Insights from the Vassalli Archives of Agricultural Assets and Family Business in the Formation of the Italian Civil Law Model Presented by: Mr. Ciccolo Date: 7 June 2024 The Rural Society in Europe - Between the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Europe underwent a series of significant changes affecting the rural society. These included industrializations, urbanization, increasing commercialization, and technological development. Although not entirely new, these phenomena acquired greater importance than in the past and brought about significant transformations in agricultural holdings and in the relationships between owners and workers, as well as between capital and labor. - Against this backdrop, there were serious concerns about whether there was still a place for agriculture and, more specifically, for the rural economy. It is worth noting that both theoretical and political positions regarding these significant changes were contradictory. Agriculture And Family Businesses In The European Context - On the one hand, the Marxist theory stressed the emergence of the large capitalist corporations that would eventually wipe out the small family farms by initiating a process of collectivization and socialization of the land. - While in the other hand, proposals in other European countries highlighted the moral, social, technological. and productive superiority of agriculture. Based on this perspective, some scholars justified the survival of small family farms in terms of economic efficiency. The Italian Experience After The Unification Of The Kingdom - The echoes of this debate soon reverberated in Italy, where, after the political unification in 1861, the civil legal matter was enacted in 1865. - The new Civil Code, intended to rule civil relations in society, resembled the Napoleonic Code in both structure and content, thus giving a central role to property. It emphasized the "right to enjoy and dispose of things in an absolute manner, with the only restriction that their use must be consistent with both law and regulations." However, this Code lacked any provisions on agricultural property and, largely, on the means of movement of related goods. - Unfortunately, this gap was not filled by the Commercial Code of 1882 either. As a matter of fact, article 5 of the Commercial Code only excluded the commercial nature of the alienation of agricultural products by the farmer or the owner of the land. - In the second half of the nineteenth century, agriculture in the strict sense of the word still referred to human activity directed towards the cultivation of the land, although some confusion about the meaning of the term 'agriculture' led to the inclusion of related activities such as animal husbandry. horticulture, floriculture, and gardening. - The farmer needed a means of carrying out this activity, either as an owner, as a holder of a right in rem (such as usufruct or emphyteusis), or as an owner in good faith or in bad faith. However, this situation entailed disadvantages. For instance, it implied the disparity in economic power between those who could use the land speculatively, such as the owners, and those who had to use the agricultural resources off the land. This issue was inextricably linked to another, that which family farms, which were most common in rural areas. - Years before political unification, indeed, the Italian countryside was populated by colonial families, sharecroppers, and peasants who had worked the same land for generations without formally owning it. This reality was firmly rooted in various parts of Italy and yet, as we have seen, completely ignored by both the Civil Code and the Commercial Code. - In the absence of any provisions, relationships within these rural communities continued to be ruled by the tacit family community, which was already provided for in some pre-unification codes. - In particular, according to this model, in the event of the death of the head of the family, the children, siblings or grandchildren tacitly kept the property undivided and continued the economic activity exercised by the deceased. Thus, maintaining a community of life, interests and activities under the direction of a new head, chosen by agreement, and representing the various members of the family vis-à-vis to third parties. The Years After The First World War - These criticisms resurfaced in the first post-war period, placing the "agrarian issue at the center of the Italian political plan. Undoubtably, World War I had accelerated the change. strengthening the industrial structure, and increasing the degree of commercialization of agriculture. Furthermore, the high inflation of agricultural prices implied a disruptive effect on the incomes of sharecroppers who had invested their savings in purchasing land. This contributed to the creation of a new and large nucleus of small landowners who were rapidly changing the Italian countryside, especially in the north. - At the same time, the expectations that arose during the most dramatic phases of the war, summed up in the slogan "land for the peasants, materialized in the occupation of uncultivated land. In the sharecropping areas, the newly formed White and Red Leagues trade union organizations of peasants inspired by Catholicism and Socialism, respectively fought for a complete revision of the working conditions that landowners had previously agreed upon with the peasants. During this period, the conflict between capital and labor was intense, and even the government was unable to channel these phenomena into clear reform solutions. The Rise Of Fascism - The solution to such a problematic situation was ultimately found by the peasants themselves, through an alliance with the fascist movement, which used violence to systematically suffocate the peasant and sharecropping movements. Despite the recourse to the force, during the twenty years of fascism, agriculture and mostly the rural world assumed a fundamental importance in the ideological apparatus promoted by the regime. - Indeed, "the land" was not simply an economic activity accompanying the industrial and commercial field. - On the contrary, it represented a guarantor of social balance and moral stability. These values were perfectly embodied in the rural sharecropping family which became one of the most significant archetypes of fascist ethics. - In the years immediately following the March on Rome, a series of legislative measures, particularly in the field of agriculture, led the Italian scholars to rethink the main categories of private law and, more generally, the blurry distinction between public and private law. In this light, the debate on the transformation of property was of utmost importance. Echoes Of A New Conception Of Property - In 1901, the civil-law scholar Francesco Degni emphasized the sacred nature of the private property, drawing on the myth established by Napoleonic codification and linking this concept to the individual's personality and freedom. Despite this assumption, the most convincing justification for preserving the property as an "individual right of man" began to shift towards its "social function." Degni argued that "Individual property must be maintained because it is also socially useful to ensure the owner's interest in the maximum production of wealth." According to this