Pierluigi Digennaro graduated in Law, discussing a thesis awarded with the AIDLASS Barassi Prize for the best thesis of the year in Italy. He then completed a postgraduate specialisation and advanced professional training (LL.MM.) in HR Management and Industrial Relations afterwards. He gained his PhD in Labour law at the University of Bari, where he also served as a teaching assistant and spent a period at the University College of London as visiting PhD student. He trained as a lawyer and has successfully passed the National Bar Exam.
Pierluigi was an Overseas Researcher under the Japan Society for Promotion of Science post-doctoral fellowship at the Meiji University of Tokyo. He was a visiting researcher at the Waseda University (Tokyo) and the University of Amsterdam (UvA). Two of his research projects on the topic of placement and discrimination of persons with disabilities at the workplace received funds in Italy and Japan. He worked on several other topics, such as religious discrimination in the workplace, trade union rights, strikes and conflict, and judge-made law. His approach includes analytical, comparative and qualitative methods.
Over the years, he has been invited to address lectures at universities in Europe, Asia and South America.
As a member of the SHARE team, in July 2019, Pierluigi started working as a post-doctoral researcher at the Department of Social and Political Sciences of the University of Milan. Within the SHARE project, he was in charge of legal analysis. He is still at the Department of Social and Political Sciences of the University of Milan as a post-doctoral researcher within the I.TEC.O. (Technological Innovation As Opportunities) project.
For the same university, he also served as a contracted professor in “Migration, Diversity and non-Discrimination” (Politics, Philosophy and Public Affairs module) and as a teaching assistant in Labour Law (Economy and Management module). He is also a member of the teaching staff of the one-year postgraduate course (LL.MM.) in 'Employment Services and Active Employment Policies Law' organised by the University of Bologna.
Address: Milan, Italy
Pierluigi was an Overseas Researcher under the Japan Society for Promotion of Science post-doctoral fellowship at the Meiji University of Tokyo. He was a visiting researcher at the Waseda University (Tokyo) and the University of Amsterdam (UvA). Two of his research projects on the topic of placement and discrimination of persons with disabilities at the workplace received funds in Italy and Japan. He worked on several other topics, such as religious discrimination in the workplace, trade union rights, strikes and conflict, and judge-made law. His approach includes analytical, comparative and qualitative methods.
Over the years, he has been invited to address lectures at universities in Europe, Asia and South America.
As a member of the SHARE team, in July 2019, Pierluigi started working as a post-doctoral researcher at the Department of Social and Political Sciences of the University of Milan. Within the SHARE project, he was in charge of legal analysis. He is still at the Department of Social and Political Sciences of the University of Milan as a post-doctoral researcher within the I.TEC.O. (Technological Innovation As Opportunities) project.
For the same university, he also served as a contracted professor in “Migration, Diversity and non-Discrimination” (Politics, Philosophy and Public Affairs module) and as a teaching assistant in Labour Law (Economy and Management module). He is also a member of the teaching staff of the one-year postgraduate course (LL.MM.) in 'Employment Services and Active Employment Policies Law' organised by the University of Bologna.
Address: Milan, Italy
less
InterestsView All (47)
Uploads
Papers by Pierluigi Digennaro
un breve artículo destinado a ofrecer una visión general de cómo se afrontó la pandemia en Italia, especialmente desde el punto de vista de la protección de trabajo y de las actividades productivas. Además, las conclusiones de este prólogo pretenden ofrecer una reflexión más amplia sobre aquellos efectos que, derivados de la forma en que se afrontó la pandemia, pueden persistir más allá de la propia pandemia. Estas reflexiones críticas, por tanto, no están necesariamente vinculadas al sistema jurídico concreto que aquí se analiza, ya que se refieren a cuestiones sistémicas que pueden surgir en todos los sistemas democráticos.
Germany, Italy, Slovakia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) that aims to examine the distinction between work under an employment contract (subordinate work) and self-employment, shedding light on the main criteria used by the law and judges to identify the two concepts and also provides an overview of how legal systems have tackled the problem of forms of work that lie halfway between work under an employment contract and self-employment. It also provides a uniform basis for discussions and a critical assessment of the various approaches that these legal systems have chosen to shape the concept of employment contract/subordinate work or other legal statuses that ensure protection.
