The subject matter of this work deals with both the requirements and functions of the s.c. “inhibitory” protection provided by our national legislator, also known as “injunction” within the Common law systems. It is important to recall that while the “inhibitory” protection has been somehow regulated by many different rules of the Civil code (and the special legislation as well), the Italian legal system has always been particularly reluctant in providing a general “inhibitorial” action against continuous and repetitive offenses. That is why the nature of the tool - with special reference to the juridical qualification and its general admissibility – has long been discussed among scholars, who treated the remedy as an action for declaration or an action for a relief, or even as a stand-alone legal instrument. The above mentioned situation is going to change, since in June 2015 the Italian House of Representatives passed a draft-law (d.d.l. n. 1950) which, among other things, on the one hand repeals the entire article nr. 140 of the s.c. Consumer Code (devoted to the collective “inhibitory” protection for consumers) and, on the other hand, set a new disposition, providing the same legal protection, within our Civil procedural code. Such provision (which is still subject to the final Senate confirmation), not only is expected to enhance the relevance of the “inhibitory” remedy, but it will likely soon establish a new set of legal interpretations within the case law as well as among academics, even though the draft is limited to the collective inhibitory protection only. Therefore I tried to face and investigate the main features of the “inhibitory” protection, taking into account both its “direction to the future” and its preventive goal, which clearly make the difference compared to the other jurisdictional means. In such cases, in fact, the judge is requested to order the interruption and the inhibition of any unlawful and detrimental behaviors against the claimant. To this purpose my first duty was to examine the legal provisions governing the different types of “inhibitory” protection – among others, article 844 c.c. (unlawful discharge), article 156 l.a. (copyright protection) –; secondly I tried to figure out the common features of all the mentioned tools, in a way which makes somehow reliable the idea of the “inhibitory” protection as an atypical legal action; finally, provided by such a new figure of jurisdictional protection, the (far from being theoretical) problem of a correct interpretation should be faced, considering that the new tool cannot easily be reported to the three traditional categories of actions for declaration or for relief. Moreover, an extensive part of my work is devoted to a comparison between the Italian “inhibitory” protection and the American injunction, not only to understand the main features and differences but, most of all, to suggest the same extensive use of such a tool into the Italian system: the well-known general admissibility (although atypical) of the injunction within the Common law systems, in fact, in my opinion can be considered as a reliable signal of the general importance of this kind of legal protection for all the citizens.

Il presente lavoro di ricerca riguarda principalmente i presupposti e le funzioni della c.d. tutela inibitoria prevista dal legislatore, conosciuta anche come injunction negli ordinamenti di common law. Occorre ricordare come nell’ordinamento italiano l’inibitoria individuale sia regolata da differenti norme del codice civile e della legislazione speciale, senza tuttavia trovare riscontro in una disciplina generale per i casi di violazioni continue e ripetute. Per questo motivo la natura dell’istituto – con specifico riferimento alla qualificazione giuridica e alla sua ammissibilità in via generale – è stata a lungo discussa nella dottrina, che ha considerato il rimedio come un’azione di condanna, di accertamento, costitutiva, ovvero come un quartumgenus. Tale situazione probabilmente muterà dal momento che nel giugno 2015 la Camera dei Deputati ha trasmesso al Senato il Disegno di Legge 1950 che da un lato sostituisce l’intero art. 140 del Codice del Consumo (relativo alla tutela inibitoria collettiva dei consumatori) e, dall’altro lato, trasferisce tale previsione all’interno del codice di procedura civile. Tale normativa (che è ancora soggetta all’approvazione finale del Senato), non solo è volta a rafforzare la rilevanza del rimedio inibitorio, ma è destinata a fondare nuove interpretazioni di dottrina e giurisprudenza, sebbene il DDL sia limitato alla dimensione collettiva. Alla luce di tali premesse ho tentato di analizzare le principali caratteristiche della tutela inibitoria, tenendo in considerazione sia la sua “direzione verso il futuro”, che il suo scopo preventivo, che la differenziano chiaramente dal dagli altri rimedi processuali. In tali casi, infatti, viene richiesto al giudice di ordinare l’interruzione e l’inibizione di qualsivoglia comportamento che sia pregiudizievole per l’attore. A tal fine, si sono anzitutto analizzate le previsioni legislative che disciplinano i differenti tipi di inibitoria – tra gli altri, l’art. 844 c.c. (immissioni illegittime), art. 156 l.a. (tutela del copyright) –; in secondo luogo si è tentato di rintracciare le caratteristiche comuni delle fattispecie prese in considerazione, in modo da rendere in qualche modo configurabile una tutela inibitoria “generale” e atipica; infine, anche alla luce delle novità de iure condendo, si è tentato di affrontare il problema della qualificazione giuridica dell’istituto, considerando che lo stesso non è facilmente inquadrabile nelle categorie tradizionali. Inoltre, larga parte del lavoro è dedicata alla comparazione tra l’inibitoria italiana e l’injunction statunitense, non solo per comprendere le principali caratteristiche e differenze, ma, soprattutto, al fine di auspicare lo stesso ampio utilizzo dell’istituto anche in Italia: la nota ammissibilità in via generale e atipica dell’injunction nei sistemi di common law, infatti, può essere considerata un indubbio segnale dell’assoluta importanza di questa forma di tutela per tutti i consociati.

