Roma Tre Law Review – 02/2025

Introduction

Does The European Court Of Human Rights Take Into Account Different Feminist Interpretations When Dealing With Violence Against Women?

Where does the Strasbourg Court stand among the various feminist movements? Does it reflect a choice, a compromise, a third way? Does European human rights case law take into account the two latest feminist interpretations, going beyond the traditional logic of non-discrimination alone? the Strasbourg Court has long satisfied all feminists by severely punishing all cases of the most serious violations of women's physical or psychological integrity.

Gender Equality In French Civil Service Law

This contribution does not aim to offer yet another legal and historical overview of the advent of parity in the French civil service, but rather to question the possible theoretical and practical relationship between parity and French civil service law. Parity is deliberately defined strictly, based on its etymology, as the equal sharing of power between identified and asymmetrical groups, which distinguishes it from the concept of equality. Three complementary questions are addressed in turn: how “authentic” is the translation of parity into French civil service law? What is the place of parity in the promotion of gender equality in the public sector? Conversely, what is the resonance of the logic of parity within the French civil service model?

Women And Roles: The Social-Juridical Roman Contex

This short essay brings together some of my reflections presented during the international conference in Poitiers entitled ‘Les Femmes”. From a still preliminary review of the Roman approach to regulating the legal status of women in society, it seems to me that we can discern an economic and legal policy choice that had nothing to do with the ideology of female inferiority and subordination. This is clearly a complex issue, which I reserve the right to return to.

Digitalization Of Justice: A Georgian Perspective

The digital transformation of judicial systems has become a central component of contemporary legal reform, raising important questions concerning efficiency, transparency, judicial independence, and the protection of fundamental rights. This paper examines the digitalization of justice in Georgia as a case study of reform within a transitioning legal system aligned with European standards. It analyses the development and implementation of key electronic justice instruments, including the Electronic Court Case Management System (ECCMS), electronic filing and service mechanisms, and the system of random electronic case distribution introduced during the “Third Wave” of judicial reform. The study evaluates the effectiveness of these reforms in enhancing efficiency, access to justice, and transparency, while critically assessing persistent structural challenges, such as broad exceptions to automated case allocation, institutional ambiguities, and uneven technological integration. Particular attention is given to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which accelerated the use of remote hearings and digital communication, exposing both the resilience and vulnerabilities of the existing framework. The paper further explores the emerging debate on the potential introduction of artificial intelligence in the judiciary, emphasizing the risks of algorithmic bias and the necessity of robust ethical and regulatory safeguards. Drawing on CEPEJ evaluations and international assessments, the article concludes that while Georgia has made substantial progress in modernizing its judicial infrastructure, digitalization alone cannot resolve deeper governance and independence concerns. Sustainable reform requires coherent legal regulation, strengthened institutional accountability, and continued alignment with European standards to ensure that technological innovation reinforces – rather than undermines – the rule of law.

Penitentiary Law In Europe: An Open Debate

‘This article analyzes the contradictions of the European penitentiary systems resulting from the European Union’s lack of binding competence over detention matters. Due to the latter, EU Member States continue to apply divergent prison rules, leading to significant disparities in detention conditions. These differences undermine mutual trust and increasingly obstruct the functioning of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), causing delays and refusals in its execution. The study explores the impact of the Court of Justice’s Aranyosi and Căldăraru ruling, which requires national courts to assess the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment before executing an EAW . Although this case law clarifies the relationship between fundamental rights protection and the principle of mutual recognition, it also exposes the limits of a system relying on judicial solutions rather than legislative harmonization. T o address these shortcomings, the article supports a broad interpretation of Article 82 TFEU as a legal basis for EU-wide minimum detention standards. It concludes by examining the significance and limits of the Commission Recommendation of 8 December 2022, arguing that stronger and binding EU involvement is necessary to ensure uniform fundamental rights protection and effective judicial cooperation.

Implementing The Nature Restoration Regulation: Legal Challenges And Opportunities

Sustainable Soils For Sustainable Agriculture (Roma Tre University, 20-22 October 2025)

Tools For Equality