di FIlippo Donati

SOMMARIO: 1. Premessa. - 2. Il vincolo interpretativo derivante dalle pronunce della Corte EDU secondo il modello delineato dalle sentenze "gemelle". - 3. La svolta operata con la sentenza n. 49 del 2015. - 4. La sentenza della Corte EDU sul caso De Tommaso. - 5. Il "disorientamento" giurisprudenziale sull'applicazione dei principi sanciti in De Tommaso. - 6. Considerazioni conclusive.

 
The essay aims to assess the role of the European Court of Human Rights judgments in the Italian legal system, starting from the twin judgments model expressed by the Constitutional Court in 2007, continuing with the recent judgment n. 49/2015 and ending with the De Tommaso saga.
In latter case, the Italian Constitutional Court and the Court of Strasbourg reached a very different outcome on the legitimacy of Italian criminal legislation on preventive measures: the Constitutional Court stated that the law was not unconstitutional while the ECHR declared the violation of art. 2, Prot. 4 Cedu.
The two different conclusions bring up many issues to Italian judges with respect to the application of the criteria laid down in judgment n. 49/2015.
In conclusion, De Tommaso saga shows the practical difficulties stemming from the interpretation and application of Convention before Italian Courts and the importance of applying the principle of maximum protection of fundamental rights instead of the "axiological superiority" of the Italian Constitution.

di Giuseppe Palmisano

SOMMARIO: 1. La base di partenza: la rilevanza dei trattati nell'ordinamento italiano fino alla revisione costituzionale del 2001. - 2. Il contributo delle sentenze "gemelle": i punti salienti nel modello di ragionamento della Corte costituzionale. - 3. La rilevanza non esclusiva della CEDU agli effetti dell'integrazione del parame-tro interposto di costituzionalità. - 4. L'individuazione dei trattati idonei ad essere presi in considerazione per integrare il parametro previsto dall'art. 117. - 5. Le norme pattizie come oggetto esterno del rinvio mobile realizzato dall'art. 117. - 6. Il principio di conformità e la rilevanza della giurisprudenza delle corti internazionali per il giudice interno. - 7. L'inidoneità delle norme pattizie contrastanti con la Costituzione a fungere da parametro di costituzionalità delle leggi. - 8. L'uso dei poteri interpretativi del giudice per regolare i rapporti tra norme di legge e norme pattizie configuranti parametro di costituzionalità.

The Italian Constitutional Court's decisions n. 348 and 349 of October 2007 - the so-called "twins judgments" - marked a major step forward in the direction of opening up the Italian legal order to international obligations stemming from treaties to which Italy is a party. In the last decade, some arguments made by the Constitutional Court in 2007 received important clarifications by the subsequent constitutional jurisprudence, such as the fact that the treaty rules must be interpreted as rules belonging to an external legal order (i.e. international law) when they come into play as a constitutional parameter, as well as their "sub-constitutional" character, which prevent them to function as a constitutional parameter when their content is not in conformity with the Italian constitution. On the other hand, some problematic issues, which are strictly linked to the Constitutional Court's approach in the "twin judgments", still deserve to be clari-fied. This is the case with the identification of the kind of treaties that fall within the category of constitutional parame-ters, according to Art. 117.1 of the Italian Constitution. And this is also the case with the extent of the power of ordi-nary judges to resolve possible antinomies between internal legislation and treaty rules, without submitting the issue of constitutionality to the Constitutional Court.

di Annalisa Ciampi

SOMMARIO: 1. Premessa. - 2. Il fondamento giuridico dell'interpretazione conforme. - 3. L'ambito di applicazione. - 4. Le varie articolazioni sul piano del diritto interno. - 5. I limiti. - 6. Le implicazioni. - 7. Riflessioni conclusive sulla prassi internazionale nella sua duplice dimensione spaziale e temporale, incluse talune recenti manifestazioni decisamente contro tendenza.

This contribution addresses the principle of consistent interpretation as a matter of public international law. In this perspective, the interpretation of domestic law in a manner consistent with a state's interna-tional obligations is no more than a corollary of the normative nature of international law and merely con-firms the primacy of the latter over conflicting provisions of a State's domestic law. After some preliminary remarks over the rationale of consistent interpretation, the author discusses its scope of application, the forms of its incorporation in national legal orders and the limits thereof. The focus is then on the broader implications of consistent interpretation. The author notes that judicial practice has enhanced the role of national courts in the interpretation and application of international treaties. This gives rise to a diffusive - indirect - mechanism of application of international law, which in turn contributes to its effectiveness. Consistent interpretation also strengthens the role of individuals in the implementation of treaties, thus falling in line with the current trend of "individualization" of international law. Interpretative efforts to bring national provisions in conformity with international obligations may, however, pose a threat to the certainty of the law. The final overview of the practice of consistent interpretation in its twofold - tem-poral and geographical - dimension points to an upcoming alarming trend, which disregards the principle of consistent interpretation and the effectiveness of international treaties, in particular concerning human rights treaties.

di Andrea Guazzarotti

SOMMARIO: 1. Il fatto. - 2. Antefatti e postfatti. - 3. L'evoluzione. - 4. L'interpretazione conforme non è (solo) una tecnica di risoluzione delle antinomie. - 5. Le linee di faglia aperte.

 
The article provides an overview of the jurisprudence of the Italian Constitutional Court (ICC) in the last ten years after the seminal "twin cases" no. 348 and no. 349 of 2007 on the supra-legislative status of the ECHR. The alternative posed by the ICC in those cases between consistent interpretation of the legislative provision in the light of the relevant ECHR articles and the referral of a constitutional question in order to have the legislative provision quashed by the ICC has been put under strain for several reasons. The article focuses on the apparent technicality of consistent interpretation as a device for eluding value conflicts between national Constitution and the ECHR: on the one hand, it is not possible to overtly interpret constitutional provisions consistently with the ECHR for reasons others than the lower status of the latter; on the other hand, it is no more possible to overtly interpret Convention provisions consistently with the Italian Constitution, at the cost of ignoring the case-law of the Strasbourg Court and incurring repetitive condemnations. The analysis of the jurisprudence reflects a picture of the relationship between national legal order and the ECHR which is more complex than this

di Francesco Salerno

SOMMARIO: 1. La garanzia costituzionale dei trattati tra allineamento e disallineamento rispetto alla originaria fonte internazionale. - 2. Il modello costituzionale originario e i suoi limiti. - 3. La revisione costituzionale del 2001 e le "sentenze gemelle" del 2007 integrano le originarie garanzie costituzionali del diritto internazionale. - 4. La comune tecnica del rinvio mobile nelle diverse garanzie costituzionali. - 5. La ricerca di un'armonia tra le varie garanzie costituzionali in base al principio del trattamento più favorevole per l'obbligo internazionale. - 6. Limiti di tale approccio in specie con riferimento alla specifica garanzia costituzionale dell'art. 11. - 7. Segue: ambito di applicazione materiale dell'art. 11. - 8. Segue: La profondità delle limitazioni di sovranità ex art. 11 Cost. rispetto a trattati: la disapplicazione della norma interna confliggente subordinata alla condizione giuridica dei soggetti privati nell'ordinamento internazionale di riferimento. - 9. La flessibilità della disapplicazione ex art. 11 in relazione ad obblighi in materia dei diritti umani. - 10. La flessibilità della Costituzione rispetto alla "grande rilevanza" dei trattati a tutela dei diritti umani: osmosi "verso l'alto" e "bilanciamento dei valori". - 11. Il conseguente ricorso ai contro-limiti rispetto alla Convenzione europea dei diritti dell'uomo. - 12. L'autonomo margine di apprezzamento che la Corte costituzionale si riserva nella valutazione del contenuto e della legittimità costituzionale del trattato internazionale. - 13. Conclusioni: a) la flessibilità valutativa della Corte costituzionale in base al valore precettivo dell'obbligo internazionale nel suo ordinamento di origine. - 14. Segue. b) l'autonomo apprezzamento della Corte costituzionale riguardo al vincolo del rispetto di un obbligo internazionale: quale concertazione per una politica estera costituzionalmente orientata?

 
The 2007 twin judgments of the Constitutional Court (Nos. 348 and 349) supported the interpretation of the new Arti-cle 117, para 1, of the Italian Constitution according to which this rule provides for a unitary guarantee for interna-tional treaties. The constitutional framework is not, however, homogeneous, because some treaties benefit from a stronger guarantee under Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. In any case, all these constitutional guarantees make use of the same legal technique, the so called "rinvio mobile", whereby the content and value of each treaty is to be de-fined by reference to the international legal order. Hence, some treaties, although formally included under Article 117, acquire, according to their peculiar value, a constitutional regime which is very similar to the one guaranteed under Ar-ticles 10 and 11. The Constitutional Court is the most authoritative (even if not the only) actor to make this kind of assessment, but its judgments are not sufficiently coordinated with the action of the constitutional organs which have primary responsiblity in respect of foreign affairs.

di Cesare Pinelli

SOMMARIO: 1. La specificità dei trattati sui diritti dell'uomo nelle diverse prospettive disciplinari. - 2. La "precisazione" della sentenza n. 269 del 2017. - 3. I punti fermi dell'assestamento dei rapporti fra diritto nazionale e di-ritto dell'Unione europea. - 4. Le sentenze sulla CEDU del 2007. - 5. Il principio di "massima espansione delle garanzie dei diritti fondamentali". - 6. Corti nazionali e Corti europee. - 7. Commento alla "precisazione" della sentenza n. 269 del 2017.

 
The paper examines the recent case-law of the Italian Constitutional Court with respect to the national law-EU law-ECHR relationship. After having pointed out the assessments that have been reached at such proposal, due to the Court's effort of maintaining an open dialogue with the European and national courts, it focuses on the elements that might put at risk such assessments, and attempts to demonstrate why the Italian Constitutional Court should not abandon its traditional approach, that proved to meet with success even in a series of recent occasions

di Fulvio Maria Palombino

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione. - 2. Le due dimensioni (soggettiva ed oggettiva) del giudizio che si svolge davanti alla Corte europea. - 3. Le ragioni che impediscono di affermare l'esistenza di un monopolio interpretativo della Corte europea. - 4. La rilevanza della diversa questione del valore della giurisprudenza di Strasburgo al di là del caso concreto: C. cost., n. 49/2015. - 5. Osservazioni conclusive.

 
The idea whereby the Strasbourg Court would be the sole judge entrusted with the interpretation of the European Con-vention of Human Rights does not find any support in its practice nor in the Convention itself. Neither is it possible to infer so from the Italian constitutional case-law. Hence, what is relevant is another question: whether the effects of a Strasbourg interpretation extend beyond the disputing parties. According to the Italian Constitutional Court, this might be the case but with a caveat, i.e. only where a "consolidated law" resulting from the jurisprudence of the Europe-an Court exists. Moving from the increasing trend of the latter to spell out unexpressed principles of the Convention, even though no reason suggests doing so, it is argued that a prudent approach in the matter appears both correct and necessary

di Nicola Colacino

SOMMARIO: 1. Cenni introduttivi. - 2. Il sindacato di costituzionalità sul rispetto degli obblighi internazionali e il mo-dello del doppio scrutinio delineato nelle sentenze "gemelle" del 2007. - 3. Primato funzionale della Costituzione ed espansione "regolata" delle tutele. - 4. La pregiudiziale assiologica di Corte cost. n. 49/2015 e il dilemma del giudice comune.

Some recent judgments of the Constitutional Court, related to the protection of fundamental rights within the EU and ECHR legal systems, seem to prove a conservative turn in the Court's approach to the relationship with such systems. Namely, if in judgments nos. 348 and 349 of 2007 and in some subsequent decisions the Court showed some significant openings towards the acceptance of a principle of maximum protection of fundamental rights, regardless of their system of origin, in its more recent jurisprudence the Court has repeatedly affirmed the primacy of the Constitution in the field of the protection of fundamental rights and, correspondingly, its essential role as custodian of this primacy. The present contribution submits this jurisprudence to a brief critical analysis, to highlight the possible risks deriving from this new approach, with respect to both the need of maintaining a correct balance in inter-system relations and the difficulties faced by national courts.

di Rosa Stella De Fazio

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione. - 2. Il ruolo della Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo. Analisi e conseguenze di un "monopolio" interpretativo. - 3. Il Protocollo n. 16 della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell'uomo: una pos-sibile via al "dialogo tra Corti". - 4. Considerazioni conclusive.

The research aims at analyzing the balance between respect for the European public order of human rights and recognition of the independence of constitutional values, which emerged in the tenth anniversary of the rulings of the Constitutional Court No. 348 and No. 349 of 2007 ("twin sentences"). The study reveals the tendency shown by the Constitutional Court in preserving its competence to judge the conformity of the rules of the Convention with the entire Constitution, in order to grant a greater protection guaranteed by the internal legal system compared to the European one. In addition, following the enactment of the "twin sentences", some important consequences emerged in relation to the "interpretive monopoly" held by the European Court of Human Right in giving a unique interpretation of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Such consequences could be summarized in the jurisprudential application by the Italian judges of the norms of the ECHR as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights. A possible panacea to the consequent erosion of the national sovereignty is reflected in the greater openness to a "dialogue" between National Courts and the European Court of Human Right, whose "advisory opinion" mechanism, provided by Protocol No. 16 to the ECHR, could represent a concrete demonstration.

di Costanza Masciotta

SOMMARIO: 1. Premessa. - 2. L'obbligo del previo esaurimento dei rimedi interni e la sua evoluzione ermeneutica nella giurisprudenza convenzionale. - 3. I casi Costa e Pavan e Parrillo contro Italia: verso la creazione di una "pregiudiziale di convenzionalità"? - 4. Considerazioni conclusive.

This article provides a detailed analysis concerning a recent practice adopted by the European Court of Human Rights on the requirement of exercising all of the internal remedies, ex art. 35 CEDU.
Whenever the violation of the Convention stems from Parliamentary law, the Strasbourg Court considers the constitu-tional judgement an "ineffective" national remedy, due to the lack of direct action before the Italian Constitutional Court.
This practice was embraced also in two recent judgments, Costa e Pavan vs. Italy and Parrillo vs. Italy: both concern-ing the Italian law on artificial procreation.
The article aims at figuring out whether this kind of "direct action" before the Strasbourg Court creates a "short circuit" with the Italian Constitutional Court.
Furthermore, the article investigates the current status of "twin judgments" model and aims at verifying whether the direct action before the Strasbourg Court is an established practice or an extraordinary exception justified by the princi-ple of maximum expansion of fundamental rights.

di Pierfrancesco Rossi

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione. - 2. L'obbligo di interpretazione convenzionalmente orientata nelle "sentenze gemelle" e il suo fondamento gerarchico-formale. - 3. I rilievi della dottrina in merito al valore assegnato dalle "sentenze gemelle" alla giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo. - 4. Le precisazioni in merito all'obbligo di interpretazione conforme operate dalla giurisprudenza costituzionale successiva alle "sentenze gemelle" e culminate nella sentenza n. 49 del 2015. - 5. I problemi che restano irrisolti dopo la sentenza n. 49 del 2015 alla luce della dottrina e della giurisprudenza successive. - 6. Una proposta di solu-zione: l'obbligo di interpretazione conforme alla giurisprudenza della Corte di Strasburgo come obbligo di prendere in considerazione. - 7. La necessità di un ripensamento sul fondamento dell'obbligo di interpretazione conforme alla giurisprudenza EDU: l'abbandono della concezione gerarchico-formale. - 8. Conclusioni.

 
The Italian Constitutional Court's current approach to the value of ECtHR case law in domestic proceedings, as most recently framed in Judgment No. 49/2015, has provoked criticism from commentators and given rise to inconsistent ju-dicial practice. After an analysis of the main features of this approach, this article makes two proposals in order to ad-dress its shortcomings. Firstly, it suggests that the obligation to interpret domestic law consistently with ECtHR case law should be qualified as a 'duty to take into account'. Pursuant to this model, which is adopted inter alia by UK and German courts, national judges must consider all ECtHR precedents relevant to their decision, but are allowed to depart from them by putting forward cogent substantive arguments. It is argued that this model can reconcile the need to promote compliance with ECtHR case law with the need to safeguard the scope of liberty that the ECHR itself provides to national courts. Secondly, the paper contends that, in order to give an adequate constitutional foundation to the 'duty to take into account' ECtHR case law, the Italian Constitutional Court might follow in the footsteps of the German Constitutional Court and adopt an axiological conception of consistent interpretation. That is, the 'duty to take into account' might be grounded on the openness of the Italian Constitution towards international law, rather than on the ECHR's status in the Italian hierarchy of laws.

di Gaetano Silvestri

SOMMARIO: 1. Premessa. - 2. La genesi delle sentenze. - 3. La contestualizzazione delle sentenze. - 4. I controlimiti. - 5. I trattati internazionali sono tutti eguali?. - 6. Il futuro.