Unsere Rechtsanwaltskanzlei nimmt ihren Ursprung in der zweiten Dekade des 20. Jahrhunderts, als Silvio Marzari Senior (1886-1967) seinen Beruf als Anwalt begann, bevor er Richter wurde und während seiner Karriere die höchsten Ebenen der richterlichen Laufbahn erreichte, die er als Generalstaatsanwalt beim Kassationsgerichtshof beendete.
Die Tradition wurde von Silvio Marzari Junior wiederaufgenommen und weitergeführt, der - auch dank seiner akademischen Erfahrungen, die er sowohl an italienischen als auch an ausländischen Universitäten sammeln konnte - die Kanzlei mit einer vorwiegenden Ausrichtung auf das Zivil- und Handelsrecht neu gegründet hat, wobei das internationale Privat- und Prozessrecht sowie die Regelungen der Europäischen Union und generell die Beziehungen zu anderen Ländern (unter anderem insbesondere zu Deutschland, Österreich, der Schweiz, Großbritannien, den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, Brasilien und anderen lateinamerikanischen Ländern, des Weiteren zu fernöstlichen Ländern mit besonderem Augenmerk auf China und andere Länder Südostasiens) weitere Schwerpunkte darstellen. Das Ergebnis ist eine solide Gruppe von Anwälten, durch die es gelungen ist, die spezialisierte und fachspezifische Tätigkeit der Kanzlei auf integrierte Weise zu erweitern.
Insbesondere ist unter anderem Avvocato Dr. Maria Gabriella Maggiora als anerkannte und akkurate Expertin des Verwaltungsrechts und seiner diversen Aspekte eine Bezugsperson für wichtige öffentlich-wirtschaftliche Behörden.
Avvocato Dr. Roberto Nicolini ist anerkannt für seine Fähigkeiten im Bereich der wirtschaftlichen, kommerziellen und allgemein unternehmerischen Beziehungen mit dem Ausland, insbesondere mit Deutschland.
Avvocato Dr. Stefania Gioco ist ebenfalls Expertin für die Beziehungen zum deutschsprachigen Raum und generell zum Ausland, mit besonderem Augenmerk unter anderem auf Handelsvertreter- und Vertriebsverträge sowie Transportrecht und Schmerzensgeld einschließlich der immateriellen Schäden, auch in ihren länderübergreifenden Aspekten.
Avvocato Dr. Stefania Brugnoli zeichnet sich als erfahrene Prozess-Anwältin insbesondere für Zivilverfahren aus, sowie als Expertin für die diversen Aspekte des Zivil- und Handelsrechts sowie des Verwaltungsrechts.
Avvocato Dr. Stefano Carrara ist bekannt für seine Effizienz in den komplexen Fachgebieten des Arbeitsrechts und des Immobilienrechts, einschließlich des Mietrechts.
Avvocato Dr. Alessio Albertini befasst sich abgesehen von Rechtsstreitigkeiten im Bankwesen und mit Immobilien-Vollstreckungen auch mit Erbschaftsangelegenheiten.
Die Anwälte der Kanzlei, die fast alle auch im Ausland ausgebildet wurden, sind größtenteils - zusätzlich zur italienischen Sprache - auch fließend auf Englisch und Deutsch tätig, mit besonderer Ausrichtung auf grenzüberschreitende Tätigkeiten in den verschiedenen Bereichen des Zivil- und Handelsrechts, darunter gesellschaftsrechtliche Angelegenheiten inklusive der Akquisitionen und Fusionen, grenzüberschreitende Erbnachfolgen von Todes wegen, geistiges Eigentum, Vertragswesen inklusive der Liefer-, Vertriebs- und Franchise-Verträge, sowie Handelsvertreter- und Beförderungsverträge, Immobilien-Angelegenheiten, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Insolvenz- und andere Konkursverfahren.
Dies hat dazu geführt, dass die Kanzlei zu einem Bezugspunkt für bedeutende italienische Unternehmen bei ihren Firmengründungen und Rechtsstreitigkeiten im Ausland geworden ist, aber auch für zahlreiche ausländische, vor allem deutsche Unternehmen, die in unserem Territorium präsent sind.
Der andere Tätigkeitsbereich, dem ein spezifischer Sektor der Kanzlei gewidmet ist, die auch in diesem Zusammenhang einen ausgezeichneten Ruf genießt, betrifft das Verwaltungsrecht in verschiedenen Bereichen (wie etwa das Bauwesen, die Stadtplanung, die Enteignung für gemeinnützige Zwecke, das öffentliches Auftragswesen, auch auf europäischer Ebene, den Fachbereich des Handels und generell das öffentliche Wirtschaftsrecht usw., mit den damit verbundenen Rechtsstreitigkeiten auch vor den Regionalen Verwaltungsgerichten, dem Obersten Verwaltungsgericht und dem Rechnungshof).
Die Kanzlei verfügt über ein Netzwerk von Korrespondenzanwälten in Italien und in allen wichtigen europäischen Ländern sowie in den Vereinigten Staaten, Brasilien und im Mittleren und Fernen Osten.
Quante volte mi viene chiesto se si possa “chiudere” il balcone di casa, con una tenda o simile, per poterlo utilizzare di piu. Tanti siti online promuovono fortemente questi prodotti, affermando che sono liberamente installabili, ma è proprio così? Una recente decisione della Cassazione fa riflettere che la qualificazione giuridica delle strutture esterne, come le "pergotende" rappresenta un tema di grande attualità e complessità nel diritto edilizio, situandosi sulla linea di demarcazione tra l'attività edilizia libera e gli interventi che necessitano di un titolo abilitativo.
Il recente "Decreto Salva Casa" (D.L. n. 69/2024) ha tentato di fare chiarezza, ma, come evidenziato dalla giurisprudenza, la distinzione rimane casistica e ricca di insidie, con il rischio concreto di incorrere in responsabilità penali.
La sentenza della Corte di Cassazione n. 29638/2025 offre un'importante chiave di lettura in materia. Nel caso di specie, i giudici hanno confermato la condanna per abuso edilizio nei confronti di un soggetto che aveva installato una struttura da lui ritenuta una semplice "pergotenda". La Corte, pur analizzando la nuova e più favorevole disciplina introdotta dal D.P.R. n. 380, ha ribadito un principio fondamentale:
l'opera rientra nell'edilizia libera solo se non determina "la creazione di uno spazio stabilmente chiuso, con conseguente variazione di volumi e di superfici". Nel caso esaminato, la struttura, per le sue dimensioni, la chiusura di due lati e la creazione di un nuovo volume abitabile, è stata considerata un intervento di trasformazione urbanistica, necessitante di permesso di costruire e non una mera opera di protezione solare.
In conclusione, la vicenda dimostra come, nonostante le semplificazioni normative, il confine tra un'opera lecita e un abuso edilizio possa essere estremamente labile. Prima di prendere qualsiasi decisione, anche quella che sembra la più innocua per migliorare la fruibilità dei propri spazi esterni, è sempre meglio rivolgersi ad un avvocato competente per evitare di incorrere in spiacevoli conseguenze legali e trasformare un sogno di relax in un incubo burocratico.
Often I am asked whether it is possible to “close off” the balcony of a house with a curtain or similar, in order to make better use of it.
Many websites strongly promote these products, claiming that they can be freely installed, but is this really the case? A recent decision by the Court of Cassation suggests that the legal classification of external structures, such as “pergotenda” awnings, is a highly topical and complex issue in building law, lying on the dividing line between free building activity and interventions that require a building permit.
The recent “Decreto Salva Casa” (Decree to Save Homes) (Decree Law No. 69/2024) attempted to clarify the issue, but, as highlighted by case law, the distinction remains case-by-case and fraught with pitfalls, with a real risk of criminal liability.
