"LE PROSPETTIVE DELLA RESPONSABILITÀ CIVILE DELL’ AMMINISTRAZIONE PUBBLICA TRA L’ORDINAMENTO INTERNO E L’ORDINAMENTO EUROPEO”

Research output: Other contribution

Abstract

[automatically translated] In recent years it has grown considerably a process of progressive expansion of the boundaries of the civil liability of public agencies, a development that has had a strong momentum within the European Union Law. In the context of these developments in our system a key role was played by the judgment of the United Sections of the Supreme Court, no. 500 of 1999. The upper ruling, in addition to recognizing the non-contractual character under Article. 2043 cc of accountability of public administration, contains a passage vigorously debated on the innovation introduced in the field of subjective element of the offense. In particular has been exceeded traditional approach that believed you could derive the proof of guilt of the public administration from the simple demonstration the administrative act (culpa in re ipsa) and has alleged the proof of guilt administrative apparatus which necessary condition for access to compensation claims. To this was offset by a line of interpretation, which it joined in via albeit minor part of the administrative case law, which has questioned the fact that the responsibility of public agencies for provvedimentale activities is attributable all'alveo offense tort, assuming the possibility that the principles of liability are applicable to non-performance on the assumption that between citizens and public administration will establish itself in virtue of a "social contact" a contractual relationship. The use of a responsibility to "administrative contact" entails the burden of proof facilitation damaged will have to prove that the mere fact of the failure and the emergence of a participatory contact giving rise to liability being levied release testing on public administration which must prove that the fact of the failure is not due to the fault. Finally, some authors (though without reaching a result in case law) proposed the model of pre-contractual liability and the so-called third category (joint liability) and cd strict liability. The subjective element profile, in addition to animating the doctrinal debate and national case-law, also is the most critical aspect in the case of a comparison between the responsibilities of public administration model outlined by the national law and the accountability model developed by the Court European Union Justice. Finally, some authors (not that I had found in the following case law) proposed the model of pre-contractual liability, the so-called third category (joint responsibility) and finally the so-called objective responsibility. also is the most critical aspect in the case of a comparison between the responsibilities of public administration model outlined by the national law and the accountability model devised by the case law of the European Court of Justice. In fact, the accountability model devised by the Community justice for the damage caused by public agencies (the legislature and public am
Original languageItalian
Number of pages99
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Cite this