10.15166/2499-8249/159
Daniele, Luigi
Luigi
Daniele
Università di Roma "Tor Vergata"
Il seguito del caso Taricco: l'Avvocato generale Bot non apre al dialogo tra Corti
The Sequel of the Taricco Case: Advocate General Bot Is not for Opening the Dialogue Between the Courts
European Papers (www.europeanpapers.eu)
2017
European Forum Insight
principle of legality in criminal matters
Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union
European Convention on Human Rights
Italian Constitution
Italian Constitutional Court
primacy of EU law
Research Centre For European Law, Unitelma Sapienza-University Of Rome
2017-09-07
it
2499-8249
text/html
PDF
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 International
European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2017 2(3), 987-1004
European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2017 2(3), 987-1004
European Forum Insight of 7 September 2017
I. Introduzione. - II. Brevi cenni sul caso Taricco e sul suo seguito. - III. La sentenza Taricco va confermata tout court o è possibile attenuarne il rigore?. - IV. Potrebbero essere meglio precisati i criteri della sentenza Taricco? - V. Potrebbe l'art. 53 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali permettere di continuare ad applicare in Italia gli artt. 160 e 161 c.p. in quanto più favorevoli del livello di tutela garantito dall'art. 49 della stessa Carta e dall'art. 7 CEDU? - VI. Potrebbe il rispetto della "identità nazionale" degli Stati membri (art. 4, par. 2, TUE) portare allo stesso risultato? - VII. Davvero l'art. 7 CEDU permette che i termini di prescrizione siano prolungati dopo la commissione del reato? - VIII. Conclusioni: l'Avvocato generale risponde realmente alle questioni pregiudiziali della Corte costituzionale?
The reference of the Constitutional Court for a preliminary ruling under Art. 267 TFEU in the follow-up of the Taricco case (Court of Justice, judgment of 8 September 2015, case C-105/14, Taricco et al. [GS]) should not be read as a bold challenge to the Court of Justice's ruling, but as an opportunity for a real dialogue between the two Courts on very delicate questions: the protection of fundamental rights, namely the principle of legality in criminal matters, and the possibility for Member States to maintain their higher level of protection in the scope of EU law. The referring Court offered three different solutions, each of which, in its view, would have avoided a clash between EU law and the basic principles of the Constitutional legal order. In case all the solutions were rejected, the Constitutional Court warned that this might trigger the so called "counter-limits" rule. Under this rule, EU law infringing fundamental principles of the national legal order or human rights as protected under the Constitution should not be enforced by Italian courts. The opinion delivered by AG Bot is not promising. Mr. Bot proposes to give a negative answer for each of the three preliminary questions and indicates that the ruling in Taricco should be confirmed as a whole. Were the Court of Justice to follow the Advocate General entirely, the clash with the Italian Constitutional Court would become almost unavoidable. The aim of this Insight is to point out at the many good grounds under which the Court of Justice may adopt a more understanding attitude towards the Constitutional Court and inaugurate a real dialogue between the two Courts.