The ruling of the Court of Cassation No. 29638/2025 offers an important interpretation of the matter. In the case in question, the judges upheld the conviction for building abuse against a person who had installed a structure that he considered to be a simple “pergola”. The Court, while analysing the new and more favourable regulations introduced by Presidential Decree no. 380, reiterated a fundamental principle:
the work falls within the scope of free construction only if it does not result in “the creation of a permanently enclosed space, with a consequent change in volume and surface area”.
In the case examined, the structure, due to its size, the closure of two sides and the creation of a new habitable volume, was considered an urban transformation project, requiring a building permit, and not a mere sun protection work.
In conclusion, this case demonstrates how, despite regulatory simplifications, the line between lawful construction and building abuse can be extremely blurred.
Before making any decision, even one that seems harmless in order to improve the usability of your outdoor spaces, it is always best to consult a competent solicitor to avoid unpleasant legal consequences and turning your dream of relaxation into a bureaucratic nightmare.
UNUSTIFIED TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT: WHAT COMPENSATION IS THE EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO?
The recent ruling no. 118/2025 of the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the maximum limit of six months' salary for compensation in cases of unlawful dismissal in small businesses, i.e. those with fewer than sixteen employees, thus repealing a key element of the Jobs Act.
From the workers' point of view, the decision represents a victory in terms of effective protection against arbitrary dismissal. The Court found that the rigid limit constituted a disproportionate and unreasonable imposition. As a result, workers in smaller companies, who were already less protected than those in larger companies, found themselves having to accept significantly lower compensation, even in cases of serious procedural or discriminatory violations.
The elimination of the fixed ceiling of six months' salary therefore responds to the need to ensure equal treatment: the damage suffered by a worker who has been unfairly dismissed must be genuinely compensated, in accordance with constitutional principles such as Article 3 on the right to equality and Article 24 on judicial protection.
From the employers' point of view, especially those in small and medium-sized enterprises, the ruling nevertheless raises a number of concerns and doubts. The maximum limit was introduced precisely to protect the economic sustainability of smaller companies, which, unlike large companies, often have fewer resources and fewer tools to absorb any costs associated with labour disputes. The absence of a certain and predetermined reference point risks exacerbating the sense of uncertainty and making the cost of any disputes more burdensome and unpredictable.
Nevertheless, the void left by the ruling requires timely and balanced intervention by the legislator: while it is true that compensation must comply with the principles of adequacy and proportionality, it is equally true that clear and certain parameters must be established to avoid excessive uncertainty in judicial decisions and also to preserve the stability of the smaller productive fabric.
FINE RAPPORTO DI LAVORO NON GIUSTIFICATO: CHE RISARCIMENTO VA AL LAVORATORE?
La recente sentenza n. 118/2025 della Corte costituzionale ha dichiarato incostituzionale il tetto massimo di sei mensilità previsto per l’indennità risarcitoria in caso di licenziamento illegittimo nelle piccole imprese, ovvero quelle con meno di sedici dipendenti, abrogando così un elemento chiave del Jobs Act.
Dal punto di vista dei lavoratori, la decisione rappresenta una conquista in termini di tutela effettiva contro i licenziamenti arbitrari. La Consulta ha rilevato come il limite rigido costituisse una imposizione sproporzionata e irragionevole; di conseguenza, i lavoratori delle imprese più piccole, già meno protetti rispetto a quelli delle aziende di dimensioni maggiori, si trovavano a dover accettare indennizzi significativamente inferiori, anche in presenza di gravi violazioni procedurali o discriminatorie.
L’eliminazione del tetto fisso di sei mensilità risponde dunque all’esigenza di garantire parità di trattamento: il danno subito dal lavoratore ingiustamente licenziato deve essere realmente compensato, in coerenza con principi costituzionali quali l’articolo 3 sul diritto di uguaglianza e l’articolo 24 sulla tutela giurisdizionale.
