The article offers a careful reconstruction of the Italian constitutional case-law about the direct application of the EU law, supporting the idea that Constitutional Court’s sent. No. 269/2017 does not overturn the solution adopted in the famous sent. Granital, because the latter derived from juridical premises which cannot be found in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The A. further claims that the “condicio sine qua non” for the derogation to the “centralized model” of judicial review of legislation and the preference for direct application of an EU rule (eventually after a preliminary referral to the Court of Justice) is – at least in every litigation between private parties – the horizontal effect of such a rule: on the contrary, if this lacks, the judge does not have a rule that would substitute the national law in the decision of the pending lawsuit. In this hypothesis, the alternative between reverting the issue to the Constitutional Court or preliminary referring to the EU Court does not even arise, the first solution being the only correct one.

CDFUE e rapporti inter privatos ovvero «L’essenziale è invisibile agli occhi»? (ancora sulla doppia pregiudizialità…passando per Saint Exupery)

Giuseppa Sorrenti
2021-01-01

Abstract

The article offers a careful reconstruction of the Italian constitutional case-law about the direct application of the EU law, supporting the idea that Constitutional Court’s sent. No. 269/2017 does not overturn the solution adopted in the famous sent. Granital, because the latter derived from juridical premises which cannot be found in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The A. further claims that the “condicio sine qua non” for the derogation to the “centralized model” of judicial review of legislation and the preference for direct application of an EU rule (eventually after a preliminary referral to the Court of Justice) is – at least in every litigation between private parties – the horizontal effect of such a rule: on the contrary, if this lacks, the judge does not have a rule that would substitute the national law in the decision of the pending lawsuit. In this hypothesis, the alternative between reverting the issue to the Constitutional Court or preliminary referring to the EU Court does not even arise, the first solution being the only correct one.
2021
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11570/3211770
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact