It probably has been asked (sorry), has the lawsuit been filed in the civil court? Does statute of limitation operate the same way at this level if at all?
Buy on AliExpress.com
Calciopoli or Morattopoli.. inter fake orgasm (24 Viewers)
- Thread starter gsol
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
No, not yet.
Yes, definitely.
Under the general statute of limitations in Italian law (Articles 2946 and 2947 of the Civil Code), civil proceedings must normally be brought within 5 years of the commission of the tortious act or within 10 years of the contractual breach giving rise to the claimant's right to compensation for damages.
So, basically, if there's a contract, it's 10 years, if there's no contract, it's 5 years.
Our claim is not based on contract, so the 5 year rule applies.
Since the "commission of the tortious act" happened in 2006, our claim for damages would appear to be prescribed.
However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Articles 2941-2942 C.C. provide that the statute of limitation period may be suspended in several circumstances. In such cases, the suspension period is not taken into account when calculating the limitation period. The statute of limitation may be even interrupted by several events, provided by articles 2943-2945 C.C. In such cases, a new limitation period begins as a result of interruption.
I'd expect our legal team to have assessed this already, and that there wouldn't be any talk of filing a lawsuit at this point if the statutes of limitations were an issue. If they haven't looked into this, though, and our case collapses due to this, then what can one say but LOL.
Yes, definitely.
Under the general statute of limitations in Italian law (Articles 2946 and 2947 of the Civil Code), civil proceedings must normally be brought within 5 years of the commission of the tortious act or within 10 years of the contractual breach giving rise to the claimant's right to compensation for damages.
So, basically, if there's a contract, it's 10 years, if there's no contract, it's 5 years.
Our claim is not based on contract, so the 5 year rule applies.
Since the "commission of the tortious act" happened in 2006, our claim for damages would appear to be prescribed.
However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Articles 2941-2942 C.C. provide that the statute of limitation period may be suspended in several circumstances. In such cases, the suspension period is not taken into account when calculating the limitation period. The statute of limitation may be even interrupted by several events, provided by articles 2943-2945 C.C. In such cases, a new limitation period begins as a result of interruption.
I'd expect our legal team to have assessed this already, and that there wouldn't be any talk of filing a lawsuit at this point if the statutes of limitations were an issue. If they haven't looked into this, though, and our case collapses due to this, then what can one say but LOL.
Typically in most civil law countries the standard of proof required is that of the inner satisfaction of the judge. This is usually both in criminal and civil procedures (this was an important topic of discussion when drafting the Rome Statute by the way). It is still far lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
- - - Updated - - -
Are you sure about that? Sometimes a lawsuit can be filed, but it can remain on the court scrolls (not sure what you call it in English). In that case nothing happens, but the prescription period doesn't run according to Italian law.
In civil law countries, the standard is a "balance of probabilities" (50,01 %) in civil law cases. You are correct about the Rome statutes, but they deal with criminal law only. In criminal law the standard of proof (or "burden of proof" if you will. I know there is a difference between burden of proof and standard of proof, but in Italy they don't separate between the two as much, see the links below) is a 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard which now is also dubbed 'the inner satisfaction and conviction of the judge'. But once again, this isn't criminal law, so all we really have to do is prove the rightfulness of our claim by an overweight of probability.
A concise summary: http://www.quora.com/How-does-the-b...e-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-American-standard
A better source, if you're interested: http://www.eui.eu/Documents/RSCAS/Research/Competition/2009/2009-COMPETITION-Siragusa.pdf - Great article that deals with burden of proof / standard of proof in italian law.
Pretty sure, yes. Obviously, I don't have more to go on than news articles, but what they (like this one: http://www.tuttosport.com/calcio/se...assazione+ma+il+2006+è+già+smontato) say is that Agnelli's intention was to assess whether or not to file a lawsuit based on the outcome of the Moggi trials. The article I linked holds that (google translate): "From tomorrow it could open up a new chapter in sports justice, if Juventus decide to ask - how his rights - retrial sport in 2006, in light of the significant new facts emerged that radically change the scenario of nine years ago. The famous article 39 that Andrea Agnelli has always said it would assess when the ordinary justice had finished his (very slow) path."
So I'm pretty sure, but not 100 %.
Think about it, though, this is Italy right here. I'd imagine the newspapers to go absolutely nuts were we to file such a lawsuit, and we haven't seen this kind of media circus yet.