Dal lato dei datori di lavoro, soprattutto quelli di realtà produttive medio-piccole, la sentenza solleva tuttavia non poche perplessità e preoccupazioni. La previsione di un limite massimo era nata proprio per tutelare la sostenibilità economica delle aziende minori, che spesso, a differenza delle grandi, hanno minori risorse e minori strumenti per assorbire eventuali esborsi legati a controversie di lavoro. Il venir meno di un riferimento certo e predeterminato rischia di acuire il senso di incertezza e di rendere più gravoso e imprevedibile il costo di eventuali contenziosi.
Va detto che il vuoto lasciato dalla sentenza richiede un tempestivo ed equilibrato intervento del legislatore: se è vero che il risarcimento deve rispettare i principi di adeguatezza e proporzionalità, è altrettanto vero che occorre stabilire parametri chiari e certi, che evitino una eccessiva aleatorietà nelle decisioni giudiziarie e preservino anche la tenuta del tessuto produttivo minore.
Le recenti iniziative legislative in Italia per contrastare il bullismo e il cyberbullismo hanno conosciuto un significativo punto di svolta con l’entrata in vigore del Decreto Legislativo 99/2025. Questo provvedimento, pubblicato in Gazzetta Ufficiale e operativo dal 16 luglio 2025, rappresenta una risposta istituzionale coordinata ed efficace contro fenomeni sempre più pervasivi tra giovani e giovanissimi.
Esso prevede in particolare:
Rafforzamento del servizio di emergenza infanzia 114: il numero nazionale per le segnalazioni è reso ancora più efficiente, operativo 24 ore su 24 e dotato di nuovi servizi di assistenza psicologica e giuridica immediata, oltre a consulenza psicopedagogica specializzata. Sono state introdotte funzionalità avanzate come la geolocalizzazione del chiamante e un efficace servizio di messaggistica istantanea, sempre nel rispetto delle normative sulla privacy
Monitoraggio e rilevazione statistica: l’ISTAT realizzerà ogni due anni una rilevazione su caratteristiche, fattori di rischio e conseguenze del bullismo, consentendo alle istituzioni di disporre di indicatori aggiornati e scientificamente fondati. I dati anonimi raccolti saranno trasmessi annualmente al Ministero dell’Istruzione, per indirizzare campagne di prevenzione e interventi mirati
Responsabilità genitoriale: una delle principali novità è il richiamo, nei contratti telefonici, dell’articolo 2048 del Codice Civile che sancisce la responsabilità dei genitori per i danni causati dai figli minori attraverso la rete.Questo richiama famiglie e adulti al loro ruolo-chiave nella vigilanza e nell’educazione digitale
Campagne informative e formazion: sono previste campagne periodiche sull’uso consapevole della rete, coordinate dalla Presidenza del Consiglio con il MIUR. Le scuole sono inoltre chiamate a promuovere la conoscenza dei servizi emergenziali e a rafforzare la propria strategia educativa verso il rispetto dell’altro nelle relazioni.
Resta fondamentale ribadire che il cuore della soluzione sta nell’educazione impartita nei primi anni in famiglia. L’efficacia delle norme dipende infatti dalla loro integrazione con una cultura della prosocialità, del rispetto reciproco e della consapevolezza digitale.
Il legislatore stesso segnala come la corresponsabilità educativa dei genitori sia centrale e la capacità della scuola e delle istituzioni di incidere realmente sul fenomeno sia strettamente legata ai messaggi e ai comportamenti quotidiani che il bambino interiorizza in famiglia.
In conclusione, il D.Lgs. 99/2025 rappresenta un pilastro normativo essenziale per la tutela dei minori e la promozione della sicurezza digitale, ma la radice della soluzione resta nella responsabilità educativa familiare, sulla quale ogni altra azione di prevenzione trova senso, efficacia e durata
Recent legislative initiatives in Italy to combat bullying and cyberbullying have reached a significant turning point with the entry into force of Legislative Decree 99/2025. This measure, published in the Official Gazette and effective since 16 July 2025, represents a coordinated and effective institutional response to phenomena that are increasingly prevalent among young people and children.
In particular, it provides for:
a) Strengthening of the 114 emergency service for children: the national reporting number has been made even more efficient, is now operational 24 hours a day and is equipped with new immediate psychological and legal assistance services, as well as specialised psycho-pedagogical counselling. Advanced features have been introduced, such as caller geolocation and an effective instant messaging service, always in compliance with privacy regulations.
b) Monitoring and statistical surveys: every two years, ISTAT will conduct a survey on the characteristics, risk factors and consequences of bullying, providing institutions with up-to-date and scientifically based indicators. The anonymous data collected will be sent annually to the Ministry of Education and Merit to guide prevention campaigns and targeted interventions.
c) Parental responsibility: one of the main new features is the reference in telephone contracts to Article 2048 of the Civil Code, which establishes the responsibility of parents for damage caused by their minor children through the internet. This reminds families and adults of their key role in digital supervision and education.
d) Information and training campaigns: periodic campaigns on the conscious use of the internet are planned, coordinated by the Prime Minister's Office with the Ministry of Education, Universities and Research. Schools are also called upon to promote awareness of emergency services and to strengthen their educational strategy towards respect for others in relationships.
It remains essential to reiterate that the heart of the solution lies in the education provided in the early years within the family. The effectiveness of the rules depends on their integration with a culture of prosociality, mutual respect and digital awareness.
The legislator itself points out that the shared educational responsibility of parents is central and that the ability of schools and institutions to have a real impact on the phenomenon is closely linked to the messages and daily behaviours that children internalise in the family.
In conclusion, Legislative Decree 99/2025 represents an essential regulatory pillar for the protection of minors and the promotion of digital safety, but the root of the solution remains in family educational responsibility, on which all other preventive actions find meaning, effectiveness and durability.
Having unfortunately had personal experience of a road accident, of which I was a victim many years ago, I always follow with interest the latest case law and regulations on the subject.
In a particular case of a pedestrian being run over, reminiscent of the one I experienced, the Court of Cassation says that in order to establish the compensation due to the pedestrian, the damages must be identified both in the hypothesis that he is exclusively at fault and in the hypothesis that the driver of the car is exclusively at fault. It is therefore not necessarily obvious to resort to the simplistic 50/50 approach.
Again the Court of Cassation, on 20.2.2025, ruled on the collision between a car of criminals and a police car, a collision caused by the police force to stop the criminals.
The Court of Cassation established the exclusive responsibility of the latter, on the assumption that the police officers had acted with conduct proportionate to the danger arising from the dangerous driving of the criminals.
Lastly, to quantify biological damage, i.e. that suffered by pedestrians or other persons involved in a motor vehicle accident, there is finally a single national table.
It was introduced by Presidential Decree No. 12 of 13.1.2025. It will therefore no longer be possible for differing decisions to be made by the various Courts, since these tables include objective criteria that, considering the age of the injured party, indicate how biological damage and moral damage should be calculated.
In this field too, the passing of time has brought about a great regulatory and jurisprudential improvement. Just think that in my case biological damage did not yet exist and a pedestrian hit by a car was only compensated if the accident caused him to lose his income.
last update May 2025
Lastly, to quantify biological damage, i.e. that suffered by pedestrians or other persons involved in a motor vehicle accident, there is finally a single national table.
It was introduced by Presidential Decree No. 12 of 13.1.2025. It will therefore no longer be possible for differing decisions to be made by the various Courts, since these tables include objective criteria that, considering the age of the injured party, indicate how biological damage and moral damage should be calculated.
In this field too, the passing of time has brought about a great regulatory and jurisprudential improvement. Just think that in my case biological damage did not yet exist and a pedestrian hit by a car was only compensated if the accident caused him to lose his income.
Although Tik Tok for the young, Instagram for everyone and many other social networks are now widespread, Facebook is still the first and most important social network. Perhaps that is why the case law refers to Facebook and less to other social networks. So, here are three ‘Facebook’ legal cases from recent months.
If you want to post photos of minors on Facebook, the authorisation of one is not enough, but you need the authorisation of both parents. This is a decision by the Privacy Authority of 13 November 2024, based on common sense and in line with general regulations on image protection. This must be taken into account when each of us takes photos of minors alone or even in a group, before publishing that photo on Facebook.
But even when one is being sarcastic or ironic, one must always be careful not to violate common sense first and foremost, as well as carefully consider one's position. This was not the case with a university lecturer, who published a sexist post on Kamala Harris, to say the least. The university has inflicted on him the fine of suspension for one month from the performance of his duties as a university professor and from any other position in any academic context, with deprivation of pay.
The sanction was imposed because, by publishing that post under his personal and professional account, he inevitably damaged the image of the university to which he belongs. The Council of State, to which the case was submitted, confirmed the fine and clarified that the right to political criticism always exists, but the limits of truth and continence must be respected.
And finally, I would like to tell you about the case of the dismissal of an employee due to the fact that he defamed his superiors in the company through Facebook.These defamatory posts, together with other circumstances, were deemed of intolerable gravity, justifying dismissal. This is how the Supreme Court of Cassation decided in Order No. 2058 of 2025.
In conclusion, I feel it must be stressed that even on Facebook, as in real life, one must always be prudent and measured, although it is always possible to express one's own point of view.
Vorgerichtliche Beratung und außergerichtlicher und gerichtlicher Beistand im besonderen in folgenden Bereichen: Überprüfung der Gerichtsbarkeit…Read More
Vorgerichtliche Beratung und außergerichtlicher und gerichtlicher Beistand (vor den regionalen Verwaltungsgerichten, dem Obersten Verwaltungsgericht und…Read More
Ialienisches und ausländisches Vertragsgestaltung (auch in den Sprachen englisch und deutsch) Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen Akquisitionen, Zessionen…Read More
Beratung und Beistand bei Verhandlungen bzgl. Werkverträgen Italienische und ausländische Privatwerk- und Dienstverträge Öffentliche Ausschreibungen…Read More
Avvocato Dr. SILVIO MARZARI Telefon: +39 045 8031311 E-Mail: Diese E-Mail-Adresse ist vor Spambots geschützt! Zur Anzeige muss JavaScript eingeschaltet sein! Neugründer der Anwaltskanzlei, emeritiert. Er…Read More
Avvocato Dr. MARIA GABRIELLA MAGGIORA Telefon: +39 045 8036690 E-Mail: Diese E-Mail-Adresse ist vor Spambots geschützt! Zur Anzeige muss JavaScript eingeschaltet sein! Sie hat ihr Studium…Read More
Avvocato Dr. ROBERTO NICOLINI Telefon: +39 045 8031931 E-Mail: Diese E-Mail-Adresse ist vor Spambots geschützt! Zur Anzeige muss JavaScript eingeschaltet sein! Avvocato Dr. Roberto Nicolini, Absolvent…Read More
Avvocato Dr. STEFANIA GIOCO Telefon: +39 045 8035212 E-Mail: Diese E-Mail-Adresse ist vor Spambots geschützt! Zur Anzeige muss JavaScript eingeschaltet sein! Rechtsanwältin Stefania Gioco, Absolventin der…Read More
Avvocato Dr. STEFANIA BRUGNOLI Telefon: +39 045 8030321 E-Mail: Diese E-Mail-Adresse ist vor Spambots geschützt! Zur Anzeige muss JavaScript eingeschaltet sein! Studienabschluss mit Auszeichnung im Jahr…Read More
Avvocato Dr. ALESSIO ALBERTINI Telefon: +39-045-8019722 E-Mail: Diese E-Mail-Adresse ist vor Spambots geschützt! Zur Anzeige muss JavaScript eingeschaltet sein! Er schloss 2006 sein Studium der Rechtswissenschaften…Read More
