The paper analyzes the recent openings of the European Court of Human Rights (judgment Parrillo v. Italy last August 28, 2015), in order to screen the existence of the admissibility condition relating to the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies (Art. 35 par. 1 ECHR), in cases where Italian applicants complain violations descending from a law or legislative omission. Starting from the case Broycek of 1989, in such cases, the Court had ruled that Italian applicant was required to bring the matter before the Italian courts, before lodging an application in according to the art. 34 ECHR due to the absence, in the Italian system of constitutional justice, of a direct appeal to the Constitutional Court, and therefore an action available to the individual, suitable to obtain law abolition. Recently the ECtHR seems inclined to accept the setting defense of the Italian Government that invokes the twin-known judgments n. 348 and n. 349 of 2007 of the Constitutional judge, to support the existence by now of an obligation to the ordinary judge to interpret in conformity with the ECHR and, in case where this is not possible, a requirement of uprising of constitutionality/conventionality matter.
Sussidiarietà della tutela convenzionale e nuove prove di dialogo tra le Corti. Parrillo c. Italia: novità in tema di accessibilità del giudizio costituzionale dopo le ‘sentenze gemelle’ (e la sentenza n. 49 del 2015) / B. Randazzo. - In: DIRITTI UMANI E DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE. - ISSN 1971-7105. - 9:3(2015), pp. 617-624. [10.12829/81881]
Sussidiarietà della tutela convenzionale e nuove prove di dialogo tra le Corti. Parrillo c. Italia: novità in tema di accessibilità del giudizio costituzionale dopo le ‘sentenze gemelle’ (e la sentenza n. 49 del 2015)
B. Randazzo
2015
Abstract
The paper analyzes the recent openings of the European Court of Human Rights (judgment Parrillo v. Italy last August 28, 2015), in order to screen the existence of the admissibility condition relating to the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies (Art. 35 par. 1 ECHR), in cases where Italian applicants complain violations descending from a law or legislative omission. Starting from the case Broycek of 1989, in such cases, the Court had ruled that Italian applicant was required to bring the matter before the Italian courts, before lodging an application in according to the art. 34 ECHR due to the absence, in the Italian system of constitutional justice, of a direct appeal to the Constitutional Court, and therefore an action available to the individual, suitable to obtain law abolition. Recently the ECtHR seems inclined to accept the setting defense of the Italian Government that invokes the twin-known judgments n. 348 and n. 349 of 2007 of the Constitutional judge, to support the existence by now of an obligation to the ordinary judge to interpret in conformity with the ECHR and, in case where this is not possible, a requirement of uprising of constitutionality/conventionality matter.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
1971-7105-25542-8.pdf
accesso riservato
Tipologia:
Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione
115.1 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
115.1 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.