Property rights and public goals: comparative remarks on the collective use of private property

A traditional feature of property rights in land is the owner’s power to exclude third parties from his/her property. The challenge of sustainable development raises the question of the compatibility of the owner’s exclusionary right with the public interest to sustainable use and management of land. In this context, the paper analyses some examples of collective use of private property from a comparative perspective, suggesting that private owners also have an obligation to contribute to the wider public good. In particular, attention will be focused on the right of local inhabitants to use private land for lawful sport and pastimes, as recognized by the English law of town and village greens, as well as on the right to roam and the community right to buy, as established by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. The interplay between private property and public purposes in this area is investigated, showing the role of property rights in promoting sustainable development goals.

Right to Move vs. Right to Remain. Lectures from the Environmental and Pandemic Experiences

The research focuses on rights and freedoms of individuals, jeopardized by environmental disasters and by the Covid-19 pandemic. Both pandemics and environmental hazards can indeed deeply affect the freedom of movement. Climate changes and environmental degradation are considered as push and pull factors with respect to migration flows. Therefore, the progressive worsening of climate change is dramatically increasing the number of people forced to move, looking for better life conditions. In addition, due to the Covid-19 pandemic physical distance, social distancing and some governmental measures restricting movement have clashed with social economic and civil rights, giving rise to a harsh debate about their consistency with the constitutional dimension.
The paper argues that in order to face these challenges, public powers are required to elaborate solutions and take actions inspired by the values of resilience and solidarity to kick off the “new normal” (UE Commission, 2021).

The Social Transformation of XIX Century beyond the Civil Constitution's Borders

The European Ninentheen Century opens with a new liberal Constitutional System, with Civil Code at its core. In legal studies, the modern age's foundations are property individualism for measuring civil rights and freedom of work, assets circulation and bargaining. The Civil Code is the core of a new society and assumes an actual constitutional role.
The Napoleon Civil Code somehow establishes a European agenda, but the Industrial Revolution and the rise of the Labour Question broke the equilibrium.
Labour is not just a matter of merchandising. The phenomenon of workers' associations arises too and contractual freedom is discovered to be just theoretical. The Civil Code proves itself inadequate to address these challenges.
The legal debate becomes difficult. The solution appears to be the innovation of the Social Legislation as Public Law. This innovation broke the traditional borders of the liberal order.

When Public is no Longer Enough: Third and Fourth Sector and Public Law

In the last decades, many new business forms, aiming at answering the needs of shares of the population, that usually were considered mainly by the public sector, flourished, composing the so-called Third Sector.
According to many scholars, a so-called Fourth Sector is now rising too, which combines the profit purpose (Second Sector), and some common features of the Third Sector: benefit corporations are usually seen as a part of this new partition.
The paper analyzes a few intersections of the referred phenomena with public law, in particular with reference to the regulatory framework and the added value that private organizations could imply in responding to social demands. Finally, I consider a few profiles of European Law, with reference to those aspects of competition law (European Court of Justice case law) present when Public Administrations prefer no-profit parties when choose who must perform a specific range of services