6,045 research outputs found

    The Italian Constitutional Court’s Ruling against State Immunity when International Crimes Occur: Thoughts on Decision No 238 of 2014

    Get PDF
    The tension between access to justice and jurisdictional immunity of States is one of the most debated topics in current public international law. The present essay aims to explore the Italian Constitutional Court’s opinion on this matter, in particular after its recent judgment no. 238 of 2014, in which the Court stated that Italy is no longer bound by the rule on State immunity in the case of civil proceedings dealing with damages caused by the Nazi army during World War II. Studying the Court’s reasoning and the arguments provided in order to compel Italy not to implement the ICJ judgment in the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State could provide a new point of view in the International Community, based on domestic constitutional norms, about the fundamental need to protect the rights of the human being, even to the detriment of a international customary rule

    DON’T WASTE YOUR VOTE (AGAIN!). THE ITALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT’S DECISION ON ELECTION LAWS: AN EPISODE OF STRICT COMPARATIVE SCRUTINY

    Get PDF
    With a single judgment (sent. 1/2014), the Italian Constitutional Court has almost revolutionized Parliamentary election law, the national political landscape, the types of controversies with which it deals, and the means through which it reviews domestic legislation. In order to do so, the Court drew from globalized concepts and levels of scrutiny such as the so-called “proportionality test,” making explicit references to foreign decisions, while downplaying the Constitutional Framers’ intention. Although this decision has brought Italy closer in line with the trends that characterize contemporary global constitutionalism, its concrete effects on Italian law and the political system are not so promising or clear. This paper investigates the explicit and implicit sources of inspiration for the decision, its hidden implications, and it resonates with globalized trends in constitutional law

    A comparison of European systems of direct access to constitutional judges: exploring advantages for the Italian Constitutional Court

    Get PDF
    As protection of fundamental rights increasingly becomes a defining feature of modern constitutionalism, some countries debate over the opportunity to introduce systems of direct individual access to constitutional judges to increase protection of constitutional rights. Part I of the article provides a comparative overview of the systems of individual constitutional complaint adopted in Europe, focusing on their functioning, structure and admissibility requirements. Part II addresses possible benefits of the introduction of such a system in Italy. After describing the main features of the Italian system of judicial review, the article details proposals that, since 1947, have been presented to introduce a system of direct individual access to the Italian Constitutional Court. Finally, Part III offers reflections on the potential advantages that adoption of such complaint would bring to the Italian legal system, compared to the currently existing avenues of access to the Court

    On human dignity and State sovereignty: The Italian Constitutional Court's 238/2014 judgment on State immunity for international crimes

    Get PDF
    Judgment 238/2014 of the Italian Constitutional Court has flatly contravened the decision of the ICJ on Jurisdictional Immunity of States (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening) of 2012, ruling that the customary norm on State immunity from civil suits before a foreign court as ascertained in the ICJ decision never entered the domestic legal order, because it is incompatible with core principles of the Italian Constitution. In execution of the Constitutional Court ruling, in 2015, some Italian tribunals have condemned Germany to pay damages to former Italian military internees victim of international crimes during World War II, thus integrating an international wrongful act on the part of Italy. The 238/2014 judgment has been criticised from many angles. Much criticism was addressed to its alleged dualist approach that seemed to insulate Italy. The paper argues that the 2014 judgment of the Italian court is rather a reasoned response to the ICJ decision, grounded on principles common to the Italian and the international law, and a call for a consistent application of State obligations concerning the effective implementation of human rights. From this perspective it constitutes a valuable contribution towards a principled and open-minded debate over the structure and function of international la

    The constitutional consequences of financial crisis and the use of emergency powers. flexibility and emergency sources

    Get PDF
    Analisys of transformation of norms and sources (i.e. Constituttions) during periods of crisis and emergenc

    The new challenge of constitutional Courts. global markets, terrorism, and immigration. the itaian case

    Get PDF
    the new challenge of constitutional courts is take into considerations both rights and powers , national protctions and immigrations flows. the deep problem is to extend the national guarantee to the non citoyens people

    The Combination of Functions in Administrative Actions: An Examination of European Alternatives

    Get PDF

    Il ruolo della corte costituzionale nella ricognizione del diritto internazionale generale esistente e nella promozione del suo sviluppo progressivo. osservazioni critiche a margine della sentenza n. 238/2014