In the final section, some conclusions are drawn about the studied
countries, and the new concept of ‘subjection’ is introduced to reorganise the
protection granted by labour law since it absorbs and expands the concept of
subordination upon the consideration that the former can better match the
current socio-economic scenario. Indeed, the latter scenario is described in
section one of the article. Lastly, the study stresses the need to protect the genuine self-employed through mechanisms to ensure social protection in cases of sickness, long-term impediments to work and retirement.
and between them and the ECtHR case law as well as fallacies in the Court legal reasoning. The analysis intends also to bring to light how both the ECJC and the ECtHR accepted a specific idea of neutrality which is in stark contrast with the very reason of the European
anti-discrimination law so embarking on a dangerous path. The paper also intends to contribute to the debate concerning the potential space allegedly opened by those judgments to reasonable accommodation of believers at the workplace.
It provides a very brief comparison of regulatory models in the area of dependent and quasi-dependent work in three countries (Italy, Germany and England)
Español:
una breve comparación entre los modelos regulatorios italiano, alemán e inglés relativos a la subordinación y la parasubordinación.
The analysis carried out aims to emphasize that the central point of the Court's reasoning does not comply with the very rationale of the provisions under scrutiny since, in the second judgment, it is claimed that the purpose of meeting the prejudices of the surrounding environment for economic reasons is legitimate under the art. 2, par. 2, lett. b, i
Comment to a Court statement involving jurisdiction issues which concerned disputes related to the proper teaching staff’s placement in the relevant ranking lists as well as the method adopted for the legal publicity of the list itself
un breve artículo destinado a ofrecer una visión general de cómo se afrontó la pandemia en Italia, especialmente desde el punto de vista de la protección de trabajo y de las actividades productivas. Además, las conclusiones de este prólogo pretenden ofrecer una reflexión más amplia sobre aquellos efectos que, derivados de la forma en que se afrontó la pandemia, pueden persistir más allá de la propia pandemia. Estas reflexiones críticas, por tanto, no están necesariamente vinculadas al sistema jurídico concreto que aquí se analiza, ya que se refieren a cuestiones sistémicas que pueden surgir en todos los sistemas democráticos.
Germany, Italy, Slovakia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) that aims to examine the distinction between work under an employment contract (subordinate work) and self-employment, shedding light on the main criteria used by the law and judges to identify the two concepts and also provides an overview of how legal systems have tackled the problem of forms of work that lie halfway between work under an employment contract and self-employment. It also provides a uniform basis for discussions and a critical assessment of the various approaches that these legal systems have chosen to shape the concept of employment contract/subordinate work or other legal statuses that ensure protection.
In the final section, some conclusions are drawn about the studied
countries, and the new concept of ‘subjection’ is introduced to reorganise the
protection granted by labour law since it absorbs and expands the concept of
subordination upon the consideration that the former can better match the
current socio-economic scenario. Indeed, the latter scenario is described in
section one of the article. Lastly, the study stresses the need to protect the genuine self-employed through mechanisms to ensure social protection in cases of sickness, long-term impediments to work and retirement.
and between them and the ECtHR case law as well as fallacies in the Court legal reasoning. The analysis intends also to bring to light how both the ECJC and the ECtHR accepted a specific idea of neutrality which is in stark contrast with the very reason of the European
anti-discrimination law so embarking on a dangerous path. The paper also intends to contribute to the debate concerning the potential space allegedly opened by those judgments to reasonable accommodation of believers at the workplace.
It provides a very brief comparison of regulatory models in the area of dependent and quasi-dependent work in three countries (Italy, Germany and England)
Español:
una breve comparación entre los modelos regulatorios italiano, alemán e inglés relativos a la subordinación y la parasubordinación.
The analysis carried out aims to emphasize that the central point of the Court's reasoning does not comply with the very rationale of the provisions under scrutiny since, in the second judgment, it is claimed that the purpose of meeting the prejudices of the surrounding environment for economic reasons is legitimate under the art. 2, par. 2, lett. b, i
Comment to a Court statement involving jurisdiction issues which concerned disputes related to the proper teaching staff’s placement in the relevant ranking lists as well as the method adopted for the legal publicity of the list itself