I dare to speak to the community of practitioners of law, which often face problems that I want to talk and suffer from the sense of frustration of being able to do nothing to overcome situations contrary to the letter and the spirit enshrined in our Constitution protective. The wording of this article certainly deserves an extensive and detailed analysis of the applicable regulations and a pen of much more significance than mine. So, with all humility, I only propose me record some thoughts that I’d love to see answered and enriched by views better than mine. Made the above caveat, I wish to submit to reflection and discussion, if a colleague is the subject of his interest, the following issues: first: do abnormal is that a derivation of joint and several liability dossier is resolved against a commercial just tested that an only worker has worked in both companies, without more facts.? I answer that it is not abnormal. Second: Is it possible for do some injunctive relief, in which usually seize the full heritage of a commercial, without any proportionality with the amount of the debt, to become Executive, having not yet completed the corresponding dossier of derivation of responsibility? It is possible. Third: Is it possible to seize in a proportion of one to one hundred, without applying any criteria of proportionality? It is possible.

Fourth: do can assert that the administrative contentious jurisdiction trend is the plane accept the thesis of the Administration in these cases? We dare to say it. Raised the above issues, whose importance in the everyday life of the companies is simply overwhelming, must ask ourselves the following: does perhaps the Statute of workers and other matching rules suffer from serious gaps in regulation that left wide path to the arbitrariness? Not exactly. Does perhaps the General Law, the regulation of fundraising and other regulations of lower rank than the S.S., put in the hands of the? officials exorbitant powers that allow them to act at its whim?