This article aims at analyzing the intervention in existing litigation by surveying the main regulatory regimes within civil law and common law legal systems. Even if the comparative perspective emphasizes similarities and differences among American, French, German, and Italian legal systems, the application of the Article III’s standing requirements in accordance with the U.S Supreme Court’s jurisprudence reinforces the role played by the interest to intervene in existing litigation.
How to reduce the gap? A comparative view on the policies behind the intervention rules
Cavallini, Cesare;Gaboardi, Marcello
2019
Abstract
This article aims at analyzing the intervention in existing litigation by surveying the main regulatory regimes within civil law and common law legal systems. Even if the comparative perspective emphasizes similarities and differences among American, French, German, and Italian legal systems, the application of the Article III’s standing requirements in accordance with the U.S Supreme Court’s jurisprudence reinforces the role played by the interest to intervene in existing litigation.
File in questo prodotto:
| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
C.Cavallini&M.Gaboardi - Article 2019.pdf
non disponibili
Descrizione: Articolo
Tipologia:
Documento in Pre-print (Pre-print document)
Licenza:
NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione
263.89 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
263.89 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
