The paper examines various issues related to proceedings aiming at applying administrative sanctions under Chilean law: whether, and to which extent, the fair trial guarantees in their “criminal limb” should apply to these proceeding; which should be the standard of proof required in these proceedings; and which judicial remedies should be provided against a final decision imposing an administrative sanction.
The paper analyses the Chilean criminal procedure rules according to which the statements rendered by people charged in administrative proceedings (as well as in other kind of proceedings where the privilege against selfincrimination and the right to remain silent do not apply) can be admitted as evidence in criminal trials.
The article moves from Italian drug-policy’s failures and goes on to analyze how the Italian legal system endeavors to minimize soft-drug offenses relevance. A two-faced picture thus emerges: on the one side, the legislator proves incapable of reforming the current, wasteful drug-policy; on the other, some judges tend to ‘practically decriminalize’ low-danger offenses. The author maintains that this case-law approach, although somehow alleviating, does neither match the goal of legal certainty, nor prove effective in fighting mass drug-dealing.
This paper examines a recent judgment by the Italian Constitutional Court as to the extent of the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal laws, as applied to laws that de-criminalise previous criminal offences by transforming them into mere administrative offences. The author discusses, in particular, whether the normative framework of this whole discussion should be found in Article 25 (2) of the Italian Constitution or, rather, in Article 7 ECHR, to which Article 117 (1) of the Italian Constitution implicitly refers.
The “Minniti” Law on Urban Security (n. 48/2017) is the last stage of a set of acts aimed to involve even more institutions in tackling the emerging issue of urban security. Different measures are discussed in this paper in relation to the protean framework of the so-called “local penal law”, that is on the border of the Italian rule of law and often in contrast with the constitutional rights. Penal, criminological and administrative aspects are analyzed from different perspectives; then, cultural dimensions and historical antecedents are questioned in order to explore the impact of the new law on public policies.
This article analyses the decision with which the Constitutional Court has recently dealt with the problematic relationship between the so-called principle of retroactivity in mitius and administrative sanctions. Specifically, the article examines the operative implications of the decision in light of the current debate on the applicable rules for punitive measures at the intersection of the relationship between national law and supranational law, while also attempting to outline alternative solutions that are capable of providing a response to the questions left unanswered by the ruling.
While rejecting the issue of the constitutionality of Article 1 of Law no. 689/1981 insofar as it does not provide for the applicability of the principle of retroactivity of the most favourable supervening regulation for administrative sanctions, Constitutional Court decision no. 193 dated 20 July 2016 seems nevertheless to set the stage for definitively overcoming such serious limitation of the aforementioned Law no. 689/1981. After having analysed this decision and the context within which it is entered, this article will highlight the reasons why said decision should be regarded as a warning to the Legislator, which has now the ultimate responsibility of fixing such error in our administrative sanction system.
Increasingly, analysing criminal law requires taking into account the expansion of several sectors of punitive administrative law. The interaction of these different legal areas generates such a complexity that this cannot conceivably be solved only through an extensive application of the prohibition of bis in idem. On the contrary, in order to comply with the guarantees provided for by Article 6 of the ECHR, it is impelling to establish common standards for the whole area of punitive law, and especially for the investigation phases. Against this background, the paper deals with the rights of the defence in the European Union legal system(s), focusing particularly on the guarantees provided in the administrative proceedings carried out by OLAF and DG-COMP, and on the impact of the recent Directive on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence.
Il presente contributo è il frutto di un lavoro di confronto tra la disciplina italiana e quella tedesca in materia di accertamento processuale dei reati di guida in stato di ebbrezza ed alterazione da droghe. Il parallelo muove dall’esame della normativa straniera, alla quale l’autrice giustappone quella interna, ravvisando man mano analogie e differenze. La diversa visione prospettica offre numerosi spunti di riflessione su temi spesso trascurati dal giurista italiano, due dei quali toccano punti nevralgici del processo penale: l’estensione accordata alla tutela del diritto contro le autoincriminazioni rispetto alle prove non dichiarative, da un lato; le regole di esclusione e valutazione della prova c.d. scientifica, dall’altro.
Le recenti pronunce delle Corti europee in tema di ne bis in idem, in particolare la sentenza Grande Stevens della Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo, sembrano proporre una concezione sostanziale del canone ermeneutico della specialità, che impone di rivedere la prassi interpretativa interna relativa al principio di cui all’art. 9 della l. n. 689 del 24 novembre 1981, incentrata su un raffronto strutturale fra le fattispecie. Dietro queste differenze, riscontrabili nel piano interno e in quello europeo, si intravede la sottostante diversa dimensione della legalità penale. È proprio con tale diversità che si devono confrontare, oggi, gli operatori del diritto; in tema di specialità, ma non solo.