. This temporalizing process, I show, is reinforced by a range of other neoliberal technologies of selfhood and ultimately cultivates the very “deficit framework” that ADD diagnoses are aimed at healing. The conclusion questions the legitimacy of ADD outside of the various technological interfaces that make the disability visible as a public problem and considers the intimate connections between neoliberalism, ableism, and the contemporary university.


2017 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 249-267
Author(s):  
Miłosz Malaga ◽  
Anna Wilińska-Zelek

In this article we examine the notion of ‘harmonisation’ in its interplay with the application of provisions on the free movement of goods. Due to the introduction of the European unitary patent protection system, we are witnessing the first cases of adopting enhanced cooperation in the internal market. This fact raises new, systemic questions concerning the concept of ‘harmonisation’ in European Union law. Are only legal, substantive aspects covered by its definition or should the territorial range of a legal act be taken into account? If yes – to what extent? Since the adoption of enhanced cooperation covers the field of intellectual property rights, the above questions concern the relationship between exercising those rights on the one hand and the principle of free movement on the other. A closer look at this matter leads to the conclusion that the unitary patent might not provide the solution to one of the problems that created for. More generally, in this article we conclude that when defining the concept of ‘harmonisation’, one should take its territorial scope into account narrowly, so as not to infringe the principles of EU law.


2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
Zuzanna Służewska

THE CONTRACT OF PARTNERSHIP AS A BASE OF IN SOLIDUM LIABILITY IN ROMAN LAWSummary In the modern civil law joint and several liability of partners in a partnership is a rule rather than an exception. According to the common opinion this concept did not originate in the Roman law but was first invented in the medieval times by glossators and commentators. The Roman partnership created only a private relation between partners (who, due to a conclusion of that contract were reciprocally obliged to act together in accordance with a good faith in order to conduct common business and to divide profits and bear losses in proportion to their respective shares) and its conclusion did not affect their liability against third parties. The partners had no right to bind themselves contractually to any third parties, unless they all acted jointly (in this case, however, their joint representation was derived from their expressed declarations and not the existence of a contract o f partnership). Thus, any commitment made by an individual partner, even if made within the scope of a partnership having obtained other partners’ consent, was treated as a personal debt of this partner and the remaining partners were not liable against his contractor. Then, of course, the partner who made a commitment (acting within the partnership’s business) could claim a part of what he had paid to a third party from other partners in proportion to their respective shares in the common enterprise.Such a solution was necessary because of the purely consensual character o f the Roman partnership and the lack of any formal procedure of its conclusion and dissolution. The existence of that contract could not affect the model of the external liability of partners, because it would be too risky for third parties, which had no possibility to make sure if a contract of partnership between some persons had been actually concluded or not. Thus, the role of a contract of partnership in the Roman law was only limited to determine a mutual liability o f partners, to specify their respective rights and obligations and to define the scope of their liability against other partners.There are only a few written sources concerning so called specific kinds of partnership characterized by untypical joint and several responsibility of partners. Moreover these texts are not very clear and are difficult to interpret, so the issue of specific kinds of a partnership is a matter of doubts among Romanists. Some authors even believe that the specific types of partnership did not exist in the Roman law at all.It should be firstly observed that the texts regarding a contract of partnership itself (the texts included in the title pro socio of Justinian’ Digest) did not raise the question of the external liability of partners because they were devoted to internal settlement o f accounts within sociu Thus, taking into account only these texts one cannot ascertain that a conclusion of a contract of partnership could not affect in any way the model of the partners’ liability against third parties.Secondly, the other texts concerning the regulation of conducting an economic activity in the Roman law (actio institoria, actio exercitoria and actio de peculio) present some regularity in an introduction of joint and several liability of debtors.On the one hand that model of the liability was introduced in situations in which protecting safety of trade required that the creditor be able to claim a whole amount o f the debt from one person only.On the other hand this model of liability could be introduced only in these cases in which some internal relation existed between several debtors. On the grounds of such relations the debtor who satisfied in full the creditor’s claim could sue other debtors in order to recover their respective parts in the debt. In the Roman law that internal relation that guaranteed the possibility of a recourse could be either a joint-ownership or a partnership.Having considered that, one may say that the texts concerning specific kinds o f partnership do not prove existence of any special type of societas. These sources regard only the situations when a joint and several liability between several debtors was introduced because it was justified by the circumstances: that is the necessity to protect the safety of trade on one hand and the existence of the contract of partnership that guaranteed a possibility to realize the recourse, on the other.In conclusion one may say that although a closing of a contract of partnership did not create a joint and several liability of partners, in some cases its existence was decisive for introducing this model of liability since it guaranteed to every party a possibility to act against the others to obtain the recourse. Thus, Roman jurisprudence made an important step towards the future introduction o f joint and several liability of partners as a rule of a civil law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document