    Get PDF
    La sentenza della Corte costituzionale n. 238 del 2014 offre lo spunto per riflettere sul ruolo del giudice costituzionale in ordine: a) all’identificazione delle consuetudini internazionali e b) alla loro creazione e/o modifica. Con riguardo al primo profilo, la Corte si è ritenuta incompetente a sindacare la ricostruzione della portata del regime internazionale dell’immunità degli Stati stranieri dalla giurisdizione civile effettuata dalla Corte internazionale di giustizia nella sentenza del 2012 sulla controversia tra Germania e Italia. Secondo la Corte costituzionale, un nuovo accertamento del contenuto della rilevante norma consuetudinaria di diritto internazionale sarebbe precluso sia dalla formulazione del quesito di costituzionalità sia dal principio di conformità che imporrebbe di applicare le norme esterne “nell’osservanza dell’interpretazione che ne è data nell’ordinamento di origine”. Questo scritto prova a mettere in discussione entrambi gli argomenti. Quanto invece al secondo profilo, la Corte costituzionale sembra aspirare a fornire alla Comunità internazionale un punto di avvio per la formazione in materia di una nuova consuetudine maggiormente in linea con le esigenze di tutela dei diritti fondamentali degli individui. Questa prospettiva si scontra però con le difficoltà di definizione del valore della sentenza ai fini della determinazione della prassi e dell’opinio iuris ascrivibile all’Italia, in quanto soggetto dell’ordinamento internazionale, in materia di immunità degli Stati in caso di crimini internazionali. Gli organi italiani hanno infatti fino ad oggi manifestato posizioni opposte in merito alla questione se la norma sull’immunità degli Stati sia applicabile anche in caso di gravi violazioni dei diritti umani. Questa ambivalenza, che è evidentemente aggravata dalla sentenza n. 238, è destinata a indebolire il possibile contributo dell’Italia allo sviluppo del diritto internazionale in materia. La terza questione affrontata nello scritto attiene alla possibilità di risolvere l’incompatibilità tra immunità dello Stato e accesso al giudice direttamente a livello di diritto internazionale, così come suggerito dalle parti dei procedimenti principali. Questa prospettiva non sembra però idonea a garantire un’adeguata tutela per le vittime italiane dei crimini nazisti, vista l’incerta utilità in questo ambito della teoria della soddisfazione per equivalenti. Rimane comunque ancora un’altra strada da esplorare al fine di garantire le legittime pretese di risarcimento: la protezione diplomatica da parte del Governo italiano. Fino ad oggi, l’Italia non ha adottato significative iniziative nei confronti della Germania. Questa inerzia è assolutamente lecita per il diritto internazionale che concepisce la protezione diplomatica come oggetto di una mera facoltà dello Stato. Tuttavia, un obbligo di attivarsi in tal senso può trovare un fondamento nel diritto interno, come è dimostrato dall’esperienza di altri Stati. Alcuni recenti sviluppi nella giurisprudenza della Corte costituzionale potrebbero in futuro rivelarsi utili al fine di promuovere un analogo risultato anche nell’ordinamento italiano.The Constitutional Court’s judgment no. 238 of 22 October 2014 provides an opportunity to reflect on the role of the Court: a) in identifying customary international rules and b) contributing to their formation and evolution. With respect to the first issue, the Constitutional Court did not call into question the ICJ’s interpretation of the international regime of State immunity from civil jurisdiction in its 2012 judgment in Germany v. Italy. According to the Constitutional Court, a reassessment of the relevant customary international rule was barred by both the wording of the constitutional question and the principle of conformity binding the government and the judges to apply external rules in accordance with the interpretation given in their original legal order. The author contends that both arguments are unpersuasive. With regard to the second issue, the Constitutional Court seems to aspire to provide the international community with a starting point for the formation of a new customary rule more in line with the need to protect fundamental human rights. However, that aspiration has to overcome the difficulties involved in determining the value of the judgment as a manifestation of Italy’s practice and opinio iuris. Italian state organs have, in fact, expressed conflicting views on the question of whether States enjoy jurisdictional immunity in cases involving allegations of grave human rights violations. The author argues that this ambivalence, which is further aggravated by the judgment no. 238, may weaken Italy’s possible contribution to the development of customary international law in this field. The third issue addressed in the article, which is in some way connected with the other two here discussed, concerns the possibility to settle the tension between State immunity and the right of access to courts directly on the international plane, as suggested by the parties to the original proceedings. While not considered by the Court, these arguments are carefully examined in the paper. The author maintains that this perspective is not likely to be helpful to the cause of the Italian victims of Nazi crimes, given that it is uncertain whether they can successfully rely on the alternative means test. Nevertheless, there is still another way to protect the victims’ legitimate expectations of obtaining compensation, namely diplomatic protection. Until now, Italy has not undertaken significant diplomatic steps to induce Germany to make reparation to Italian victims of German war crimes. But while Italy’s inaction is perfectly legitimate under international law, according to which the decision whether or not to exercise diplomatic protection is still a discretionary right of the State concerned, according to the internal law of some States the Government has a duty to espouse the claims of its citizens against foreign Governments, at least in the most serious cases. Some recent developments in the Constitutional Court’s case law may prove particularly useful in order to achieve a similar result in the Italian legal order

    Intelligenti pauca. Il caso Taricco torna (catafratto) a Lussemburgo

    Get PDF
    With referral order n. 24 of 2017, the Italian Constitutional Court asked the CJEU to explain the effects produced by its judgment Taricco to the Italian judges, suspecting the violation of some fundamental principles of the Italian cons titutional order. Our Court already warned the CJEU that, should the judgment Taricco be interpreted in the sense that the Italian judges are obliged, in order to respect the European law, to violate those principles, the EU Treaties (the Italian laws executing those Treaties) will be declared void, by contrast with art. 25 of the Italian Constitution. This order confirms that the constitutional fundamental principles deserve to be protected by a true constitutional Court and that the CJEU is no such Court

    The Role of Precedent in the Italian Legal System (with specific attention to its use made by the Italian Corte costitutionale)

    Get PDF
    The main aim of this article is analysing the use of precedent made by the Italian Constitutional Court and its effectiveness in the light of Michele Taruffo\u2019s \u2018dimensions\u2019 of the precedents
    • …
    corecore