On Wednesday November 14, 2012, the highest court in Italy, the Court of Cassation in Rome, convicted two Italian citizens of obscene acts in public under Italian law. The incident occurred in 2006 when the two individuals, reportedly a 40 year-old woman and 60 year-old man, were observed having sexual intercourse outdoors and were thereafter charged.

The couple’s rationale for their open-air affections hinged on a game of association football, known as soccer in America. At the time in 2006, the World Cup was being played in Germany, and, more specifically, Italy was then engaged in a quarterfinal match against the Ukraine. The couple however was in no mood for soccer, and assumed that no one would witness their lovemaking as much of Italy would be staying indoors cheering for the national team. As it happened, the two were arrested by law enforcement officers who were also outside, part of the small segment of the population not enraptured in the soccer game.

After being convicted by a regional court, the couple appealed, and the highest court in Italy agreed to review the case. Alas, the decision of the lower court was upheld, solidifying the doctrine that even a soccer game of great import does not excuse such a public display.

It should be noted that the Italy national team emerged victorious on the day in 2006. The team was propelled to a 3-0 win on the strength of goals by Gianluca Zambrotta and Luca Toni. Italy eventually won the entire tournament, surely giving many Italians something to feel good about.

Prosecutors in Italy are attempting to take seven workers from Standard & Poor’s and Fitch rating agencies to trial for “alleged market manipulation and abuse of privileged information.”  The Italian magistrates have yet to rule on whether the case can move forward.  If it does, this could have an effect on the way that rating agencies act, and what duties they, as private entities, owe to the governments they express credit-worthiness about.

Credit agencies have been coming under attack recently for actions they have taken before and after the financial meltdown.  Last year, when the United States lost its AAA rating, the Obama administration was quick in its attempt to discredit the reliability of the methods Standard & Poor’s used in determining its ratings.  European policymakers have also complained that the European Union did not deserve the downgrades that it received, and former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has spoken out against a “political agenda” behind the rating agencies’ motives.

It is reasonable to become upset with rating agencies and to speak out against them.  But ultimately, people must take responsibility for their own reliance on the ratings that credit rating agencies give.  The disclaimer of Standard & Poor’s does a good job of summing up its position in the world of finance:

Any credit-related analyses, including ratings, or statements used in  any of the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact or recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions…. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions.

If the Italian courts decide to hear this case, it would not be the first of its kind. Indeed, an Australian court recently ruled that Standard & Poor’s misled investors by giving good ratings to bonds that ultimately failed in the fiscal meltdown.

But it must be recognized that to take legal action against credit rating agencies is entirely different than merely expressing an opinion about the soundness of their judgments.  Allowing this Italian court proceeding to move forward would effectively pronounce that in the future credit rating agencies could owe a higher duty to investors and to the entities that they rate.  This could change the relationship that credit rating agencies have to the governments they rate, and ultimately compromise the independent judgment that they are able to offer.  It remains to be seen whether the Italian courts will allow this to happen.

For more information:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/12/us-italy-ratings-probe-idUSBRE8AB0QO20121112

http://www.standardandpoors.com/regulatory-affairs/indices/en/us

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/npr.php?id=139038131

A recent Italian law made headlines this past week that aims to tackle corruption and to repair the Italian government’s image after the widely criticized Berlusconi administration.  Prime Minister Mario Monti made it a priority to fast track the bill through both houses in the legislature.  The bill, which was ironically drafted during the Berlusconi administration, languished in Parliament limbo for two years before being passed through both the Upper House and the Chamber of Deputies.

The law broadens the definition of corruption by making influence peddling a crime.  Campaign financing also has to be more transparent and open to public record. It also provides longer criminal sentences for public officials who demand bribes and protects whistle blowers by guaranteeing anonymity.  The last hurdle the law faced was determining if a past conviction of corruption barred a public official for running for reelection, which the bill did end up also prohibiting.

