The Film Industry between Freedom and Authority
In the essay they reveal two different material profiles: the cultural one (cinematography as art) and the economic one (the industrialization of the sector), thus highlighting that we are in front of a private sector.
The publicist approach has considered the tight intertwining between culture and economy, both on the legislative implementation level.
The constitutional framework has first of all posed the question of the connection of the double material profile to the general category of cultural and economic initiative, respectively, and the question of guarantees of public intervention in the sector, thus having to face the problem of the distribution of competences respectively of the cinematographic art as an intellectual property, of exclusive competence of the State, and of cultural and economic promotion of the film industry, of concurrent competence between State and Regions.
With regard to legislative implementation plan, it was demonstrated that, in compliance with the double freedom (cultural and economic ones) guaranteed by the Constitution, positive actions must be of an indirect promotional nature, an attempt was made to understand whether the legislator actually acted in this way, or whether it has carried out protection policies, more invasive toward the film industry market and even more expensive for the public economy.
To this last end the recent reform of the sector made by law No. 220 of 2016 “Discipline of the cinema and the audiovisual sector”, if on the one hand it introduced important positive indirect actions (such as the tax credit) aimed at strengthening the element of freedom in the sector, on the other hand, it did not have the courage to take the distances from the authoritarian actions once and for all, thus maintaining State cinematography in the third millennium.
Human rights and algorithms: the gig economy and the “Foodora case-law”, between judges and legislators
The article examines the legal implications of the gig economy in a free market system.
The author underlines the growing importance of the use of digital platforms and examines their consequences on fundamental rights.
She concludes with the hope that the state remains the subject called to protect the same fundamental rights, believing that the construction of a technological (and not technocratic) constitutionalism requires a legislator able to decide, in dialogue with scientists, the more appropriate use and development of the new technologies.
Still about the constitutional foundation of the Internet. With an afterthought.
The author describes the results of the studies carried out on the constitutional bases of the Internet, with the aim of verifying its solidity in the light of technological evolution, in terms of constant compliance with constitutional rules.
In this perspective, the "rethinking" mentioned in the title reveals the need to constantly monitor the right of new technologies in parallel with the progress of scientific acquisitions.
From the program to the government contract
The author examines the relationship between the government program and the vote of confidence, moving from the analysis of the evolution from 1948 to the 1993, to propose a final reflection on the current legislature.
The article points out the innovation of the "Contract for the government of change", stipulated between the two majority political parties (Lega and Movimento 5 Stelle), to offer a critical view of this one and to identify useful corrections in future time.
MIGUEL REVENGA SÁNCHEZ
Constitutional Court, European Courts, Common Judges: the aporias of a jurisprudential construction in progress and with variable geometry
The author does his best to analyze in depth the relations between the Courts, adopting as a visual angle the Constitutional Court and its jurisprudence, sometimes moving on to the European Courts and even the Court of Cassation. In particular, it is analyzed how the scope of action of the Constitutional Court moves, on the one hand, on the level of relations of domestic law, especially with political and institutional operators and judges, and on the other hand on the level of inter-institutional relations with the European Courts. According to the author, if the dialogue between the Courts has in some cases led to the compression of national autonomy in relation to certain institutions or rules, from the point of view of the protection of rights, instead, the confrontation with supranational judges has ensured an extension of safeguards, although the Constitutional Court in some cases has taken steps to use defense techniques that prevent the jurisprudence and supranational legislation to interfere with internal judges (think of the 269 of 2017 on the nature of the Charter of Nice)