The author criticizes the reasoning of the Court which denies the prescription course on the basis of a configura-tion of the remedy in innovative terms. Moving from an original reconstruction of the damage from inhumandetention in terms of environmental damage existential, the remedy under Ar ticle. 35-ter is brought back to thetraditional categories of compensation by equivalent and, significantly, of compensation in a specific form,recognizing a consistent continuity with those that reveal the typical functions of compensation in the non-patrimonial area and, in par ticular, in terms of environmental damage existential.The essay proposes a reflection on the so-called from prison overcrowding damage, as an integral par t of thedetails of inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of ar t. 3 ECHR, recognized source of civil liability. Theauthor suggests a reconditioning of this harmful event to the area of environmental damage to the person, whichoffers an original reconstruction in terms of environmental damage c.d. existential.
|Numero di pagine||24|
|Rivista||RESPONSABILITÀ CIVILE E PREVIDENZA|
|Stato di pubblicazione||Published - 2019|