|
1) The enterprise is
of dimensions such to not allow the entrepreneur a direct and personal
control over the regular performance of the obligations, punishable
according to the crime code;
2) That the nomination
is not artificially directed to take away the principal of the firm
from the obligation of his personal performance of disposals, but corresponds
to organization objective needs of the company whole;
3) That the named is
a fit person since he owns the required technical expertise;
4) That the named is
endowed with decision and organization powers.
It is observed, by
the way, that just to the recalled principles worked out by the jurisprudence,
the legislator referred in formulating the functions proxy discipline
both in industrial safety matter and personal data safeguard.
The solution brought
about by the Supreme Court about the justifying efficacy of nomination
met nevertheless strong critics by doctrine.
Finally, an intermediate
hermeneutic position sets out the operativeness, in order of crime targets,
of the delegacy of functions only in presence of obligations whose tenure
is exclusive and therefore cannot be object of an important transfer.
So, for example, the
legalness jurisprudence individuated, as exclusive tenure obligations,
for which it cannot be acknowledged the objective immanence in proxy,
those on charge of taxpayers in declaration of income or recording bookkeeping
entries of the income of the enterprise activity.
Daria Pesce
avvocato
|
