The status assigned to the ECHR (and to Strasbourg case-law) by recent Italian Constitu- tional jurisprudence – I.1. Decisions no. 348 and no. 349 of 2007 and the ECHR provisions as “interposed standards” of a constitutionality review in light of Art. 117, par. 1, of the Italian Constitution – I.2.The corroboration of such an asset after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty: Decision no. 80 of 2011 – I.3. The impact of the Decisions issued by the Strasbourg Court on the national legal system: Judgment no. 113 of 2011 and the “new” cause for the reopening of a proceeding further to a condemnation judgment ruled by the European Court – II. The alternatives cast for judges in light of the contrast between National and Conventional provisions: an interpretation consistent with Convention rights or raising a Constitutional legitimacy question– II.1. The interpretation consistent with Convention rights as a privileged solution for Ordinary Judges– II.2. The constitutional legitimacy question raised for the alleged violation of Art. 117, par. 1, of the Italian Constitution – II.3. The analogy between the case analyzed by the Strasbourg ruling and the case concerning the question of constitutional legitimacy–III. The limitations to the integration of the ECHR within the Italian legal system: the compliance with Constitutional principles– IV. Conclusions.
The Entrenchment of the ECHR in the Italian Legal System- Following the jurisprudence of the Italian Constitutional Court
MANES, VITTORIO
2013
Abstract
The status assigned to the ECHR (and to Strasbourg case-law) by recent Italian Constitu- tional jurisprudence – I.1. Decisions no. 348 and no. 349 of 2007 and the ECHR provisions as “interposed standards” of a constitutionality review in light of Art. 117, par. 1, of the Italian Constitution – I.2.The corroboration of such an asset after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty: Decision no. 80 of 2011 – I.3. The impact of the Decisions issued by the Strasbourg Court on the national legal system: Judgment no. 113 of 2011 and the “new” cause for the reopening of a proceeding further to a condemnation judgment ruled by the European Court – II. The alternatives cast for judges in light of the contrast between National and Conventional provisions: an interpretation consistent with Convention rights or raising a Constitutional legitimacy question– II.1. The interpretation consistent with Convention rights as a privileged solution for Ordinary Judges– II.2. The constitutional legitimacy question raised for the alleged violation of Art. 117, par. 1, of the Italian Constitution – II.3. The analogy between the case analyzed by the Strasbourg ruling and the case concerning the question of constitutional legitimacy–III. The limitations to the integration of the ECHR within the Italian legal system: the compliance with Constitutional principles– IV. Conclusions.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