The Berlusconi administration and its exit marked the pinnacle of nearly two decades of corruption within the Italian government.  Except for Greece, Italy was ranked as the most corrupt European government by Transparency International’s global corruption ranking in 2011.  The law, which passed 228 – 33 in the Upper House, signals a new direction the government is taking to commit itself to transparency and being legitimate in the eyes of the Italian electorate and externally to the world.  The Italian people strongly supported the measure by sponsoring a petition with 300,000 plus signatures advocating for its passage.

Despite the strong support for the law and the stronger measures it provides to tackle corruption, various critics have described the bill as not strong enough in tackling what many consider to be a national emergency of corruption.  While the bill cannot be expected to correct what has been in place for nearly two decades, the bill marks a promising new step not only by the government but also from the Italian people.  It provides a legal framework that makes it easier to prosecute bribery in a culture where cronyism and bribery had become the norm.  Ultimately, the bill’s success relies on its enforcement and the government’s ability and readiness to prosecute those who violate it.  The next few years will be telling in discovering if the government is serious in taking a new step towards repairing the tarnished image of government left by its disgraced former prime minister.

In 1989, Carlo Petrini founded the Slow Food movement to counter the opening of McDonalds in Piazza Spagna in Rome and the general rise of fast food  in the world.  The organization seeks to prevent large, multinational chains from detracting from small businesses and local agriculture.  Since 1900, up to 75% of European food product diversity has been lost and over 90% of American food product diversity has been lost during the same period.  One study has shown that one vegetable variety is lost every six hours.

Just this past week, Turin was host to the Salone del Gusto and Terra Madre, a biennial international fair that focused on raising awareness to the Slow Food movement.  The Salone del Gusto and Terra Madre is a venue where food communities from around the globe join together to provide a sense of hope and enthusiasm for the future of food and farming.  This year, the event attracted over 220,000 people over the course of five days. Over sixty percent of the tickets were sold to visitors from outside Italy.  Organizers saw that this was proof that despite the poor economy, the vision of Petrini is still real and strong.

The event centered on a series of conferences that looked to foster debate and ideas relating to sustainable production and consumption.  In addition to the more formal debates, there were a number of events that were geared towards children.  In addition to the workshops, vendors, and conferences, this weekend also featured the International Congress of Slow Food.  650 delegates from 90 countries met to determine the future of the movement.  While the direction of the movement is uncertain, the future is strong and interest is certainly ever-present.

A judge in L’Aquila, Italy convicted seven earthquake experts of manslaughter this week for having made a perfunctory analysis of an earthquake threat and falsely reassuring the public in advance of an earthquake which occurred in 2009.

On March 31, 2009, the seven experts convened for a meeting of Italy’s National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks held in L’Aquila. The meeting was called for the purposes of investigating a rash of small- to medium-sized tremors that had occurred in the region over the preceding 3 months. The subsequent information disseminated by the experts, according to the prosecution, led to 30 of the earthquake’s 309 victims staying inside on the night of the earthquake, which rocked the town only 6 days after the Commission’s meeting. The prosecution contended that this act of staying inside, as opposed to the normal protocol of seeking safety outdoors, caused the deaths of the 30 individuals.

The deputy of the National Commission had stated prior to the experts’ meeting that there was “no danger” posed by the tremors, and that the tremors were actually a positive occurrence in discharging energy. In response to this statement, the lawyer of another of the defendants sought to separate the deputy’s reassurance from the rest of the experts. Another defense attorney argued that earthquake prediction is impossible, and reasoned that his client provided no such reassurances.

Although the trial has extended for over a year, the legal process has not yet run its course. Defense counsel has 45 days to issue an appeal, and the defense attorneys have stated that they plan on doing so.

