TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Italian court rules that a change to the law means alimony no longer needs to maintain the ex wife's lifestyle after divorce. Silvio Berlusconi's ex wife must repay 60m Euros. [Article in Italian]

EricAllonde

November 16, 2017
628 upvotes
/r/PussyPassDenied
http://milano.repubblica.it/cronaca/2017/11/16/news/divorzio_berlusconi_veronica_lario-181256569/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Italian court rules that a change to the law means alimony no longer needs to maintain the ex wife's lifestyle after divorce. Silvio Berlusconi's ex wife must repay 60m Euros. [Article in Italian]
Author

EricAllonde

Upvotes 628
Comments 29
Date November 16, 2017 3:23 PM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PussyPassDenied
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/pussypassdenied/comments/7dd2ep/italian_court_rules_that_a_change_to_the_law/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PussyPassDenied/italian-court-rules-that-a-change-to-the-law-means.911032
https://theredarchive.com/post/911032
Top posts by EricAllonde

Kathy Griffin whines about her fee for hosting NYE telecast on CNN, tries to claim gender pay gap, is firmly slapped down.

26663 upvotes
January 1, 2019
/r/PussyPassDenied

I'm seeing more and more of this: feminists using "mansplaining" accusations to deal with being publicly proven wrong

11347 upvotes
September 7, 2017
/r/MensRights

Female BBC manager publicly declines promotion over pay inequality | After she threw a public tantrum, it's revealed that the male manager had several years more experience than her, justifying the difference in pay. The BBC is standing firm for once - good for them!

9152 upvotes
May 22, 2019
/r/PussyPassDenied

Who Would Win? Vidcon edition: answered

9072 upvotes
June 29, 2017
/r/PussyPassDenied

College tells construction crew to take down "Men Working" sign deemed 'sexist', even though it was accurate as the crew included zero women | Though women don't want to do dirty, manual labor jobs themselves, they still want to control how men do them

7812 upvotes
January 23, 2017
/r/MensRights

Looks like a great campaign to help tackle male suicide

7265 upvotes
April 24, 2018
/r/MensRights

Imagine the outrage & hysteria if an article like this was written about women: "So thirsty I could drink the pool"

5808 upvotes
August 5, 2016
/r/MensRights

Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...

5662 upvotes
April 5, 2017
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Voltaire99 146 points147 points148 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Now the rest of the world needs to get on Italy's level.

[–]DarwinianKEKistani 38 points39 points40 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Better not. Men here are cucked to the bone

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

well i don't really see that much cuckery around here.Then again, i live on the alps where all the changes arrive ten years late

[–]AHobosDick 96 points97 points98 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When we were married, your lifestyle included living in a certain neighborhood and taking a certain class of vacations. My lifestyle included you doing my laundry and me getting up in your pussy. If I have to maintain your lifestyle, why don't you have to maintain mine?

[–][deleted] 47 points48 points49 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

The article says she will have to repay 43 million. She's worth 300 million. She was getting 1.4 million a month and the payments go back to 2014.

Her lawyer said the Supreme Court reached the wrong decision.

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Her lawyer said the Supreme Court reached the wrong decision.

Eh... good luck with that. Italian jurist here - when the "supreme court" (not really, but too long to describe) changed its approach to the alimony system it was a real, REAL surprise here. No one expected it. Still, it did so - and if there is one thing to say about the courts in Italy, is that they are consistent. All lower courts MUST follow what has been decided by the highest court, there is no discretionality. And there is already a wave of former husbands that are suing her divorceès to get money back.

[–]EricAllonde[S] 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you. That news warms my heart.

[–]redde_rationem 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

All lower courts MUST follow what has been decided by the highest court, there is no discretionality.

veramente è l'opposto noi non abbiamo il principio del precedente come nei paesi di common law. unica (recente) eccezione è che le sezioni civili semplici della cassazione devono conformarsi alle sezioni unite .

actually it's the opposite, our legal system is not based about ''stare decisis" rules like in a common law legal system. If lower court can give a valid motivation it can decide differently from supreme court

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, no, it is not the opposite. It is true that in a civil law system courts are subordinated only to the law, while in the common law systems they must follow the set of rules that the courts themselves created long over time, as the laws "per se" are more limited in number and scope; and yet, the duty to follow the law only in the civil law system does mean also the duty to follow the correct interpretation of the law as given by the superior court. In a way, this makes courts in the civil law system even more dependant on the superior courts in the common law system, as the latter might create a new orientation given enough reason while in the former they must, must, MUST follow the interpretation of the law as given by the superior court. Even if they disagree, and only when they (more likely, the human partecipants) disagree on a constitutional matter, they are allowed to "suspend" the trial and ask for the superiorior court's opinion.

