Abstract

The article investigates the use of the wording "differential jurisdictional protection" from 1973 onwards. First, the Author explores the rise and the ambiguity of this expression. Second, the Author carries out a critical analysis of the reasons behind the introduction of non-precautionary interim proceedings for the protection of applicants' subjective positions with (exclusively or predominantly) non-economic content/ function. The conclusion is that, nowadays, the distinction between simple and compound proceedings should not be founded in general and abstract rules that select certain litigation on the basis of the different substantial rights involved; rather, this distinction should be left to the margin of appreciation of judges, on a case by case basis.