Although written law is by definition unique, reliable and equal for all, many times the Italian judges, especially as regards to the procedural arguments, put in practice the same articles of the Code of Civil Procedure in ways so often profoundly different. These behavioural differences, besides to calling into question the principle that “law is equal for all”, highlight the absence of shared professional standards between the Italian magistrates. Many times the Italian judges appear as “monads”, that work in a totally independent way, so that they don’t know effectively in which manner operates the colleague of the next door. Italian courts look like “condominiums”, physical spaces, formally defined, where paralelly practice a plurality of magistrates. These judges are similar to “craftsmen”, who individually produce, experiment and translate into practice their autonomous and solipsistic interpretations of the written rules. In the light of the debate of the Sociology of professions, on the basis of the data collected during an ethnographic research developed in over two years in four Italian courts, that has considered sixteen magistrates specialized in treatment of lawsuits at first instance related to the labour relationships, this paper aspires to paint the professional activities of judges and to meditate about the practical implications, for the functioning of Italian tribunals, which derive by the absence of shared professional standards on how interpreting written rules. In conclusion, these reflections aim to represent a starting point for discuss about the possible reconfiguration of the activities of the public sector professionals and of the organizations in which these actors daily operate.

Is law equal for all? Reflections on the absence of professional standards between Italian judges

VERZELLONI, LUCA
2011

Abstract

Although written law is by definition unique, reliable and equal for all, many times the Italian judges, especially as regards to the procedural arguments, put in practice the same articles of the Code of Civil Procedure in ways so often profoundly different. These behavioural differences, besides to calling into question the principle that “law is equal for all”, highlight the absence of shared professional standards between the Italian magistrates. Many times the Italian judges appear as “monads”, that work in a totally independent way, so that they don’t know effectively in which manner operates the colleague of the next door. Italian courts look like “condominiums”, physical spaces, formally defined, where paralelly practice a plurality of magistrates. These judges are similar to “craftsmen”, who individually produce, experiment and translate into practice their autonomous and solipsistic interpretations of the written rules. In the light of the debate of the Sociology of professions, on the basis of the data collected during an ethnographic research developed in over two years in four Italian courts, that has considered sixteen magistrates specialized in treatment of lawsuits at first instance related to the labour relationships, this paper aspires to paint the professional activities of judges and to meditate about the practical implications, for the functioning of Italian tribunals, which derive by the absence of shared professional standards on how interpreting written rules. In conclusion, these reflections aim to represent a starting point for discuss about the possible reconfiguration of the activities of the public sector professionals and of the organizations in which these actors daily operate.
Abstract Book
437
437
Verzelloni L.
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

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: http://hdl.handle.net/11585/104567
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact