Abstract
The practice of forced labour has survived all criminal reforms occurred during over 150 years of Italian history, giving to the State an indiscriminate power of exploiting the convicts’ labor force. Only recently, both the policy makers and the case law have acknowledged the conflict between this practice and the principles of the constitutional State, based on the respect of the fundamental rights and the labour protection. A reform of 2018 intervened on the issue, repealing the convicts’ legal obligation to work. Unfortunately, the same reform frustrated this result, by introducing a new form of “public works”, under the control of the State or private NGOs, which represents an indirect form of coercion to work that violates the provisions of the ILO’s Forced labour Convention.
Highlights
Il lavoro forzato carcerario è uno dei pochi istituti a essere sopravvissuto, per oltre 150 anni dall’Unità d’Italia, a tutte le riforme penali e del sistema dell’esecuzione penale che si sono susseguite, dallo Stato liberale a quello repubblicano, passando per quello fascista
The practice of forced labour has survived all criminal reforms occurred during over 150 years of Italian history, giving to the State an indiscriminate power of exploiting the convicts’ labor force. Both the policy makers and the case law have acknowledged the conflict between this practice and the principles of the constitutional State, based on the respect of the fundamental rights and the labour protection
The same reform frustrated this result, by introducing a new form of “public works”, under the control of the State or private NGOs, which represents an indirect form of coercion to work that violates the provisions of the ILO’s Forced labour Convention
Summary
The same reform frustrated this result, by introducing a new form of “public works”, under the control of the State or private NGOs, which represents an indirect form of coercion to work that violates the provisions of the ILO’s Forced labour Convention. Le Epr, invece, prevedono norme che impongono una forte assimilazione della protezione dei lavoratori detenuti a quella dei lavoratori liberi, riconoscendo il diritto ad una retribuzione piena – sia nel caso di lavoro per lo Stato che per privati - e quello all’inserimento completo nei sistemi di sicurezza sociale La Corte, pur prendendo atto del cambiamento imposto dalle EPR del 2006, ne ha fornito una interpretazione restrittiva, sottolineando che le regole specificano che l’inserimento dei detenuti nei sistemi di sicurezza sociale debba avvenire solo “nei limiti del possibile” e che sul punto non vi è convergenza tra le legislazioni nazionali, che esprimono modelli di protezione del lavoro carcerario molto vari. La Corte ha sostenuto che è sicuramente da ritenersi necessaria l’assicurazione contro la malattia e gli infortuni, come suggerito dall’Oil (Oil 2007 e 2008), ma quanto agli altri diritti previdenziali gli Stati hanno libertà di scelta
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Revista de Estudos Constitucionais, Hermenêutica e Teoria do Direito
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
