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 inhuman detention in terms of environmental damage existential, the remedy under Ar ticle. 35-ter is brought back to the traditional 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 the details of inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of ar t. 3 ECHR, recognized source of civil liability. The author suggests a reconditioning of this harmful event to the area of environmental damage to the person, which offers an original reconstruction in terms of environmental damage c.d. existential.

L’autore critica il ragionamento della Corte che nega il decorso della prescrizione sulla base di una configurazione del rimedio in termini innovativi. Muovendo da una originale ricostruzione del danno da inumana detenzione in termini di danno ambientale esistenziale, il rimedio di cui all’art. 3-ter viene ricondotto alle categorie tradizionali del risarcimento per equivalente e, significativa- mente, del risarcimento in forma specifica, riconoscendo una coerente continuità con quelle che si rivelano le funzioni tipiche del risarcimento in ambito non patrimoniale e, in particolare, in tema di danno ambientale esistenziale.

Gabriella Marcatajo (2019). Il danno da inumana detenzione : rimedio nuovo o risarcimento?. RESPONSABILITÀ CIVILE E PREVIDENZA(1), 220-243.

Il danno da inumana detenzione : rimedio nuovo o risarcimento?

Gabriella Marcatajo
2019-01-01

Abstract

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 inhuman detention in terms of environmental damage existential, the remedy under Ar ticle. 35-ter is brought back to the traditional 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 the details of inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of ar t. 3 ECHR, recognized source of civil liability. The author suggests a reconditioning of this harmful event to the area of environmental damage to the person, which offers an original reconstruction in terms of environmental damage c.d. existential.
2019
Settore IUS/01 - Diritto Privato
Gabriella Marcatajo (2019). Il danno da inumana detenzione : rimedio nuovo o risarcimento?. RESPONSABILITÀ CIVILE E PREVIDENZA(1), 220-243.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Gabriella Marcatajo ESTRATTI.pdf

Solo gestori archvio

Descrizione: nota a sentenza
Tipologia: Versione Editoriale
Dimensione 2.82 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.82 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10447/371347
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact