di Matteo Del Chicca

SOMMARIO: 1. Considerazioni introduttive e piano dell’indagine. – 2. L’applicazione giudiziale dell’art. 30 della Dichiarazione universale dei diritti umani. – 3. Gli orientamenti giurisprudenziali finora emersi nelle molteplici applicazioni dell’art. 17 della Convenzione europea dei diritti umani. – 4. Il divieto di abuso del diritto previsto dall’art. 29 della Convenzione americana dei diritti umani e le soluzioni giudiziali adottate in materia. – 5. Osservazioni conclusive.

This paper examines the international human rights case law contribution to the development of the concept of “abuse of rights”. The paper particularly analyzes the most recent and relevant case law regarding the prohibition of abuse of rights as provided in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the European Convention on Human Rights, and in the American Convention on Human Rights. The study of this abundant (and apparently diversified) case law will lead to highlight an uniform meaning of “abuse of rights” in the international human rights law (which could eventually be applied also in other different fields of law).

di Marco Di Folco

SOMMARIO: 1. I termini della vicenda. – 2. Potere sostitutivo straordinario e funzione legislativa regionale. – 3. L’esercizio del potere sostitutivo straordinario nei confronti della regione Puglia in rapporto agli artt. 120, comma 2, e 77 Cost. – 4. Sull’ipotesi alternativa della autoapplicatività del principio fondamentale relativo alla doppia preferenza di genere. – 5. Considerazioni conclusive.

The essay analyzes the way in which Italian Government used substitution power under art. 120, par. 2 of Constitution in order to introduce the provision of double gender preference in regional legislation of Puglia before the local elections of 20^th-21^st September 2020. The Region in fact had not incorporated this mechanism in its electoral act, though the State, with law n. 20/2016, imposed it as a binding rule for Italian Regions, in order to implement constitutional principle of gender equality in political representation.
This application of art. 120, par. 2 of Italian Constitution raises many questions. The first problem is to clarify whether the Government could exercise substitution power even in respect of regional legislative autonomy. Then it must be analyzed if the use of Government power has been correct under art. 120, par. 2 and art. 77 of Italian Constitution.

di Eduardo Gianfrancesco

SOMMARIO: 1. Il trattamento economico dei parlamentari: un problema storico del diritto costituzionale italiano. – 2. Il riparto di competenze tra legge e regolamenti parlamentari. – 3. I vitalizi parlamentari e le prospettive “evolutive” dell’autodichia. – 3.1 Giudici in ca(u)sa propria: vitalizi e autodichia. – 3.2. Lo stato dell’arte della giurisprudenza costituzionale in tema di autodichia: dalla sent. n. 120 del 2014 alla sent. n. 262 del 2017. – 3.3. Alcune criticità specifiche della disciplina dell’autodichia. – 3.4. La “risposta” delle Sezioni Unite alla sent. n. 262 del 2017 della Corte costituzionale. – 4. I vitalizi e il riparto di competenze tra Stato e Regioni – 5. I vincoli costituzionali alla ridefinizione dei vitalizi (e dei trattamenti post-mandato in genere) – 6. Epilogo.

The essay analyzes some problems of economic treatment of former members of parliamentary assemblies (Parliament and regional Councils) in the Italian experience, from a constitutional perspective. The theme is framed in the historical constitutional context and then focused for what concerns relevant sources of law: law (also with reference to the stately-regional dimension); different kinds of rule of orders of parliamentary Chambers. Peculiar attention is dedicated to the theme of judicial protection of rights, especially for what concerns internal bodies of Chambers as “judges” in this matter, as (yet) justified by recent decisions of Italian Constitutional Court. The essay deals with the problem of the substantive nature of these treatments, identifying in them a social security nature (even they are not pensions in a strict sense). From this nature arises a number of constitutional limits to reform measures of the treatments, particularly if they have retroactive effects.

di Costanza Masciotta

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione. – 2. La sentenza n. 269/2017 e la “presunta” inversione dell’ordine delle pregiudiziali: luci e ombre delle diverse posizioni espresse in dottrina. – 3. Le sentenze nn. 20 e 63 del 2019 sono la “naturale prosecuzione” della sentenza n. 269/2017. – 4. Il criterio “guida” per il giudice comune nei casi di doppia pregiudizialità. - 5. L’ordinanza n. 182/2020: l’ulteriore estensione del controllo di costituzionalità e la lettura in chiave integrativa della disciplina materialmente costituzionale. – 6. La doppia pregiudizialità come “genus” nel quale rientrano fattispecie diverse: un tentativo di sistematizzazione delle diverse species. – 7. Considerazioni conclusive.

The contribution analyzes the case law of the Italian Constitutional Court on the so-called "dual preliminarity", starting from the “alleged” reversal of the established order of preliminary questions in decision no 269/2017. After recalling the precisions introduced in the following decisions nn. 20, 63, 117/2019, attention is paid to the most recent chapter of this "saga", order no 182/2020. The Italian Constitutional Court decided to make a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice, asking for the interpretation of Article 34 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in the context of social benefits such as the birth and the maternity allowance.

di Deborah Russo

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione. – 2. La competenza a recedere dai trattati nelle Costituzioni nazionali. – 3. La disciplina internazionale sulla competenza a recedere dai trattati. – 4. La rilevanza dell’art. 46 della Convenzione di Vienna nel dibattito sulla violazione delle norme costituzionali sul recesso dai trattati. – 5. Considerazioni conclusive.

This article surveys the relationship between constitutional and international law concerning the competence to denounce treaties with the aim to discuss whether the circumvention of the prerogatives of Parliaments may impact on the validity of the treaty between contracting States. To this purpose, after examining how this question is regulated by national legal orders and, particularly by the Italian Constitution, it analyses the pertinent international rules, even in the light of the recent tendency of transnational jurisprudence and practice. Noting that the article 46 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties establishes the invalidity of treaties as a consequence of violations of constitutional rules on the competence to participate to treaties, the article critically discusses the applicability of the same provision to the corresponding eventuality of violations of constitutional rules on the competence to denounce treaties. It then suggests the need to interpret extensively the articles 65, para. 2, and 68 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties in order to favour the revocability of the withdrawal from a treaty, when it was declared by circumventing the prerogatives of Parliaments.