- - - Updated - - -
One thing, though, @Seven, with regards to the burden/standard of proof: A beloved child is the bearer of many names. At the end of the day, I don't think there's any practical difference between "a balance of probabilities" and "the inner conviction of a judge", especially in a civil law case. Both standards are equally hopeless and theoretical, and at the end of the day a judge will rule in favor of the party supplying the highest quality of evidence.
We can call it an overweight of probability or inner conviction, but it's the same shit.
A concise summary: http://www.quora.com/How-does-the-b...e-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-American-standard
A better source, if you're interested: http://www.eui.eu/Documents/RSCAS/Research/Competition/2009/2009-COMPETITION-Siragusa.pdf - Great article that deals with burden of proof / standard of proof in italian law.
Pretty sure, yes. Obviously, I don't have more to go on than news articles, but what they (like this one: http://www.tuttosport.com/calcio/se...assazione+ma+il+2006+è+già+smontato) say is that Agnelli's intention was to assess whether or not to file a lawsuit based on the outcome of the Moggi trials. The article I linked holds that (google translate): "From tomorrow it could open up a new chapter in sports justice, if Juventus decide to ask - how his rights - retrial sport in 2006, in light of the significant new facts emerged that radically change the scenario of nine years ago. The famous article 39 that Andrea Agnelli has always said it would assess when the ordinary justice had finished his (very slow) path."
So I'm pretty sure, but not 100 %.
Think about it, though, this is Italy right here. I'd imagine the newspapers to go absolutely nuts were we to file such a lawsuit, and we haven't seen this kind of media circus yet.
- - - Updated - - -
One thing, though, @Seven, with regards to the burden/standard of proof: A beloved child is the bearer of many names. At the end of the day, I don't think there's any practical difference between "a balance of probabilities" and "the inner conviction of a judge", especially in a civil law case. Both standards are equally hopeless and theoretical, and at the end of the day a judge will rule in favor of the party supplying the highest quality of evidence.
We can call it an overweight of probability or inner conviction, but it's the same shit.
Are you certain about this? Because I'm not very familiar with the concept of 'balance of probabilities' and I live and work in a civil law country. When I google the concept I also note that it is used in civil cases in common law countries. While I am not very familiar with Italian law, the concept is not used often in Belgium.
Also, the burden of proof obviously revolves around the question who has to prove what. The standard of proof revolves around the question what proof might suffice. So I can't really understand why the Italian legal system would not make that distinction as much?
Also, the burden of proof obviously revolves around the question who has to prove what. The standard of proof revolves around the question what proof might suffice. So I can't really understand why the Italian legal system would not make that distinction as much?
Yeah, I'm certain. Most civil law countries use the "balance of probabilities". I live and work in a civil law country too, and this is the standard here. I'm not very familiar with belgian law, though, but you guys derive a lot of your principles from the french civil code, no? The french always liked to do things their own way, so maybe you've inherited some of the particulars of french law, or maybe belgian law introduced some novelties on their own. No idea. But the "balance of probabilities" is the most used standard of proof on the european continent in civil law cases.
Yes, we distinguish between burden of proof and standard of proof as well, as most do. Why this distinction is more blurred in Italy I do not know.
But once again, though: These terms are just to give people the impression that a court process is "due" (safe and sound). At the end of the day, they are just meaningless legal terms that mask what's really going on: the judge will always rule in favor of the one supplying the highest quality evidence, whether he (or she) is sitting in Norway, Italy, Belgium, France, Germany etc.
Yes, we distinguish between burden of proof and standard of proof as well, as most do. Why this distinction is more blurred in Italy I do not know.
But once again, though: These terms are just to give people the impression that a court process is "due" (safe and sound). At the end of the day, they are just meaningless legal terms that mask what's really going on: the judge will always rule in favor of the one supplying the highest quality evidence, whether he (or she) is sitting in Norway, Italy, Belgium, France, Germany etc.
Much of our civil code is indeed derived from the French civil code, yes. The Italian civil code is different though, even if its legal system is mostly similar. I'd have to look deeper into Italian law to see what standard of proof they use, but unfortunately I don't have the time.
All that being said, with no proper court ever finding Juventus guilty of anything and no decent report proving guilt either, I think we stand a decent chance of proving the FIGC made some very costly mistakes along the way.
Posting this here and Serie A Thread:
-------
'Europe, help Milan clubs’
By Football Italia staff
Bayern Munich chief executive Karl-Heinz Rummenigge says European clubs should 'help certain teams such as Inter and Milan’.
The former striker, who played for the Nerazzurri, is also head of the European Club Association, and believes that Financial Fair Play is having a negative effect on some clubs.
“It’s a pity not just for the clubs [Milan and Inter] but also for Italian and European football,” Rummenigge lamented in an interview with Gazzetta dello Sport.
“Teams like Milan and Inter are big names which are used to the competition [the Champions League].
“However, complaining does not help. I saw [Inter director] Marco Fassone yesterday, and I immediately thought: 'five years ago Inter won the Champions League’.
“Football can be strange sometimes, but in the last five years something has gone wrong.
“We need to have a clear plan, with all financial options available, yet without going against Financial Fair Play.
“We must remember that Inter are under investigation for not respecting those rules. Also, we, as the Club Association, must think about how we can help certain teams like Inter and Milan with Financial Fair Play, because it damages them.
“If you have a hole, you can’t plug it without any fresh money. I’ve read that Milan could be sold, but the new owner couldn’t put in too much money without going against UEFA limitations.
“So, it’s up to us as big names to find a solution which won’t penalise them any more.
“There are clear, rigid laws but we must think about not hurting clubs too.
“Almost all clubs from Eastern Europe suffer because they don’t have a lot of revenue from television, sponsors and merchandising.
“So we need to look at how we can lend a hand to those clubs, but also some big clubs in Western Europe who now find themselves in trouble.”
Bayern have done business with Inter in recent months, with Xherdan Shaqiri moving from Bavaria to Lombardy, and Rummenigge reveals he was instrumental in the deal.
“Shaqiri needed to play, I advised him to go to Inter even though a lot of British clubs wanted him. With Inter’s difficulties, he was exactly the right buy, he has quality, he’s young and he can make a difference.
“He’ll become even more consistent with time, because he has to feel good, to feel at home. We could have earned more money and sold him to England, but we’ve given them a discount.”
--------------
You fucking slime. Lowlife pieces of shit, of course you idiots want to come to the rescue and help two clubs run by even bigger idiots. Where was our help in 2006? Of course, we were drug through the mud and the entire world thought we cheated but now the two milan clubs have Karma breathing down their necks and Europe wants to help them but of course "say within FFP regulations" despite one of them already being investigated. Fuck your Karl Heinz.
-------
'Europe, help Milan clubs’
By Football Italia staff
Bayern Munich chief executive Karl-Heinz Rummenigge says European clubs should 'help certain teams such as Inter and Milan’.
The former striker, who played for the Nerazzurri, is also head of the European Club Association, and believes that Financial Fair Play is having a negative effect on some clubs.
“It’s a pity not just for the clubs [Milan and Inter] but also for Italian and European football,” Rummenigge lamented in an interview with Gazzetta dello Sport.
“Teams like Milan and Inter are big names which are used to the competition [the Champions League].
“However, complaining does not help. I saw [Inter director] Marco Fassone yesterday, and I immediately thought: 'five years ago Inter won the Champions League’.
“Football can be strange sometimes, but in the last five years something has gone wrong.
“We need to have a clear plan, with all financial options available, yet without going against Financial Fair Play.
“We must remember that Inter are under investigation for not respecting those rules. Also, we, as the Club Association, must think about how we can help certain teams like Inter and Milan with Financial Fair Play, because it damages them.
“If you have a hole, you can’t plug it without any fresh money. I’ve read that Milan could be sold, but the new owner couldn’t put in too much money without going against UEFA limitations.
“So, it’s up to us as big names to find a solution which won’t penalise them any more.
“There are clear, rigid laws but we must think about not hurting clubs too.
“Almost all clubs from Eastern Europe suffer because they don’t have a lot of revenue from television, sponsors and merchandising.
“So we need to look at how we can lend a hand to those clubs, but also some big clubs in Western Europe who now find themselves in trouble.”
Bayern have done business with Inter in recent months, with Xherdan Shaqiri moving from Bavaria to Lombardy, and Rummenigge reveals he was instrumental in the deal.
“Shaqiri needed to play, I advised him to go to Inter even though a lot of British clubs wanted him. With Inter’s difficulties, he was exactly the right buy, he has quality, he’s young and he can make a difference.
“He’ll become even more consistent with time, because he has to feel good, to feel at home. We could have earned more money and sold him to England, but we’ve given them a discount.”
--------------
You fucking slime. Lowlife pieces of shit, of course you idiots want to come to the rescue and help two clubs run by even bigger idiots. Where was our help in 2006? Of course, we were drug through the mud and the entire world thought we cheated but now the two milan clubs have Karma breathing down their necks and Europe wants to help them but of course "say within FFP regulations" despite one of them already being investigated. Fuck your Karl Heinz.
