Some commentators, including Massimo Melica, http://www.massimomelica.net/riflessioni/1037/wi-fi-decreto-pisanu-abolizione/ believe, based on a lack of express provision by the legislature, that the decree milleproproghe may not have been expressly repealed by the rules of retail employees Pisanu, and in particular the provisions of the Decree of the Ministry of the Interior August 16, 2005 (and, I might add, Circular No. 557/2005 of the Ministry of Interior http://www .civile.it / internet / visual.php? num = 73205
Since the decree milleproproghe expressly repealed the last two paragraphs of Article 7 of Law 155/2005, the contents of which are now very well known, what happens to the employees under standards Detail repealed, including the decree of the Ministry of ‘ Internal mentioned in the repealed rule?
Remain in force or be repealed too?
Indeed, the legislature has not expressly repealed regulations also detail yet the express repeal is not the only form of repeal of a rule.
Article 15 of the Preleggi, structured as “The laws are not repealed by subsequent laws that express statement to the legislature, or incompatibility between the new and the previous provisions or because the new law regulates the whole matter already regulated by law before ., “outlines three distinct cases of repeal.
1) If the rule is repealed in whole or in part, by a subsequent law with specific reference to the above rule is known as “express repeal.”
And ‘certainly is the case of paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 7 of the Pisanu Law.
2) When the repeal arises from the previous standards with those issued later speaks of “implied repeal”.
It would in this case, the subsequent rules including the Interior Ministry Decree of 16 August 2005 and the Circular of the Ministry of the Interior 557/2005
3) Finally, when a new law governing whole matter already regulated, giving it a new systematic logical and legal, the previous rules are repealed. In the latter case we speak of “implied repeal”.
If you do not want to favor the repeal would be implied is the case in which the Ministry of the Interior, as seems to have prefigured the Minister Maroni, plans to introduce new rules (replacements to be deleted paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 7 ) to safeguard the needs of the investigation, already supported by the national anti-Mafia prosecutor.
I incline, however, in reference to the rules of the Ministry of the Interior for the implied repeal, because if not, we would be facing a paradoxical situations including the one for which the managers of the internet point would in fact all the obligations identification and monitoring of existing activities provided for in Article 2 of the Ministerial Decree of 16 August 2005.
As is well known that states:
“Monitoring of the activities’
1. The subjects in art. 1 take the necessary measures to store and maintain data on the date and time of the transmission and the type of service used, matched uniquely to the terminal used by the user, excluding non-content communications.
2. The same subjects take the necessary measures so that ‘the recorded data are kept, in a manner’ that ensures their durability ‘and non-accessibility’ by unauthorized persons, for the time indicated in paragraph 1 of art. 7 of Decree-Law of 27 July 2005, no 144, converted with amendments into law July 31, 2005, No 155, provided that the traffic data stored beyond the limits specified. 132, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Legislative Decree 30 June 2003, No 196, may be used solely for the purpose ‘of that decree-law. ”
Among other things the same item in the second paragraph attributes to the internet point (and I would give up to 2011 today by virtue of the extension made by the decree of one thousand extensions) the obligations to retain data that the provider, as discussed in a comprehensive manner by Elvira Berlingieri http://www.apogeonline.com/webzine/2011/01/07/addio-pisanu-che-cosa-cambia-ora-per-il-wifi.
I doubt very much that way, unless all the hurry to get the repeal and to comply with his word, was not “little” thought by the respective legislative offices that have set up the rules repealed or that there is something ‘but we do not know.
Studio Legale Roma Sarzana & Associati
Articolo disponibile anche in lingua: Italian