Il pubblico ministero francese in cerca di identità tra riforme costituzionali e moniti sovranazionali

L\u2019articolo affronta il tema dello status del pubblico ministero (parquet) in Francia con particolare riguardo ai profili problematici relativi alla sua indipendenza. Pur evidenziando l\u2019anomalo legame con il potere esecutivo, si sostiene che la soluzione della crisi in cui sembra versare il parquet non sia tanto quella di recidere tale legame, quanto quello di presidiare il pubblico ministero con una serie di garanzie tali da fare da contrappeso all\u2019influenza del potere esecutivo sullo stesso. La prima parte del contributo \ue8 dedicata alla ricostruzione della natura del pm francese e della sua posizione costituzionale, alla luce delle pi\uf9 recenti riforme che \u2013 sebbene solo in via tangenziale \u2013 l\u2019hanno interessato. Lo status del pubblico ministero appare ancor pi\uf9 problematico se lo si legge nel prisma dei principi sanciti dal Consiglio d\u2019Europa in materia di ordine giudiziario e alla luce della giurisprudenza della Corte EDU, la quale si \ue8 imbattuta in alcuni procedimenti proprio nelle peculiarit\ue0 del sistema francese di pubblica accusa. Tali spinte esogene hanno contribuito a riaprire il dibattito interno circa la natura del parquet, come dimostrano da un lato il dialogo a distanza tra le due Corti supreme francesi e dall\u2019altro la presentazione di un rapporto voluto dal Ministro della Giustizia, intitolato \u201cRefonder le minist\ue9re public\u201d, che condensa in 68 proposte tutte le possibili aree di intervento per superare la profonda crisi in cui versa il pubblico ministero francese.The article deals with the problematic issue of the independence of the public prosecutor in France. It argues that the anomalous link between the public prosecutor and the executive power should be addressed by enforcing the public prosecutor\u2019s guarantees, without aiming to cut the above mentioned relationship. The first part of the article is paid to the definition of the status of the public prosecutor, in the light of the most recent reforms. Then the analysis sheds light on the influence of the supranational level on the status of French public prosecutors, analyzing the role of the Council of Europe's documents and of the ECHR case law. The pressure of the supranational level has pushed forward the necessity of addressing the issue of the public prosecutor at the national level, as the dialogue between the French supreme courts and the presentation of a report titled \u201cRefonder le minist\ue9re public\u201d clearly testify

Challenges in Comparative Constitutional Law Studies : Between Globalization and Constitutional Tradition

In the last few decades, we have witnessed the renaissance of Comparative Constitutional law as field of research. Despite such a flourishing, the methodological foundations and the ultimate ratio of Constitutional comparative law are still debated among scholars. This article starts from the definition of comparative constitutional law given by one of the most prominent comparative constitutional law scholars in Italy, prof. Bognetti, who defined comparative constitutional law as the main joining ring between the historical knowledge of the modern law and the history of the humankind in general and of its various civil realizations. Comparative constitutional law is in other words a kind of mirror of the \u201ccompeting vision of who we are and who we wish to be as a political community\u201d (Hirschl), reflecting the structural tension between universalism and particularism, globalization and tradition. The article aims at addressing the main contemporary methodological challenges faced by the studies of the field. The article argues that contemporary comparative constitutional studies should address these challenges integrating the classical \u201chorizontal\u201d comparative method with a vertical one - regarding the international and supranational influences on constitutional settings - and fostering an interdisciplinary approach, taking into account the perspective of the social sciences

La tutela dei diritti in Europa nel dialogo tra corti : “epifanie” di una Unione dai tratti ancora indefiniti

Il contributo affronta il tema della tutela dei diritti fondamentali nell\u2019ordinamento dell\u2019Unione europea a seguito dell\u2019entrata in vigore del Trattato di Lisbona che ha sancito la forza vincolante della Carta di Nizza. Da allora, il dibattito circa la natura dell\u2019Unione europea come Europa dei diritti e della Corte di Giustizia come \u201chuman rights adjudicator\u201d ha avuto una decisa accelerazione. Guardando a questa svolta, il presente contributo intende mettere in luce i nodi problematici che permangono nell\u2019intreccio europeo e nazionale nella tutela dei diritti, che in ultima analisi risiedono nell\u2019ancora incerta fisionomia dell\u2019Unione e nell\u2019insistenza nello spazio europeo di ordinamenti distinti ma interconnessi, la cui relazione non pu\uf2 tuttavia essere letta in termini meramente gerarchici. La lente attraverso la quale si analizza il tema \ue8 quella del \u201cdialogo tra Corti\u201d, non solo perch\ue9 la tutela dei diritti in Europa avviene sempre di pi\uf9 in via giurisdizionale (mancando una vera e propria policy europea dei diritti), ma anche perch\ue9 \ue8 proprio dall\u2019interazione tra i vertici giurisdizionali dei rispettivi ordinamenti che traspare in maniera netta la natura conflittuale e problematica del c.d. dialogo. Il tema verr\ue0 messo a fuoco attraverso l\u2019analisi dei pi\uf9 recenti leading cases della Corte di Giustizia (\uc5kerberg Fransson, Melloni, Siragusa) e delle risposte che alcune Corti supreme nazionali hanno prontamente dato nel tentativo di definire i confini tra i diversi standard di tutela dei diritti fondamentali.The article deals with the theme of the fundamental rights protection in the European Union after the entry into force of the Charter of Nice in 2009. Since then, the nature of the European Union as human rights organization and of the ECJ as human rights adjudicator had been debated among legal scholars. The article is aimed to shed lights on the critical issues that characterize the intertwined systems of rights protection at the European and national level. We argue that the problematic issues are due to the still undefined nature of the European Union, and to the existence within the EU space of different but connected legal orders, without a hierarchical relationship. The perspective through which the theme will be analysed is that of the judicial dialogue, not only because human rights protection in the EU is mainly a matter of the judiciary, lacking a EU human right policy, but also because it is emblematic of the confrontational and problematic nature of the relationship among legal orders. The analysis will be conducted through the study of the ECJ case law (\uc5kerberg Fransson, Melloni, and Siragusa cases) and that of the national supreme courts in dialogue with their European counterpart

Intertwined but Different : The Heterolougous in Vitro Fertilization Case before the European Court of Human Rights and the Italian Constitutional Court

International and constitutional law, originally distinct realms with limited areas of intersection, are getting closer and closer, particularly in the European landscape within the human rights protection field, where these mere contacts between the two systems have become intersections and overlaps. The present article will try to shed light on the still unsolved and problematic issues to which overlapping human rights protection systems give rise, by focusing on an analysis of the heterologous in vitro fertilization case, where both the Strasbourg Court and the Italian Constitutional Court delivered relevant judgments on very similar matters (ECtHR\u2019s S.H. Judgment; Judgment No. 162/2014 from the Italian CC). Such analysis revealed useful in highlighting connections and disconnections between the different levels of protection of rights, and led us to argue that the development of a multilevel protection of rights is also, at least partially, a tale of Courts, each competing to have the last word on human rights adjudication