Le fattispecie incriminatrici

Crimes

SARTARELLI S. – La Corte EDU “bacchetta” (forse troppo severamente) l’Italia per l’omessa tutela rilevata in un caso di violenza domestica

*L’articolo è stato scritto nell’ambito del progetto “Diritti e situazioni giuridiche soggettive tra incertezze (nazionali) e ricerca dell’effettività della tutela (sovranazionale). Una ricerca interdisciplinare”, diretto dalla Prof.ssa Luisa Cassetti e finanziato dalla Ricerca di base 2015 – Università degli Studi di Perugia

Abstract

Sommario: 1. La necessaria ricostruzione storica.- 2. Le ragioni della Corte.- 3. Alcune perplessità
1.La necessaria ricostruzione storica.
Con la sentenza in commento, l’Italia viene condannata per non aver adempiuto agli obblighi positivi derivanti dagli artt. 2 e 3 della Convenzione ed anche per aver, così facendo, determinato una discriminazione di genere in violazione dell’art. 14; più nello specifico, le autorità italiane avrebbero omesso di intervenire tempestivamente (sia sul piano sostanziale che processuale) a tutela della vita e dell’integrità fisica della ricorrente e dei suoi figli, vittime di violenza domestica da parte del marito, il quale, nel reiterare le condotte aggressive del proprio nucleo familiare, finiva per uccidere il figlio della ricorrente. […]

In this judgment Italy was condemned for failing to comply the positive obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and also for having, in so doing, determined a gender discrimination in breach of Article 14. More specifically, the Italian authorities failed to intervene in a timely manner (both processually and substantially) in order to protect the life and physical integrity of the applicant and her children, victims of domestic violence by her husband. The man, during an aggression against the applicant, killed her son who had intervened in the desperate attempt to defend the mother.
The Italian State, as censored by the Court, did not consider the applicant’s risk of life and therefore did not take the necessary precautionary measures to protect the victims of domestic violence. Although fairly shared, the judgment raises doubts about the concrete possibility for the Italian authorities to recognize the existence of the indicated risk.
.

 

FALCINELLI D. – The Right of Satire and the ’“necessary interference”

Abstract

In the judgment in comment, that reasons about the violation of the art. 10 CEDU (Right to the freedom of expression), it reaffirms itself the exegetic tradition of the balance of the different interests at stake through an evaluation of the circumstances of the single case, where estimating the compatibility between the provisions of the European Court of human rights and the specific criminal intervention on the ground of the concrete danger of the carried out behaviour.
Before herself the Court has the scenery of the terroristic attempt to the World Trade Center of the 11th of September 2001, and a sentence for apologia of terrorism relative to the publication on a Basque weekly magazine, on the 13th of September 2001, of a vignette representing the drama accompanied by the explanation: «all of us dreamt it … Hamas did it». The argumentation of the claimant, that framed the vignette as an expression of an anti-american sentiment, set themselves against those of the French Government, which considered the apologia of terrorism as an activity turned to prejudice the rights and the liberties that the Convention itself proclaims.[…]

Accessibility