The essay surveys the aftermath of the new doctrine established by the Italian Constitutional Court (ICC) in judgment no. 269/2017: when a national law contrasts bothwith the Constitution and the EU Charter of fundamental rights, the question of constitutionality should take precedence, even if this partially reduces the scope for preliminary references to the EU Court of justice (CJEU) and non-application of nationallaw conflicting with EU law. This doctrine has been partially implemented and partially contrasted by Italian civil and criminal courts, including the Court of cassation (§ 2). It has been criticized by the CJEU, albeit indirectly (§ 3), while also the ICC felt the need to provide corrections and clarifications (§ 4). The essay argues in favor of the priority for constitutional judgments in the cases at stake: otherwise, constitutional jurisdiction in Italy could end up displaced by the European jurisdiction (i.e. by the alliance between ordinary courts, in their European role, and the CJEU). This should go hand in hand with a more frequent use by the ICC of preliminary references to the CJEU (§ 5).
Massa, M., DOPO LA «PRECISAZIONE». SVILUPPI DI CORTE COST. N. 269/2017, <<OSSERVATORIO SULLE FONTI>>, 2019; (2): 1-23 [https://hdl.handle.net/10807/146613]
DOPO LA «PRECISAZIONE». SVILUPPI DI CORTE COST. N. 269/2017
Massa, Michele
2019
Abstract
The essay surveys the aftermath of the new doctrine established by the Italian Constitutional Court (ICC) in judgment no. 269/2017: when a national law contrasts bothwith the Constitution and the EU Charter of fundamental rights, the question of constitutionality should take precedence, even if this partially reduces the scope for preliminary references to the EU Court of justice (CJEU) and non-application of nationallaw conflicting with EU law. This doctrine has been partially implemented and partially contrasted by Italian civil and criminal courts, including the Court of cassation (§ 2). It has been criticized by the CJEU, albeit indirectly (§ 3), while also the ICC felt the need to provide corrections and clarifications (§ 4). The essay argues in favor of the priority for constitutional judgments in the cases at stake: otherwise, constitutional jurisdiction in Italy could end up displaced by the European jurisdiction (i.e. by the alliance between ordinary courts, in their European role, and the CJEU). This should go hand in hand with a more frequent use by the ICC of preliminary references to the CJEU (§ 5).File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
OSF_2_2019 Massa.pdf
accesso aperto
Licenza:
Non specificato
Dimensione
291.93 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
291.93 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.