di Giovanna Pistorio

SOMMARIO: 1. Premessa. – 2. Le dimensioni della co-regolazione. – 3. La co-regolazione nell’ecosistema digitale. – 4. L’eterogeneità dei modelli. – 5. Il costituzionalismo nel digitale.

Defining co-regulation is a difficult challenge. There's no single model, but rather multiple and heterogeneous frameworks. They depend on the mode of interaction among stakeholders, the degree of flexibility of the tools, and the type of goal to be achieved. Resorting to the concept of co-regulation in regulating new technologies is now essential due to the inadequacy of public hetero-regulation and the uncontrolled expansion of private self-regulation. In light of this awareness, questions arise about the issues that co-regulation entails in the digital ecosystem, investigating whether and how resorting to public technical standards can lead to forms of co-regulation that are constitutionally compliant.

di Elisabetta Frontoni

SOMMARIO: 1. Governare le tecnologie e con le tecnologie. – 2. La regolazione dell’uso delle nuove tecnologie come argine ai poteri privati e garanzia di una società democratica. – 3. Il ruolo del potere pubblico nella co-regolazione: principi, controlli e linee guida. – 4. Governare le tecnologie e con le tecnologie per una cittadinanza accresciuta e non dimidiata.

The paper proposes a reflection on the importance of regulating the use of technologies to counter the dangerous expansion of private powers, focusing in particular on so-called co-regulation. The analysis is aimed at highlighting how the governance of technologies is also necessary to govern through technologies.

di Gianpaolo Fontana

SOMMARIO: 1.1 Le nuove sfide al diritto poste dall’evoluzione tecnico-scientifica. – 1.2. Diritto e scienza: convergenze, conflitti e dinamiche di una complessa interazione. - 2. La tutela della salute tra diritto, scienza e tecnica. L’insurrogabile ruolo del diritto in ambito medico. – 3.1 La Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) e le linee guida. - 3.2 Le linee guida sulla responsabilità medica tra autoregolazione e co-regolazione. - 3.3. Le linee guida in tema di responsabilità medica come modello di (co)regolazione privata: profili di costituzionalità e di funzionalità. - 4. Considerazioni conclusive. Verso una rinnovata science policy.

The paper analyses the forms and models of normative co-regulation in relation to health protection, dwelling on the complex relationship between law and medicine and the guidelines provided by Law 24 of 2017 on medical liability, highlighting the criticality and inefficiency of this particular form of soft law

di Elisabetta Catelani

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione. – 2. Partecipazione dei cittadini europei alla formazione delle politiche europee. – 3. Partecipazione degli stakeholder alla formazione delle politiche europee. – 4. La partecipazione dei cittadini, delle organizzazioni della società civile e degli stakeholder in Italia: un lungo percorso ancora da fare. – 5. La partecipazione dei cittadini e delle organizzazioni della società civile nella prospettiva futura dell’IA. – 6. Conclusioni.

The term co-regulation has a plurality of implications in our legal system and that of the EU. The objective of this contribution is to identify how the participation of citizens, civil society organizations, and stakeholders can contribute to shaping European policies and internal regulatory activities. Such participation can be facilitated by the presence of new technologies, which must, however, be accessible and understood in their opportunities by all citizens.

di Giuseppe Mobilio

SOMMARIO:  1. Introduzione. – 2. Cosa significa “co-regolare” le “nuove tecnologie”. – 3. Nuovi approcci regolatori per nuove tecnologie: la “risk-based regulation” a tutela dei diritti e l’emergere dei principi di precauzione e proporzionalità. – 3.1 La disciplina in vigore a tutela dei dati personali processati dalle nuove tecnologie: il GDPR. – 3.2 La recente disciplina sui servizi di intermediazione e le piattaforme online: il DSA. – 3.3 La futura disciplina generale sui sistemi di IA: l’AI Act. – 4 Pubblico e privato nella co-regolazione delle nuove tecnologie. – 5. Spunti conclusivi .

The issue at the basis of this paper is whether, and how, the protection of fundamental rights conditions legal regulation, and in particular the openness or otherwise of private involvement in regulation. The aim is to investigate whether, and in what terms, recourse to co-regulation depends on the impact of the technologies to be regulated on the fundamental rights at stake.

di Giovanni Di Cosimo

SOMMARIO: 1. Libertà. – 2. Regolazione. – 3. Parallelo. – 4. Limiti. – 5. Obiezioni. – 6. Legislazione. – 7. Privati. – 8. Conclusioni.