Recently, two consumer advocate groups in Italy filed a class action lawsuit against Apple.  Allegedly affecting thousands of Italian customers, the groups accuse Apple of unethical business practices in not giving adequate clarification regarding the required two-year warranty on most of their products.  Apple employees and policies encourage customers to purchase the extended AppleCare warranty without explaining that the products are already under a warranty for two years according to the required minimum two-year guarantee under E.U. law.

The purchasers who had been induced into buying an extra warranty are being given six months to decide whether or not to participate in the lawsuit.  The risk for the purchasers is relatively low.  In the event the lawsuit is not successful against Apple, the consumer advocate groups have agreed to assume the bulk of the legal fees.  Also, in the event of success, the consumers would only be contributing 10 to 15% of their financial compensation to the consumer groups moving the lawsuit forward.

Apple has a checkered past in its marketing practices within Europe.  The claim brought by the groups cite a recent fine for €900,000 imposed on Apple by Italy’s Antitrust Authority last December.  Officials in the European Union have also encouraged consumer groups to keep a close eye on Apple’s business practices all across Europe.

In the United States, consumers generally laud Apple’s customer service as one of the best.  No law in the United States requires Apple to have a two-year warranty on their products.  In the U.S., Apple has a limited one-year warranty from the date of purchase with the option of extending the warranty for three years with AppleCare.  The E.U. mandatory two-year warranty makes AppleCare less of an incentive, which is also the same three-year warranty in Europe.

Despite having a reputation of quality products in Italy, Apple seems to be known for less than clear marketing and business practices.  The contrast between the perception in America and Italy regarding Apple’s integrity begs a further discussion of the differences between antitrust laws in America, Italy and the additional laws imposed by the European Union.  Apple’s business practices should likewise be tailored to the specific laws of different countries, perhaps fine-tuning their AppleCare warranty to appeal consumers in different countries with different laws and protections.

On February 17, 2003, United States Agents abducted Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, a suspected Islamic militant, on his way to his mosque.  The agents took Nasr to an air base, flown to Germany, and then to Egypt, where Nasr claims he was tortured.

In 2009, the agents were convicted.  One year later, an appellate court upheld their convictions. Two weeks ago, the matter was argued in Italy’s highest court where it upheld the convictions of the twenty-three Americans.  Twenty-two of these were Central Intelligence Agency employees and the remaining defendant was an Air Force colonel.  Twenty-two of the Americans received sentences of seven years, while the C.I.A. station chief received nine years.  This case was one of the first, if not the first ruling that successfully challenged the American rendition program.

Currently, the Americans are located within the jurisdiction of the United States of America.  At this point, it is unclear whether the Italian government will seek extradition of the Americans. While the United States and Italy have an extradition agreement, this request will likely create some tensions between the two countries.

This case represents a landmark victory for those that oppose the American practices of rendition.  Whether this will create precedent that will force the United States and their allies to alter their methods remains to be seen, however, if the Italians seek extradition, this story will likely turn into a much larger issue than it currently is and pose a significant strain on Italian-American relations.

Based on a New York Times Article by Elisabetta Povoledo published on September 20, 2012, on page A5 of the New York edition with the headline: High Court In Italy Backs Convictions For Rendition.

Our final Meet the Author segment in this year’s issue of the Digest chronicles Giovanni Iudica. Professor Iudica is one of Italy’s premier scholars in the civil law as it relates to contracts, procurement, non-profit organizations, and insurance.

Iudica was born on April 21, 1944. He graduated cum laude with a doctorate from the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, where he wrote a dissertation called “Succession upon death in a right of appeal in cases of multiple heirs.” He was a Private Law professor at the Faculty of Business and Economics of the Istituto Universitario di Bergamo from 1974 to 1980. He also taught law at the University of Parma from 1980 to 1982. From 1982 to 1989, he taught law at the University of Pavia. He now teaches Civil Law at Bocconi University, where he is the dean of the law school.

Iudica holds a number of prestigious positions in Italy. He serves as Vice President of Milan’s Jury of Advertising Ethics Institute. He is a member of the Association for a European Law Institute, the European Society of Construction Law, and the Scientific Committee of the National Center for Prevention and Social Defense. Iudica is also president of the Italian Institute for the Construction Law.

