Legal Status of Minor Testator’s Parents Deprived of Parental Authority in Intestate Succession. Some Remarks on the Solutions in Polish, Russian, and Italian Law

The legal situation of minor testator’s parents in intestate succession poses a significant legal and social problem. In Polish law, parents who have been deprived of parental authority continue to enjoy their civil-law status; in other words, they maintain the right to inherit from their child under statute. Meanwhile, the reasons for which the court applied the strictest possible “sanction” in the form of deprivation of authority of parents who, in exercising their rights under parental authority, seriously violated the child’s interest or grossly neglected parental obligations, which is noticeable even to an ordinary bystander, seem to be sufficient “proof” that family ties, which are decisive for the statutory title to inherit, do not exist. If these ties are severed or seriously disrupted, the consequences should be seen in all areas of life. Simply put, persons who deliberately break apart the family should not enjoy the advantages that the law provides for testator’s closest relatives. In such a case, to consider the effect of deprivation of parental authority by “releasing” its holders from any obligation towards the child may not be considered a sufficient civil sanction, especially given that in the vast majority of cases, the reason for such deprivation is gross neglect of parental duties by one or both parents. The consequences of this type of negligence should also, if not primarily, consist in the deprivation of pecuniary benefits that the parents of a minor could enjoy after his or her death. The current legal solutions governing this area undoubtedly need to be revised. Such imperfect normative solutions adopted in Polish law prove the need to propose de lege ferenda recommendations. In this context, it is worthwhile to have a look at the normative solutions adopted in foreign legal systems and whether they can be grafted on Polish law. The reference to the Russian and Italian legal systems seems particularly recommendable due to the fact that their normative solutions directly allude to the institution of deprivation of parental authority in the context of admissibility of the title to inherit.

Dealing With Pluralism: Managerial Work of CEOs in Italian Public Healthcare Organizations

Background: Healthcare organizations are extremely complex, and the work of their CEOs is particularly demanding, especially in the public sector. However, we know little about how healthcare executives’ managerial work unfolds. Drawing from scholarship on pluralistic organizations and managerial work, we answer the questions: what is the content of managerial work of executives in public healthcare? How do CEOs deal with pressures from internal and external stakeholders while maintaining a strategic agenda?Methods: We adopted a mixed method with a survey to measure CEO behaviors, coding CEOs time for four weeks; a questionnaire to understand the strategic dimensions of interactions; interviews of senior CEOs.Results: CEOs in Italian public healthcare devote most of their time to interactions, by and large responding to pressures by internal stakeholders. Although half of this time is perceived as occupied in answering operational requests, this is necessary to nurture relations, create networks and develop alliances and consensus, which are functional in achieving CEOs’ strategic agenda.Conclusions: CEOs in public healthcare must deal with enormous contextual pressures and cannot manage the complexity but are called to manage within the complexity, fostering involvement in decision making, building networks, and establishing alliances. Amidst ambiguity and fragmentation, executives need to find solutions to perform their managerial work without being entrapped by stakeholders’ pressures, thanks to effective stakeholder management as well as delegation.Trial registration: The article does not report the results of a health care intervention on human participants, and material used in the research did not need ethical approval according to Italian law.

Community Cooperative: A New Legal Form for Enhancing Social Capital for the Development of Renewable Energy Communities in Italy

This paper investigates the suitability of the community cooperatives (CC) model for the implementation of renewable energy communities (REC), as prescribed by art. 22 of EU Directive 2018/2001, and temporarily transposed into the Italian law by art. 42-bis of the Law Decree n. 162/2019. The hypothesis explored analyses the potential synergies between RECs and CC, based on their similarities. In particular, the article takes into consideration: the actors involved in both the RECs and the CCs; the geographical scope in which they develop, and the purposes that these two legal forms intended to achieve. Through a literature review and the analysis of EU, national and regional legislations, the paper aims at (1) clarifying the main features of RECs and the CCs in Italy; (2) exploring the main differences between CCs and the other legal forms of cooperative (e.g., mutual cooperative, cooperative benefit, etc.) and assessing the extent to which CCs are more suitable to implement renewable energy communities. As a result of the literature and regulatory review, several similarities between CCs and RECs can be detected, particularly, in reference to the strategic valorization of the cooperation between citizens and the local public entities. These similarities allow the authors to provisionally conclude that, in Italy, CCs may be adopted as a tool to implement RECs.