The essay focuses on the model of co-regulation of new digital technologies, whereby the level of regulation decentralizes from public power to digital companies. Starting from the assumption that a similar decentralization characterizes the relationship between State and regional government levels, the essay points out the limits that should be observed in the regulatory decentralization of new digital technologies towards digital companies

di Caterina Di Costanzo

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione – 2. Dalla tecno-scienza alla tecnologia nel settore della salute – 3. La regolazione delle tecnologie nel settore della salute: la normativa finalizzata alla disciplina della componente tecnologica – 3.1. Segue: nel campo della circolazione dei dati sanitari elettronici – 3.2. Segue: nel campo dei dispositivi medici – 3.3. Segue: nel campo della robotica – 3.4. Segue: nel campo del fascicolo sanitario elettronico – 3.5. Segue: nel campo della telemedicina – 3.6. Segue: nel campo della piattaforma di intelligenza artificiale – 4. Considerazioni conclusive.

The health sector traditionally constitutes a significant area of development of institutional, technical and, more recently, technological experiments. This sector represents a real “laboratory” of institutional, technical and technological innovations which find fertile ground of skills and resources that make the introduction of innovations practicable and effective from the expected results viewpoint. The widespread use of technologies, recently increased by the Covid-19 pandemic, is part of the health sector within a context characterized, on the one hand, by needs for simplification and promotion of innovation and, on the other, by the exigencies of resources rationalization in a framework in which the proper declination of health protection and the related organizational structures are continually subject to transformations. The panorama of digital practices in the health sector shows us a complex "ecosystem" in which technological innovation takes on a driving role and “regulatory cooperation” on the subject begins to emerge as an increasingly relevant factor in the various fields that have been identified in order to carry out a survey of the regulatory mechanisms that are progressively developing.

di Celeste Chiariello e Jacopo Ferracuti

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione. – 2. I primi passi verso un processo costituzionale digitalizzato. – 3. Processo costituzionale e misure emergenziali. – 4. Meglio tardi che mai: il lancio di e-Cost. – 5. Il nuovo portale e-Cost. Accessibilità ed elasticità della relativa disciplina. – 6. e-Cost: punto di arrivo o di partenza?

The essay focuses on the novelty, introduced starting on 3 December 2021, of the electronic constitutional process. In particular, the essay retraces the first steps taken by the constitutional Court toward a digitalized constitutional process, also focusing on the transitional regulations introduced in the emergency period linked to the spread of COVID-19. Therefore, it analyzes more closely both the new regulation introduced, to highlight its peculiar characteristics, and the characteristics of the e-Cost portal, also in comparison with those of the telematic processes of other justice systems (civil, criminal, administrative, and tax). In the last part, it finally attempts to clarify whether the electronic management system of the constitutional process integrates a starting point, or a point of arrival, in the process of technological innovation of the Court.

di Teresa Balduzzi

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione. – 2. Promozione della digitalizzazione interna: monitoraggio e coordinamento, supporto tecnico-finanziario e accesso alle informazioni. – 3. Il “cambio di passo”: verso obblighi giuridici di digitalizzazione. – 4. Tecnologie innovative: un approccio graduato, tra divieti legislativi e co-regolazione. – 5. Le coordinate fondamentali dell’approccio europeo, tra norme di competenza e basi giuridiche, principi della giurisdizione e nuove tecniche di regolazione.

This study undertakes an analysis of the European Union’s regulatory approach to the digitalisation of justice, emphasising the variety of policy tools employed and the rationale behind these choices. Focusing on self- and co-regulation, the research distinguishes between two facets of justice digitalisation. Firstly, it explores the processes associated with the ‘dematerialisation’ of legal procedures, encompassing the digitisation of judicial documents, the facilitation of hearings through video conferencing, and the electronic exchange of information among authorities and between authorities and involved parties. Secondly, the study delves into innovative technologies, notably artificial intelligence (AI), exploring applications ranging from automated transcription and translation of hearings to software designed for ‘predictive justice.’ In examining dematerialisation, the study notes the EU’s increasing reliance on binding regulatory measures to mandate the adoption of a digital environment and necessitating the use of electronic means for cross-border judicial cooperation. Conversely, in addressing cutting-edge technologies, complex risk-based regulatory frameworks were adopted, i.e. the AI Act.  Among the different legal regimes, co-regulatory forms stand out, aiming (albeit not always successfully) to strike the right balance between the protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law on one hand, and the need for efficiency and innovation, on the other, through an intensive dialogue between public institutions and private actors.

di Alessandro De Nicola e Domiziano Pierantoni

SOMMARIO: 1. Premessa – 2. Cenni sulla nozione di co-regolazione – 3. Sulla DGSIA in generale: organizzazione e funzioni – 4. Intervista al Direttore generale SIA – 5. La DGSIA alla prova del Covid-19 – 6. La DGSIA nel prisma della co-regolazione?