innovative perspective, the owners' freedom to use and dispose of their property had to consider its social usefulness. Comparing Jurists: The Dialogue Between Filippo Vassalli And Enrico Finzi On Property - The legislation enacted during the war brought about a rapid acceleration and significant changes in private law, especially that concerning the social function on private property. At the end of the nineteenth century. two illustrious Italian jurists faced the difficult task of reporting this change: Filippo Vassalli, the father of the future Civil Code of 1942, and Enrico Finzi, known as the "solitary innovator." - During a memoir read at the Accademia dei Georgofili on May 20, 1923, Filippo Vassalli definitively excluded the reassertion of the purported "social law" from the realm of civil reforms, particularly concerning land ownership, which remained centered on strictly individualistic assets. - Diametrically opposed, was the judgment formulated by Enrico Finzi in his famous speech for the inauguration of the academic year 1922/1923 at the university "Cesare Alfieri" in Florence, entitled: «The modern transformations of the right to property». - On that occasion, he cautioned the existence of a process of transformation that had invested the traditional concept of property and through so it made it possible to see in it a real social function. The most striking sign of this change of perspective was the fact that the union was legally legitimised in the way in which the individual owners exercised their rights. Based on the reading of the special legislation which was also gathered in Italy and that aimed at coordinating the private use of goods to public interests to be considered prevalent, Finzi pointed out the fundamental novelty for which the traditional elasticity of the domain was called to face no longer just simple limitations, but positive duties respecting the use of such things, as well as the duty to well cultivate land ownership. - In 1927, a decade after their first confrontation, the enactment of a fascist single legislative measure, known as 'Labor Charter', offered both lawyers the possibility to revisit their opinions on this subject. Filippo Vassalli, for example, speaking at the first Italian Juridical Congress in October 1932, took up the theme of 'property rights' and gave a comprehensive overview of the legislation promoted by the regime. This covered both land ownership and ownership of the means of production, which were significantly affected by state intervention in the economy - Vassalli's report aimed to highlight the new profile of the property under scrutiny, in line not only with "past and present developments in political and legal thought", but also with the "generality of movement" evident in other legal systems. - The steps of this transformation involved the erosion of the fundamental concept of property rights. resulting from the restriction of the owner's power, and the narrowing of the range of objects eligible for such rights. The resulting scenario seemed to endorse an undeniably new perspective, wherein the concept of "functional property", far from being disruptive, served to uphold the property itself. - In contrast, Finzi argued that goods were increasingly subject to state regulation, with the interests of the state taking precedence over those of the individual citizen. - This represented a profound shift: from a human-centered legal framework to one in which production processes centered on land and enterprise took precedence. He debated that it was now the land, the ship and the productive enterprise that primarily dictated the contours of private property law in the service of the overarching national interest. This reversal of relationships meant that property was no longer centered on the individual subject but was shaped according to the needs of the subject's function within society. - In the clearer context that Finzi grasped on in the early 1930s, property remained a fundamental aspect of the property regime, albeit significantly transformed, thus aligning with his previous foresight: "property no longer reflects individual egoism but serves a noble and beneficial social function." By the mid-1930s, this new approach sparked debates on agricultural goods, lands, and family dynamics. These discussions would influence the preparatory work for the new Civil Code. Agricultural Assets and Family Business during the preparatory work of the Civil Code of 1942 - Just two years later, at the First National Agrarian Law Congress in 1935. Finzi was struck by the need to deepen the issues raised in 1933. In his report, entitled 'Property rights and the regulation of production', he reinforced the idea that the most significant changes in property law were to be found in the regulation of goods. - Finzi's analysis introduced a conceptual distinction between the static aspect of ownership of productive goods and the dynamic aspect of their use. This distinction allowed for the recognition of different roles within the ownership framework, including not only the bare owner, but also other stakeholders such as mere users of the property. - However, it is important to acknowledge that this new concept of property faced challenges in being translated into concrete legal solutions, partly due to the inherent limitations of legal language in providing adequate conceptual frameworks. For instance, significant difficulties arose in defining terms such as "fund," "company," and "rustic background". - The considerations conducted thus far are of paramount importance not only for comprehending the different issues addressed by the 1942 Civil Code but also for justifying the inclusion of groundbreaking elements concerning agricultural goods and family businesses in the final version of the third book of the new Civil Code, which focuses on real rights. - In this context, significant efforts were made during the preparatory stages of drafting the new Civil Code in order to establish minimum regulatory guidelines for the institution of the silent family community, which historically formed the foundation of family businesses. - In particular, a scheme drawn up by the jurist Fulvio Maroi proposed the extension of the notion of property to the non-agricultural activities. However, this proposal was swiftly dismissed due to numerous objections raised by the institutional bodies tasked with providing opinions, notably by certain members of the parliamentary committee. They argued that local customs were better suited to regulate family farms. - Subsequent projects consolidated the rules on tacit communion in the single article, z1zəl of the Civil Code. This provision, which focused exclusively on agricultural activities, stated that "family communion in agricultural activities shall be regulated by customary practices". Conclusion - In conclusion, it is evident that the outcomes achieved represent a rather modest result for a phenomenon as vibrant and integral to the social fabric as that of family businesses. This is particularly striking when considering that a significant shift did not occur until the 1975 reform of family law. In fact, only the introduction of Article 230bis titled "family business," into the Civil Code, finally granted proper legal recognition to the work carried out within the family community.