Extortion
Article 629 Whoever, by violence or threat, forcing someone to do or omit something, if a power of attorney 'or other unfair advantage of others with damage and 'punished with imprisonment from five to ten years and a fine ranging from one million to four million lire (1). The punishment 'of imprisonment from six to twenty years and a fine of two million pounds to six million pounds, if helps out any of the circumstances mentioned in the last paragraph of the previous article (2). (1) paragraph as' amended by art. 8, DL 31 December 1991, n. 419. (2) paragraph as' amended by L. October 14, 1974, No 497.
Article 629 Whoever, by violence or threat, forcing someone to do or omit something, if a power of attorney 'or other unfair advantage of others with damage and 'punished with imprisonment from five to ten years and a fine ranging from one million to four million lire (1). The punishment 'of imprisonment from six to twenty years and a fine of two million pounds to six million pounds, if helps out any of the circumstances mentioned in the last paragraph of the previous article (2). (1) paragraph as' amended by art. 8, DL 31 December 1991, n. 419. (2) paragraph as' amended by L. October 14, 1974, No 497.
Simple and straightforward, the beauty of the law, at first sight it appears there will be no errors is clearly understandable to all, however, as stated in the words of my professor of public law with regard to specific cases and then the real need to establish what behaviors are suited to these rules (interpretation) and is not always easy, if not as large sheets codes would not be enough to predict all the circumstances.
When it is decided that such conduct falls within the competence of a law it must give reasons and usually it is the task of giudici stabilire o meno determinate pertinenze.
Mi sono sempre chiesto come mai un datore di lavoro che sotto la minaccia di perdita di lavoro sfrutta una persona non potesse essere equiparato ad un estorsore;se non si rispettano determinati accordi validi per tutti paventando l'indigenza esso forza una scelta che svantaggia l'uno a favore dell'altro.
A dimostrazione che i giudici non sono quella coacerva di male come li vogliono delineare taluni politici ecco la dimostrazione di lungimiranza.
La Seconda Sezione Penale della Corte di Cassazione (Sent. 36642/07) ha stabilito che il datore di lavoro che costringe i lavoratori ad accettare una retribuzione inferiore or otherwise not in keeping with the service performed, commits the crime of extortion and punishment provided by art. 629 cpi Judges of the Court states that the crime occurs when the employer, taking advantage of a market situation unfavorable to the employee (for example, when demand exceeds supply), it puts the worker in the situaizone have to accept certain conditions in order not to lose their lavoro.Gli stoats showed that the protection provided for by the offender. 629 cp is twofold on the one hand and pursuing the public interest and other assets of the inviolability of the freedom of self-determination. The existence of the crime is so even if the employer work, he did sign a special contract to the employee with specific approval of the offending clauses, and this is because the employer pursuing an unlawful purpose, with an instrument, generally lecito.Con this decision, the Court ordered an employer to "guilty" of forcing some workers employed without work book, to work without insurance, without benefit of paid leave, without receiving compensation for overtime worked and paid less to work with the assumption of an alleged loss of employment . (Date: 09/10/2007 - Author: Cristina Matricardi ).
course decisions terzo grado di giudizio non hanno forza legislativa ma a volte formano una chiave id lettura della legge che potrebbe entrare nella prassi,speriamo bene.
Quanti datori di lavoro sanno che rischiano anni di galera?
Dove รจ finita l'informazione?
0 comments:
Post a Comment