(2018). La qualificazione giuridica e l'ammissibilità in via generale della tutela inibitoria. (Tesi di dottorato, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, 2018).

La qualificazione giuridica e l'ammissibilità in via generale della tutela inibitoria

CAPPELLETTI, MICHELA
2018

Abstract

The subject matter of this work deals with both the requirements and functions of the s.c. “inhibitory” protection provided by our national legislator, also known as “injunction” within the Common law systems. It is important to recall that while the “inhibitory” protection has been somehow regulated by many different rules of the Civil code (and the special legislation as well), the Italian legal system has always been particularly reluctant in providing a general “inhibitorial” action against continuous and repetitive offenses. That is why the nature of the tool - with special reference to the juridical qualification and its general admissibility – has long been discussed among scholars, who treated the remedy as an action for declaration or an action for a relief, or even as a stand-alone legal instrument. The above mentioned situation is going to change, since in June 2015 the Italian House of Representatives passed a draft-law (d.d.l. n. 1950) which, among other things, on the one hand repeals the entire article nr. 140 of the s.c. Consumer Code (devoted to the collective “inhibitory” protection for consumers) and, on the other hand, set a new disposition, providing the same legal protection, within our Civil procedural code. Such provision (which is still subject to the final Senate confirmation), not only is expected to enhance the relevance of the “inhibitory” remedy, but it will likely soon establish a new set of legal interpretations within the case law as well as among academics, even though the draft is limited to the collective inhibitory protection only. Therefore I tried to face and investigate the main features of the “inhibitory” protection, taking into account both its “direction to the future” and its preventive goal, which clearly make the difference compared to the other jurisdictional means. In such cases, in fact, the judge is requested to order the interruption and the inhibition of any unlawful and detrimental behaviors against the claimant. To this purpose my first duty was to examine the legal provisions governing the different types of “inhibitory” protection – among others, article 844 c.c. (unlawful discharge), article 156 l.a. (copyright protection) –; secondly I tried to figure out the common features of all the mentioned tools, in a way which makes somehow reliable the idea of the “inhibitory” protection as an atypical legal action; finally, provided by such a new figure of jurisdictional protection, the (far from being theoretical) problem of a correct interpretation should be faced, considering that the new tool cannot easily be reported to the three traditional categories of actions for declaration or for relief. Moreover, an extensive part of my work is devoted to a comparison between the Italian “inhibitory” protection and the American injunction, not only to understand the main features and differences but, most of all, to suggest the same extensive use of such a tool into the Italian system: the well-known general admissibility (although atypical) of the injunction within the Common law systems, in fact, in my opinion can be considered as a reliable signal of the general importance of this kind of legal protection for all the citizens.
MARINUCCI, ELENA SARA CHIARA
tutela; inibitoria; ammissibilità; generale; qualificazione
inhibitorial; protection; general; admissibility; qualificazione
IUS/15 - DIRITTO PROCESSUALE CIVILE
Italian
28-mar-2018
SCIENZE GIURIDICHE - 84R
30
2016/2017
open
(2018). La qualificazione giuridica e l'ammissibilità in via generale della tutela inibitoria. (Tesi di dottorato, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, 2018).
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
phd_unimib_739819.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: tesi di dottorato
Tipologia di allegato: Doctoral thesis
Dimensione 2.05 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.05 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

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/10281/199155
Citazioni
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
Social impact