The Capability of ‘Models’ to Withstand Change The Bologna Area in the Wake of Law 132/2018

This essay aims to reflect about the impact of the recent Italian Law 132/2018 and its effects on the reception policies for asylum seekers in the area of the Metropolitan City of Bologna. Starting to the fact that the system of developed in Bologna is considered a model of excellence, this contribution aims to examine its ability to deal the erosion of rights for asylum seekers provided by recent legislation. Will the integrated territorial system of reception and services react to the restrictions in access and protection imposed by Law 132/2018? The contribution is intended to give back the evolutions of the territorial system, trying to bring out the ambiguities and the founding causes of the criticalities that have become structural. Is it appropriate to speak of a model? If so, with what risks arising from the bureaucratic action that characterises the system at the apical level? A last paragraph will also be dedicated to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the territorial reception system, having affected the dynamics exposed in the essay.

Adoption v. Surrogacy: New Perspectives on the Parental Projects of Same-Sex Couples

In Italy all forms of surrogacy are forbidden, whether it be traditional or gestational, commercial or altruistic. Act n. 40 of 19/2/2004, entitled “Rules about medically-assisted reproduction”, introduces a prohibition on employing gametes from donors, and specifically incriminates not only intermediary agencies and clinics practising surrogacy, but also the intended parents and the surrogate mother too. Other penal consequences are provided by the Criminal Code about the registration of a birth certificate where parents are the intended ones, as provided by the lex loci actus (art. 567 of the Italian Criminal Code, concerning the false representation or concealment of status). Apart from the mentioned criminal problems, several aspects of private international law are involved. In the cases where national rules forbid the transcription of birth certificates for public policy reasons, specifically the prohibition of surrogacy, Italian Judges often seek solutions to enforce the status filiationis. In this case, the Italian Supreme Court intervenes in the debate, allowing the recognition of a foreign adoption order related to a procedure of surrogate motherhood in favour of a same-sex couple. Focusing on the recent evolution of the notion of international public policy the Supreme Court affirms that the inherent adoptive parental status acquired by a homogenitorial couple is not contrary to international public policy, when the effects of the act from which this status derives are not incompatible with the limits that cannot be exceeded constituted by the founding principles of the relational choices between intended parents and child (Article 2 of the Constitution, Article 8 ECHR), by the Best interest of the child as codified in the Italian Law 219/2012, by the principle of non-discrimination, by the principle of solidarity that is the basis of social parenting. Splitting the problem of the surrogacy, underlying the adoption order to recognize in this case, and narrowing the public policy exception, is highly evident the risk to suggest to same-sex couples to realize their parental projects putting in place the surrogacy within the legal systems where contemporary it is possible to carry out the adoption of the child born as a result of this procedure.

The Case of “Mafia Capitale”: The Judicial Proceedings Prosecuted by the Anti-Mafia District Office of Rome against Massimo Carminati and Salvatore Buzzi

The “Mafia capitale” trial marked a significant point in the interpretation of the specific elements of mafia-style association valid in Italian law. This paper will examine the various stages of the trial proceedings, focusing in particular on the final ruling of the Court of Cassation. This study thus further develops the structure of the crime referred to by art. 416 bis Italian criminal code, discussing in order the externalization methods of the so-called “mafia method.” Keywords: Mafia; Rome; Italian law; Corruption.

South Tyrol

The sixth chapter looks at another case, South Tyrol, where secessionism has remained weak. While there has not been in Italy a series of constitutional changes affecting regional autonomy, the long-time slogan of the SVP, dynamic autonomy, speaks to the nature of South Tyrol’s autonomy within the Italian state. A striking feature of the Second Autonomy Statute for South Tyrol is that its implementation took 20 years (1972–1992). During this period, which followed a decade, the 1960s, punctuated by secessionist and irredentist violence, there was virtually no reason to adopt and support secessionist positions, as autonomous measures were gradually put into place. Most crucially, the bilateral commissions tasked with the implementations of the Second Autonomy Statute continued their work after 1992, keeping South Tyrol’s autonomy on the move, adjusting it to new circumstances, and even expanding it. These two bodies, the Commission of Six and the Commission of Twelve, play central roles in the governance of both the region of Trentino-Alto Adige and the province of Bolzano/Bozen as their enactment degrees become Italian law. The fact that South Tyrol still develops its autonomy has kept secessionist forces at bay. Indeed, incentives to support independence or reintegration with Austria are virtually non-existent in a context where autonomy can be progressively adapted, fine-tuned, and even developed in a way that largely shields South Tyrol from the broader Italian politics and maximizes the prosperity of the Alpine community.