The paper focuses on the role played by the Direzione per i servizi informativi automatizzati of the Italian Ministry of Justice (DGSIA), concentrating on the acts implemented by the latter during the pandemic emergency. After outlining its competencies, the work analyses the main acts the Directorate adopted to cope with the Sars-Cov-2 pandemic to guarantee the continuity of the judicial function (e.g. regarding the modalities of conducting telematic hearings). Furthermore, the research attempted to understand whether the measures of the DGSIA can be included in the category of co-regulation, of which some remarks have been given. In addition, the paper contains the main points that emerged from the interview conducted by the authors with the Director General of the SIA, Ing. De Lisi, who justified the choices that led the Directorate to opt for certain technical-informatic solutions instead of other possible alternatives.

di Simone Barbareschi

SOMMARIO: 1. Premessa. – 2. Le ODR come sviluppo delle ADR: la giustizia fuori dalle Corti. – 2.1. Le ODR come strumenti complementari alla giustizia nelle Corti. – 3. Vantaggi e rischi per i diritti fondamentali dei cittadini. – 4. Auto-, etero- e co-regolazione. – 5. La co-regolazione della giustizia consensuale digitale.

The essay examines justice outside the Courts, focusing on Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) and the suitable source to regulate these devices. In addition to reforming the process and ways in which parties present their claims, technologies accentuate the tendency of private individuals to identify alternative devices of resolving cases. Furthermore, an inclination towards inclusion in judicial systems of these instruments can also be noted. The essay is therefore divided into three parts: the first part focuses on the different types of ODR; the second part examines the advantages and risks for fundamental rights in ODR, with attention to the processing of personal data and the protection of the right of defence; finally, the last pages support the need for co-regulation, as the alternative between a private digital justice system and one regulated by public institutions could be unsatisfactory.

di Camilla Storace

SOMMARIO: 1. Premessa. – 2. La digitalizzazione del processo civile e penale nella riforma Cartabia. ­– 3. La digitalizzazione della giustizia tra Governo e strutture tecniche: un diverso modello di co-regolazione? – 4. Per un modello di co-regolazione della giustizia digitale costituzionalmente orientato.

The paper examines the topic of digitalisation of civil and criminal justice following the Cartabia Reform. In particular, the text explores the methods and characteristics of the reform approval procedure which is characterized by constant interaction between the legislator and several technical structures. The paper outlines a model of co-regulation of digital justice compliant with the Constitution, addressing the issues of the relationship between technology and politics.

di Ylenia Guerra

SOMMARIO: 1. Contesto, oggetto, metodo e obiettivi della ricerca: un primo approccio alla dimensione costituzionale della sharing mobility. – 2. Nozione e regole condivise: la disciplina giuridica della sharing mobility, una prima ricostruzione tra diritto interno e diritto europeo. – 2.1. La sharing mobility tra intreccio con i servizi pubblici locali e profili di regolazione. – 3. Cenni a (come) Regolare la sharing mobility? – 3.1. Regolazione, pianificazione, contrattazione... – 4. Riflessioni conclusive. Le principali questioni aperte sulla (co)regolazione della sharing mobility: tutela della concorrenza, trasporto pubblico e diritto sociale alla mobilità.

This paper seeks to frame sharing mobility within the categories of constitutional law, starting from the research question of whether shared mobility can be brought back into the dimension of public services, considering its regulatory characteristics. The study, therefore, searches for a legal definition of sharing mobility by examining existing legal provisions and academic literature. Subsequently, it investigates whether some of the transport services provided through sharing mobility platforms can integrate the concept of public service. If confirmed, this classification raises important questions about safeguarding constitutionally protected rights and principles associated with sharing mobility, such as, among others, social rights and equal access to digital platforms.

di Giacomo Menegus

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione. – 2. Co-regolazione e home-sharing, alcune questioni definitorie. – 3. Il quadro normativo dell’home-sharing: coordinate di base. – 4. Esperienze di co-regolazione nell’home-sharing in contesti europei e nel contesto italiano. – 5. Un bilancio deficitario. – 6. Prospettive di superamento delle attuali esperienze di co-regolazione: conclusioni provvisorie.