Additionally, Professor Iudica is a prolific legal author. He is an editor of legal journals Responsabilità civile e previdenza and Antologia, and also serves on the editorial board for La nuova giurisprudenza civile commentate. Iudica has also contributed as an editor on the ll trittico series of textbooks.

For more information on this author:

http://www.iudica.it/

Our next look at this year’s Digest authors explores the work and background of Massimiliano Granieri.  Doctor Granieri is a professor of Comparative Private Law as well as Economic Analysis of Law at the University of Foggia Law School.  He also leads the law school’s program of on-campus technology transfer activities and university-industry relationships, and is the vice president of MI.TO. Technology.

Granieri graduated summa cum laude from the LUISS Guido Carli University in Rome, where he earned a law degree.   He later earned a Master of Laws (LL.M.) from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Ph.D. in Comparative Law from the University of Florence.  In 2002, he was awarded a Jemolo Fellowship from the Nuffield College of the University of Oxford.

Granieri has worked for the Office of Technology Transfer at the University of California in Oakland.  He also helped start Torino Wireless, the first Italian technological district, and has been Head of the Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer Department since 2003.  He is currently a board member of the Network for the Valorization of Research (Netval), as well as ARTI Puglia.  Granieri was a consultant for the European Patent Academy of the European Patent Office, and is now a member of the European IP Expert Group of the Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry of the European Commission.

As an accomplished author, Granieri has published multiple works dealing with intellectual property, technology transfer, antitrust, and economic analysis of law.  Recently he co-authored “Innovation Law and Policy in the European Union:  Towards Horizon 2020” with Andrea Renda.  This book gives an overview of innovation policy in Europe today, predictions about what it will look like in the future, and proposals for how to improve the European Union’s framework of innovation policy.

Our next look at this year’s Digest authors explores the work and background of Roberto Pardolesi.  Professor Pardolesi is one of the foremost Italian scholars of antitrust, comparative law, and economic analysis of law.  In the 1970’s he was one of the first Italian scholars to apply an interdisciplinary approach to the study of law and economics.

In 1971, Pardolesi graduated cum laude from the University of Bari, majoring in Political Science.  He became an assistant researcher at the Private Law Institute of the University of Bari in 1974.  He was later awarded a Fulbright Fellowship, and in 1975 earned an LL.M. from the University of Chicago Law School.  In 1977-78, Pardolesi was awarded a Council of Europe Fellowship in Munich, Germany.  He became a professor of comparative law at the University of Palermo Law School in 1980, and in 1983 he took a position at the University of Bari Law School.

Since 1989, Pardolesi has been a professor of comparative law and private law at LUISS Guido Carli University in Rome.  He is a member of the International Academy of Comparative Law, the European Association of Law and Economics, and the Italian Association of Comparative Law.  At LUISS, Pardolesi has contributed to the Impact Study on Private Enforcement that was commissioned by the Directorate-General for Competition of the European Commission.

As a very accomplished author, Pardolesi has written hundreds of articles and several books.  The recently published “Competition Law and Intellectual Property:  A European Perspective,” featured Pardolesi’s Single-Firm Conduct:  A Discipline in Search of Itself (Kluwer Law International, 2012); and Pardolesi’s Monopoly Agreements and Abuse of Dominance:  Some Remarks About the Substantive Rules, was featured in the book “Competition Policy and Regulation:  Recent Developments in China, the US and Europe” (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2011).  Pardolesi is an editor of Foro Italiano, Mercato Concorrenza Regole, and Danno e Responsabilità, and on the editorial board of many other legal journals.

For more information:

http://www.imtlucca.it/whos_at_imt/personal_page.php?p=155

http://www.law-economics.net/?page_id=56

http://docenti.luiss.it/pardolesi/