I Am Curious—yellow

COSTS

L’ art. 27 Cost. stabilisce che tutti possono agire in giudizio per la tutela dei propri diritti e interessi legittimi, tale norma consente ad ogni cittadino di azione la macchina processuale al fine di ottenere la riparazione della lesione di un diritto privato.

Nel nostro ordinamento giuridico è presente una dicotomia diritto/obbligo di difesa, ovvero da un lato diritto di agire in sede processuale per ottenere la tutela di un bene giuridico a cui si aspira ( e che è in pericolo o è stato leso ) ed obbligo di stare in giudizio con il ministero o l’assistenza di un difensore ( tecnico ) ex art. 82 c.p.c..

Il legislature has expressly provided the possibility for the part of himself in court, they relate to cases before the justice of the peace that do not exceed € 516.46 under ' art. 82 cpc . Also there is the possibility of legal proceedings and for the part, before the magistrate, if he allows it, considering the magnitude of the case (Article . 82 CPC). The party may sue and be sued without the ministry of defense technical, in the process of work, at first instance in cases that do not exceed € 129.11 ( art. 417 cpc).

In our legal system The rule is applied by default is the principle of losing , the part that is losing has to pay the costs and honored the other ( art. 91 CPC). However, there are the paradigm in the mildest of the word, when in fact there are serious reasons or both parts would be unsuccessful, the court may compensate for part or all of the cost between the parties (Article . 92, paragraph 2, Code of Civil ) .

The rationale behind the rule is related to the function of litigation deflation, and also, not infrequently, courts sorry to see each challenge a decision so the compensation è volta ad evitare il proseguimento della controversia.

Il legislatore con la riforma contenuta nella l. 18 giugno 2009, n. 69 , ha voluto calcare ulteriormente la mano in questa direzione, giacché ha previsto che qualora il giudice accoglie la domanda in misura non superiore a quella prevista nella potenziale proposta conciliativa , condanna l’altra parte ( ovvero quella che ha rifiutato la proposta di conciliazione ) a rifondere le spese processuali e gli onorari della prima, salvo ricorra un giustificato motivo ( art. 91 c.p.c. ).

La scelta del nostro legislatore è stata quella di incentivare la conciliazione processuale e perseguire l’obiettivo della ragionevole durata del processo stabilito all’ art. 111, comma 2, Cost. , ovviamente, tale strumento è un potente disincentivo alla prosecuzione del contenzioso, tuttavia, su un altro fronte questo istituto potrebbe diventare eccessivamente repressivo per le parti.

In questa breve presentazione delle spese processuali, vorrei infine enucleare l’istituto della responsabilità aggravata disciplinata all’ art. 96 c.p.c. , la norma in parola, stabilisce che qualora la parte soccombente ha agito o resistito con malafede o colpa grave , il giudice, su istanza dell’altra parte, la condanna, as well as costs, compensation for damages (Article . 2043 cc) that clears its own motion, in the sentence.

The court may pronounce the sentence to compensation by way of equitable ( art. 96, comma 3, cpc ). It 'obvious that the demonstration element of the will, which led to the losing party to act or resist in court, it is extremely difficult to prove.


REFERENCES


- MANDRIOLI, Civil Procedure Law, Vol I, Giappichelli, Torino, 2009

- LUIS, Civil Procedure Law, Vol I, Giuffrè, Milano, 2009.

you

Titan Ware Healthy To Use?

at John Deere

Today at 14:00 Ns. Association was alerted by the Municipal Police to a fire at the John Deere Company.
promptly Ns. team went on site and with the help of some people in the place, with the help of 8 dry chemical, could reduce the flames that had enveloped half agriculture in the shed. At about 14:20 the firemen who intervened to clean up the fire.

Logitech Bluetooth Dongle

Challenge velox

Here's the email that a reader asked me for advice concerning a contravention of which he received:

"Good morning, a few days ago I received a fine of 155 € (plus 14 € of expenses) as exceeded the speed limit of 18 km orari.Tuttavia the sign was not visible even from the pole was detached and thrown to the ground. What can I do? "

As always in these cases, Board to use the expertise of a lawyer, despite this, I'll try to answer. In my opinion, could set the action as follows (there are many sites where you can find the material to make the application):

Al Preg.mo of Justice of the Peace Action ...
art. 23 Law 689/1981. The undersigned

... Born in the ... ... ... Resident


PRECEDE

- that on ... and I 'was notified by registered mail a contravention, as the original (see Annex);
- which is in contravention of this Annex alleged infringement of Article. No 142 / 8 of the Highway Code;
- and that ' Failure to stop and the immediate challenge by the officer in charge, pursuant to art. 201, paragraph 1a points e) of Legislative Decree no. 285/92;
- that given the premises the equipment work probably outside the control of agents in, for I proceeded with my vehicle, in the historic center and if the staff member had been to guard the device would have ordered the immediate detention and challenge the violation art. No 142 / 8 of the Highway Code, which did not happen;
-that under the provisions of sect ruling with the Court of Cassation (n.1380 of 08.02.2000), sect. III Civil Court itself (n. 4010 of 03.04.2000), and also of the sez.civile (N.2494 of 21/02/2001) in case of infringement by major camera mod. 104 / C, allowing the immediate relief of the offending vehicle, must still proceed with the immediate pain of contestability 'of legitimacy' of the breach and resulting high annulment 'of the same;
- that the equipment was not reported in the appropriate mode provided for in art. 3 of Decree 117/2007, since the sign was located on land adjacent to the pole (see attached photo) and not on the above, this entails the disappearance of representability to know the legislative data, and also the guilt with the result falls because no one could have in that position identify the sign, that fact is also, 'in contrast with the same art. 3 of Decree 117/2007 in that it establishes "The checkpoints on the road network to detect the speed shall be reported in advance and clearly visible, resorting to the use of billboards and light signaling devices, in accordance with standards in the Implementing Regulations of this Code. Conditions of employment are established by decree of the Minister of Transport, in consultation with the Minister of the Interior ", a fact which has not been able to achieve for the reasons listed above;
- claimed to also ', the actual regularity calibration equipment;
- that part of the report on the returns of the offender was blocked, confirming the
not dispute - it argues, moreover, no allegation of the picture, showing the offense, to me, made

REQUESTS

the suspension and cancellation of the said report and those subsequent measures it deems appropriate issue. Date and signature



PS: everyone is free to use this document at your own risk and peril, we can not guarantee that the application can be accepted by the magistrate is