Articoli

March 2024 has been the apex of a sort of race as to which international organisation would be the first to adopt an instrument trying to regulate the development, production, and use of artificial intelligence. The paper highlights the advantages and disadvantages of a Council of Europe treaty, such as the Draft Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, as opposed to an EU regulation, such as the so-called “Artificial Intelligence Act”. The content of Draft Framework Convention is presented only briefly, before explaining why there is a case for a Council of Europe Treaty on Artificial Intelligence. The instrument of a Council of Europe Convention is then compared to the instrument of an EU Regulation, especially in terms of the limits resulting from the respective competences of the Council of Europe and the European Union, as well as the consequences of the need for ratification of the Council of Europe treaty as opposed to the direct applicability of the EU regulation.

The essay begins by addressing the doctrinal controversy in Italy regarding the definition of administrative functions of government. The analysis starts with Zanobini's definition of the administrative function as an activity of public authorities aimed at the concrete care of a public interest. It then moves to address the definitions put forth by Marongiu and Scoca, to those put forth by Benvenuti and Giannini. After reconstruction of the debate, the author develops a definition with the key feature that the administrative function is an activity carried out by public authorities that is always resolved in accordance with the limitations imposed by the laws and those resulting from real-world situations. Additionally, it is an activity that is defined by a connection to the past and an eye towards the resolution of difficult circumstances in the future.

This contribution takes stock of the main transformations taking place in administrative functions, between theory and practice. It identifies a line of development from the “absence” of relationship to the “essence” of relationship, in which the administrative function in practice conforms to and is characterized by, a relationship to theory.

Public power and private power are not alternatives or necessarily conflicting: the economy requires adaptable, multi-dimensional and fluid rules rather than rigid, albeit reassuring, schemas. What can be considered private power and what are the causes that determine its weight? By what means does public power use private power and defend it? To answer these questions is to consider the relationship between politics and administration, lobbying, authorship and credibility of administration, and the search for a renewed measure of trust.

The paper considers the responses that Italian public administrations are capable of giving to emergency events. After dealing with the possibility of identifying a legal notion of “emergency”, the analysis continues through the critical consideration of the various administrative organizations responding to emergencies and their structural overlap. This is followed by a recognition of the multiple administrative acts issued by the organisations and the exceptions they may contain in relation to the rules and principles of the legal system. The brief final considerations propose some hypotheses for change and improvement.

An appeal to the Court of Cassation (against a decision of the Council of State) for reasons of jurisdiction can never concern a principle of law, even if this principle is stated in an interpretive ruling issued by the Council of State. The 'nomophylactic role' attributed to the plenary session of the Council of State (i.e. its exclusive role in the interpretation of the substantive and procedural rules which it applies), is a safeguard of the balance between the two jurisdictions (ordinary and administrative) that is enshrined in the Italian Constitution.

This paper analyses the EU legal framework of Joint Cross-Border Procurement. This is an instrument for achieving the (cross-border) satisfaction of the needs of different EU Member States’ public authorities. This goal, however, seems to be (partially) at odds with the extremely complicated rules and their application which - together with other practical considerations, makes contracting authorities favour alternative procurement procedures.

The Italian Health Impact Assessment (VIS) is a multidisciplinary participatory technique intended to assist public decision-makers in understanding the potential effects of policies, plans, programmes, and initiatives on community health. In recent years, in the Italian legal system, the instrument has found repeated applications, with different terminological variations, in the regional sphere and at an administrative level. At the national regulatory level, the VIS has found recognition in a series of recent amendments to the Consolidated Environmental Protection Act, specifically in environmental impact assessment procedures, through a configuration that appears to be far from the international model of Health Impact Assessment (HIA). The amendments require the private sector to do research on the specific health implications, while ensuring that the health component of the environmental impact assessment is carried out within a procedural framework established by the relevant public administration.

The paper deals with the mobile boundaries between private autonomy, law, administration and jurisdiction and briefly examines the phenomena of administration by law, simplification and replacement of administration by the administrative judge. Using a lay approach, the paper seeks to find the conceptual coordinates that, without treating the separation of powers as an intangible dogma, can be used to quantify and evaluate the extent to which other authorities have encroached upon the ‘naturally’ assigned domain of public administration.

This article compares the digitalization process of healthcare in Italy and Germany focusing on two main tools: the electronic health record and the mHealth regulation. Despite structural differences, the two countries present similar levels of digitization and, whereas Germany has recently introduced cutting-edge legislation on digital care, Italy has a more advanced level of EHR implementation. The analysis therefore focuses on the issues that have emerged in the two jurisdictions and the complementarity of the solutions adopted.