The aim of this paper is to analyze the main points of contact, in the domestic system, between the functions exercised by the civil ordinary jurisdiction and the powers of the Independent Authorities, in an attempt to outline a systematic framework of such interaction.
The first part of the research focuses on the several dispute resolution tools developed within the Independent
Authorities, by shaping a classification in homogeneous categories in order to assess the compatibility of such emerging models with the constitutional framework.
Subsequently, the investigation shifts to the emerging interferences of certain activities of the Authorities that can be compared to the application of the law to the concrete case in the context of public enforcement. Among them, it is worthy mentioning the delicate issue of the value of the Authorities’decisions in (related) tort trials, especially following the adoption of Article 7, of the Legislative Decree no. 3, dated 19/01/2017, wich provided for an unprecedented “constraint” for the civil courts to the AGCM’s (Italian Competition Authority) findings. Further to the legal provision, it has been developed judicial tendency to give a particular proof status also to the decisions of other Independent Authorities, even in the absence of specific positive provisions.
This paper, rather than expressing a preference among the different interepretations of the doctrine, attempts the effort to lay the ground for an autonomous and systematic interpretation of the phenomenon. This thesis aims at combining the converging points of the general ascertainment theory with the category of administrative ascertainment,
adopting the widest interdisciplinary approach possible. Finally, this study examines the conditions set for such a
hypothetical unitary model to comply with other values of constitutional importance and beyond, using as a benchmark
the interpretation given by the Strasbourg Court to Article 6 of the ECHR.