霍根律师在意大利任仕达案中的意见:解除宪法炸弹

Orlando Scarcello
{"title":"霍根律师在意大利任仕达案中的意见:解除宪法炸弹","authors":"Orlando Scarcello","doi":"10.1163/27725650-01020011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nIn this essay I summarize the Randstad Italia case, involving a preliminary reference from the Corte di Cassazione to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“cjeu”). By referring to the cjeu, the Corte di Cassazione attempts to overcome the interpretation of Article 111(8) of the Italian Constitution provided by the Corte Costituzionale. The Corte di Cassazione deems the restrictive interpretation of the notion of “reason of jurisdiction” incompatible with the EU principle of effective judicial protection, as it prevents plaintiffs from being heard by the Corte di Cassazione when their procedural rights have been violated. The Opinion of Advocate General Hogan is then considered, and it is showed how it proposes a solution of the case that avoids a possible constitutional clash with Italy. ag Hogan suggests a minimum standard of effective protection that leaves room for national procedural autonomy, in this case via the restrictive interpretation of Article 111(8) given by the Corte Costituzionale.","PeriodicalId":275877,"journal":{"name":"The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Opinion of Advocate General Hogan in Randstad Italia: Disarming the Constitutional Bomb\",\"authors\":\"Orlando Scarcello\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/27725650-01020011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nIn this essay I summarize the Randstad Italia case, involving a preliminary reference from the Corte di Cassazione to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“cjeu”). By referring to the cjeu, the Corte di Cassazione attempts to overcome the interpretation of Article 111(8) of the Italian Constitution provided by the Corte Costituzionale. The Corte di Cassazione deems the restrictive interpretation of the notion of “reason of jurisdiction” incompatible with the EU principle of effective judicial protection, as it prevents plaintiffs from being heard by the Corte di Cassazione when their procedural rights have been violated. The Opinion of Advocate General Hogan is then considered, and it is showed how it proposes a solution of the case that avoids a possible constitutional clash with Italy. ag Hogan suggests a minimum standard of effective protection that leaves room for national procedural autonomy, in this case via the restrictive interpretation of Article 111(8) given by the Corte Costituzionale.\",\"PeriodicalId\":275877,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\"84 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/27725650-01020011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/27725650-01020011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这篇文章中,我总结了任仕达意大利案,涉及从Corte di Cassazione到欧盟法院(“cjeu”)的初步参考。通过提及法院,Cassazione法院试图克服宪法法院对《意大利宪法》第111(8)条的解释。法院认为,对“管辖权理由”概念的限制性解释不符合欧盟的有效司法保护原则,因为当原告的程序性权利受到侵犯时,法院无法听取原告的意见。然后考虑辩护律师霍根的意见,并展示了它如何提出一个解决方案,以避免可能与意大利发生宪法冲突。ag Hogan建议有效保护的最低标准,为国家程序自治留有余地,在这种情况下,通过宪法法院对第111(8)条的限制性解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Opinion of Advocate General Hogan in Randstad Italia: Disarming the Constitutional Bomb
In this essay I summarize the Randstad Italia case, involving a preliminary reference from the Corte di Cassazione to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“cjeu”). By referring to the cjeu, the Corte di Cassazione attempts to overcome the interpretation of Article 111(8) of the Italian Constitution provided by the Corte Costituzionale. The Corte di Cassazione deems the restrictive interpretation of the notion of “reason of jurisdiction” incompatible with the EU principle of effective judicial protection, as it prevents plaintiffs from being heard by the Corte di Cassazione when their procedural rights have been violated. The Opinion of Advocate General Hogan is then considered, and it is showed how it proposes a solution of the case that avoids a possible constitutional clash with Italy. ag Hogan suggests a minimum standard of effective protection that leaves room for national procedural autonomy, in this case via the restrictive interpretation of Article 111(8) given by the Corte Costituzionale.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Victim Status of Individuals in Climate Change Litigation before the ECtHR State Immunity from Civil Jurisdiction in Transboundary Environmental Litigations The Deterrent Effect of Financial Sanctions Pursuant to Article 260(2) tfeu in the Context of Violations of Environmental Obligations Authorisations to Emit Greenhouse Gases – A Conflict-of-Laws Perspective Upholding Maritime Migrants’ Rights at the Borders of Europe – J.A. and Others v. Italy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1