The article examines the most significant co-regulation experiences in the home-sharing sector that have emerged in the EU and Italian context. Arising to ensure a more effective enforcement of the rules introduced on so-called short rentals or to share relevant data with public authorities, such practices have great potential, yet show more pronounced limitations. Lack of effectiveness, poor data sharing and limited transparency are just some of the problems that emerged from the analysis. However, the DSA and the Commission's proposal for a regulation on short-term housing rental, with the provision of new rules directed at platforms, seem to prefigure a new season of co-regulatory processes in the sector.

di Edoardo Caterina

SOMMARIO: 1. Lo sviluppo della c.d. gig economy e la risposta normativa al livello nazionale ed europeo. – 2. La nuova direttiva UE sui lavoratori delle piattaforme digitali. – 3. È davvero possibile garantire il diritto a una decisione umana all’interno di piattaforme governate dall’algoritmo? – 4. Come provare il carattere discriminatorio dell’algoritmo? – 5. Sorvegliare e dare punti: il rating reputazionale. – 6. Conclusioni

This paper analyses the challenges raised by the algorithmic management of work by digital labour platforms (DLPs). It is clarified how fundamental rights of constitutional rank are at stake in this area of co-regulation, and an approach is proposed that aims at an effective protection of such rights, without, however, imposing unrealistic obligations in the context of the business model provided by the so-called gig economy. In particular, the problems arising from the right to human review of automated decisions and the various practices of workers’ rating score will be discussed. The proposed DLP Directive of December 2019 will also be discussed. The analysis will show how mere regulation by design is not entirely sufficient for an effective guarantee of fundamental rights and will call for a dynamic co-regulation model in which both employee representatives and independent authorities are actively involved. An algorithmic design that respects the fundamental rights at stake can emerge from the interaction of these actors and from a set of minimum safeguards laid down by the legislator.

di Gabriele Rugani

SOMMARIO:  1. Introduzione: una panoramica dell’iter legis della “legge sull’intelligenza artificiale”. – 2. La “legge sull’intelligenza artificiale” come punto di arrivo del processo di co-regolazione: il dialogo con gli stakeholder avviato fin dal 2018. – 3. La “legge sull’intelligenza artificiale” come punto di partenza di successivi processi di co-regolazione: il ruolo delle regulatory sandboxes. – 4. Riflessioni conclusive: la “legge sull’intelligenza artificiale” come uno strumento di promozione di una specifica modalità di regolamentazione dell’IA.

This contribution intends to focus on a specific aspect of the ‘Artificial Intelligence Act’ proposed by the European Commission in 2021, namely the relationship between this instrument and the issue of co-regulation. First of all, a general overview of the related legislative process will be necessary, starting with the Proposal submitted by the Commission, passing through the positions adopted by the Council and the European Parliament and arriving at the political agreement reached by the two co-legislators. Entering then into the heart of the discussion, it will be possible to highlight how the ‘Artificial Intelligence Act’ represents both a ‘point of arrival’ and a ‘point of departure’ of co-regulation in the field of AI. Point of arrival, because such an instrument is the result of a long and articulated process of stakeholder consultation, which took place within the EU institutions starting in 2018 and intensified after the Commission's 2020 White Paper. A starting point, since, in order to better regulate the delicate subject of AI, it seeks to foster dialogue between national public authorities and stakeholders through additional, even atypical, modes of co-regulation: among these, regulatory sandboxes stand out in particular. In conclusion, it will therefore be possible to carry out some reflections on how the ‘Artificial Intelligence Act’ not only intends to dictate a discipline on AI, but even to promote throughout the Union a specific way of regulating this matter.

di Matteo Trapani

SOMMARIO: 1. Le nuove forme di dialogo tra pubblico e privato per la produzione normativa. – 2. La Pubblica Amministrazione come ecosistema di partecipazione e condivisione. – 3. Le dinamiche dell’amministrazione digitale. – 4. Una panoramica sulle sandbox. – 5. L’utilizzo delle sandbox in ambito europeo e la loro proiezione nell’attività della P.A. – 6. Il ruolo della Pubblica Amministrazione nei nuovi modelli di (co-)regolazione.

The paper analyses the role of public administration in the co-regulation process. In particular, are explored the instruments that can bring about an effective dialogue between private and public actors. The paper will also focus on the use of sandboxes and the role played by public administrations in this context.