As in, short version, courts in Italy now MUST follow what has been set by the cassazione. Not because there is a duty to follow the cassazione, but because there is a strict duty do follow the law, which correct interpretation is given - surprise! - by the cassazione. No courts will be allowed to say that the cassazione was wrong, and the law should be interpretated in a different manner.

[–]redde_rationem 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I still think I'm right guarda che interpretando così la funzione nomofilattica della Corte di Cassazione, sostanzialmente le assegni un compito para legislativo, equiparando le sentenze della Corte a delle leggi di interpretazione autentica, minando il principio di separazione dei poteri. Ti assicuro che in sede di gravame non potrai mai addurre come motivo di appello la mera "trasgressione" di una massima giurisprudenziale quanto piuttosto l' erronea applicazione interpretazione della legge che deve essere però motivata con argomenti ulteriori rispetto alla massima giurisprudenziale (non fosse altro perché la controparte potrebbe portarti altrettanta giurisprudenza contraria alla tua tesi ). La forza dei precedenti della cassazione risiede nella solidità e nella persuasività degli argomenti logici giuridici proposti e (soprattutto) nella consapevolezza del giudice di merito che sa di dover motivare con argomenti altrettanto efficaci per non vedersi cassata la propria sentenza. E' vero che la Cassazione è il giudice preposto alla corretta interpretazione delle leggi in ultima istanza, tuttavia essa non fornisce un'interpretazione ufficiale o più vera rispetto alle altre. Sul punto si è espressa anche la Cassazione stessa, in merito al valore vincolante delle sentenze delle SS.UU

“L'orientamento espresso dalle Sezioni Unite della Corte di cassazione nell'interpretazione delle norme giuridiche mira ad una tendenziale stabilità e valenza generale, sul presupposto, tuttavia, di una efficacia non cogente ma solo persuasiva trattandosi attività consustanziale allo stesso esercizio della funzione giurisdizionale, sicché non può mai costituire limite all'attività esegetica di un altro giudice. Ne consegue che un mutamento di orientamento reso in sede di nomofilachia non soggiace al principio di irretroattività, non è assimilabile allo "ius superveniens" ed è suscettibile di essere disatteso dal giudice di merito, il quale può applicare l'indirizzo giurisprudenziale che ritiene idoneo a definire in modo corretto la controversia, senza essere tenuto a motivare le ragioni che lo hanno indotto a seguire lo stesso. Rigetta, Comm. Trib. Reg.del Lazio, 14/03/2013 Cassazione civile sez. VI 09 gennaio 2015 n. 174 “

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok, tutto corretto.... ma io non sto parlando della teoria, ma della pratica. Perchè, alla fine, chi decide se una interpretazione è corretta o no, se un nuovo orientamento proposto in 1o o 2o grado è corretto o no, rimane cmq la cassazione. Chiaramente, poichè non è composta da cialtroni, è anche necessario che ci sia una norma che lasci uno spazio discrezionale a chi la applica - insomma, una senza caratteri oggettivi indiscutibili - però a tutti i fini pratici una volta che una sezione unita ha disposto che una norma va applicata nel modo X, si applica nel modo X. Se provi il modo Y, ti ritroverai cmq prima o poi in cassazione a dover sostenere che il modo Y è meglio: e saranno loro a decidere. Perchè la corte inferiore può ritenere di avere "argomenti più solidi e persuasivi" ma non è la sua opinione che conta.

[–]redde_rationem 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

non ho scritto ricorsi in cassazione ma ho scritto atti di appello* andando contro la giurisprudenza di legittimità e mi hanno dato ragione! il mio è un discorso pratico e non teorico, non è detto che si vada in cassazione, non è detto che la cassazione non muti orientamento o che non aderisca all'orientamento minoritario, per il resto stiamo dicendo adesso la stessa cosa " La forza dei precedenti della cassazione risiede nella solidità e nella persuasività degli argomenti logici giuridici proposti e (soprattutto) nella consapevolezza del giudice di merito che sa di dover motivare con argomenti altrettanto efficaci per non vedersi cassata la propria sentenza". andare contro la Cassazione sarà pure una strada ripida e in salita, ma per difendere un cliente appellerei una sentenza che applichi acriticamente una sentenza di cassazione che non sta nè in cielo nè in terra.

*(firmava il dominus)

[–]Formaggio_svizzero 31 points32 points33 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Haha oh wow! Proud of my homecountry.

[–]DarwinianKEKistani 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ehi formaggino, di dove sei?

[–]Valac_I whiteKnight for fatties 37 points38 points39 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Tbh it's fucking ridiculous that it was ever a thing. (and still is in most of the world)

Like if I make the money and you do nothing then we get divorced sorry but you don't get to maintain the life I built no one forced their wife to not have a job

[–]zebry13 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think laws like this need a lot of looking at but they can be good in some cases. For example, if you wanna have kids and you and your wife have a conversation and both agree that she'll end her career to raise kids and you'll work full time. in that scenario I think it's pretty shit to just ditch her with no money. Now I do think it depends on the reason for the divorce. She cheated on you? Fuck off, no money. It was amicable? You should give her some support until she can get a job (this shouldn't be more than a year or so long thing). You cheated on her or something? You should pay up a good bit, you fucked up. However, this is why if you wanna get married make sure you have an amazing prenup or ya know, just don't.

[–]Captain_Truth1000 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Like if I make the money and you do nothing then we get divorced sorry but you don't get to maintain the life I built no one forced their wife to not have a job.

Uh fuck that. Everyone makes choices. If she decides to sit at home then she has to pay the consequences if the marriage fails.

[–]JAYDEA 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is a good decision but Silvio Berlusconi is Italy's former PM and he was corrupt as fuck. If this was just some regular shmo, I doubt there'd be any justice for him.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nope dude, its not like that. Berlusconi is taking advantage of another, recent decision of the cassazione (12 may) which said, for the first time, that what justifies alimony is being unable to be self-sufficient and not for one's own fault, and no longer the previous level of lifestyle. Berlusconi is just the most famous guy to take advantage of the new system.

[–]Powdershuttle 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good.

[–]Equilibriator 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I understand the need for alimony to keep the womans head above water, say, if they had kids and she gave up work. That's a team effort thing, etc.

What isn't fair is expecting the man to afford her a life of luxury because when they were together they lived a life of luxury.

As Bill Burr put it, you don't need a hundred thousand dollars to put fruit loops in your kids mouth.

[–]LowRentMegazord 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If they have kids it's child support. Alimony is purely having an adult dependent.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Unshackling men and women is a good thing. However, im curious how this works when someone stays home w the kids? Maybe no one does? Everyone works. Maybe a contract for service?

[–]EricAllonde[S] 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Two households are more expensive to run than just one.

Of course the courts know that. Up until now the attitude has been, "The man's lifestyle must be degraded so that his ex wife's lifestyle can be maintained".

Now that assumption has been thrown out. If the ex wife wants the same lifestyle as before, she's going to have to go back to work.

[–]andres7832 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There is an argument about leaving careers for the benefit of the family though. For both sides, but obviously the female is typically the one left at home. How is that being handled through the courts in Italy?

[–]st0815 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think the point is not to leave the former spouse without income, but to share the economical impact of the divorce. The overall costs of the former couple increase (e.g. two households rather than one), it can't be correct that the burden of that falls solely on the person with the higher income. Provided the situation allows it, both partners have to reduce their lifestyle.

Previously the goal of alimony was "maintaining the matrimonial standard of living" now it's "guaranteeing the economic independence or self-sufficiency of the spouse who requests it".

https://www.thelocal.it/20170511/italian-divorce-law-revolutionary-change-alimony-ex-spouses

[–]andres7832 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That’s very well put, I agree. Thanks for the response.

[–]Made-a-blade 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, sure. Now let's discuss how men here after still stuck paying half the mortgage if a married couple split and they have a kid. While having to leave the house and paying child support on the side, of course. Hope you enjoy couch surfing!

[–]inzyte 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's funny because the law will so to be changed since its effecting more women now than ever

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter