THE SPEED CAMERAS MUST UNDERGO PERIODIC CHECKS: THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT AND THE "LIVING LAW"
The Constitutional Court, with the decision no. 131/2015, declared the constitutional illegitimacy of Art. 45, paragraph 6 of the legislative decree 30 April 1992 n. 285 (Code of the new traffic laws), insofar as it does not provide that all equipment used in investigating violations of speed limits are regularly tested for functionality and calibration.
This decision is of great interest not only because of the obvious practical implications.
The Constitutional Court, in fact, denied the adverse approach of the Supreme Court and reaffirmed that "in the current legal system there is no obligation [...] to comply with the guidelines of the Supreme Court (except in the returning proceedings),and it is equally true that when these guidelines are firmly established in the case law - to the point of acquiring the characteristics of the "living law" - it is quite possible that the rule, as interpreted by the Court of legitimacy and by lower courts, is subject to constitutional scrutiny, since the rule now lives into the system so ingrainedly that it is difficult to envisage a change in the system without the intervention of the legislature or of this Court.
In other words, if the living law is not shared by the national court because it was considered unconstitutional, it has the right to choose between the adoption, always allowed, of a different interpretation, or - adapting to living law - the proposition of question before this Court; on the other hand,if there is no contrary living law, the referring court has a duty to follow the interpretation considered more appropriate to the constitutional principles (cf. ex plurimis former judgments no. 226 of 1994, no. 296 of 1995 and no. 307 of 1996 )"(see decision no. 350 of 1997).
VOIDNESS OF THE ACTS SIGNED BY ILLEGITIMATE DIRECTORS OF THE TAX OFFICES
The Constitutional Court, judgment no. 37/2015, held that Art. 8, paragraph 24 of the D.L. n. 16 of 2012, as converted, has contributed to the indefinite enduring of allegedly temporary assignment to higher duties, without the necessary competitive examinations. For this reason, the rule of Law has been declared unconstitutional for violation of Art. 3, 51 and 97 of the Constitution.
Given that the time extensions combined with this rule set up a unitary regulation, those rule produce together this harmful effect, making the situation even worse. Therefore, pursuant to art. 27 of the Law of 11 March 1953 n. 87 (Rules on the establishment and functioning of the Constitutional Court), the declaration of unconstitutionality was also extended to the time extensions rules.
The implications of this decision on the validity of the acts signed by the illegitimate directors are quite obvious.
Following the footsteps of of the Constitutional Court, the Regional Tax Commission of Milan, with sentence no. 2184/13/15 of the 19th of May 2015, strongly denied the thesis of the Tax Office and declared that the act that was challenged by the tax payer was void.
In the press release of the 22nd of April 2015, which clarifies the contents of another decision of the Regional Tax Commission of Milan, the Italian Revenue Agency reports that the Provincial Tax Commission of Gorizia, by Decision No. 63/01/2015, held that the Constitution Court ruling of 17 March 2015, n. 37 doesn’t necessarily lead to the invalidation of the chalenged acts.
The full list of directors (with their curricula and income informations) is available on the website of the Italian Revenue Agency: it is also possible to download from ADUSBEF website the full list of illegitimate directors.
QUESTIONED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ARTICLE 187 TER, PAR. 1, OF THE LEGISLATIVE DECREE 58/1998
The specialized section of the Supreme Court declared relevant and not manifestly unfounded, the question of constitutionality concerning Article 187 ter , paragraph 1 , of Legislative Decree no. 24 February 1998 , n . 58, by contrast with the art. 117 of the Constitution, in the light of the interpretation given by the judgment of the Court of Human Rights , Sec . II , 4 March 2014 (Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy ) and for the application of the principle of "ne bis in idem" in Articles 2 and 4 of Protocol 7 of the ECHR , in so far as it provides the joint affliction of criminal penalties and administrative sanctions (having criminal nature) for the same offence, already subject to a criminal Sentence. Source: www.cortedicassazione.it
LAWYERS... HOW MUCH IS IT?
The reward due to the Lawyer is agreed in writing when the professional assignment is given. When the reward is not agreed in advance, the parameters established by DM 55/2014 shall apply: these parameters can also be considered by the User to have an indication, obviously approximate, of legal fees that he is going to bear. Some utilities are available to calculate BILLS and also the rewards under the parameters of DM 55/2014 regarding CIVIL and CRIMINAL trials, assistance in EXTRAJUDICIAL matters, and TRAVEL expenses.
PUBLIC DEFENDERS, THE REWARD DECIDED BY THE JUDGE CAN BE SET OFF WITH TAX DEBTS
Starting from year 2016, up to a limit of 10 million euro per year, public defenders can set off their fees with dues and taxes, including value added tax (VAT). Their fees can be also used to pay social security contributions for employees.