The article analyses the issue of the conflict between a national final non-criminal judgment and the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union, on the one hand, and of the European Court of Human Rights, on the other hand, on the basis of a reconstruction of the case law of the European Courts and of the Italian Constitutional Court. In particular, the article investigates whether the concept of ius superveniens, capable of circumscribing or preventing the effects of the national final judgment, may also be attributable to the case law of the European Courts or, instead, whether the national final judgment opposing to the European Courts judgments remains valid, but only imposing a State liability. Although the system of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Union Law are different and the degree of integration between national courts and each of the two European Courts is different, too, the question of the conflict between the national final non-criminal judgment and each of the two European Courts judgments has come to the same conclusion: the national final judgement is opposed to the reopening of the internal trial or to the revocation of itself, if the national law has not provided an appropriate instrument for this purpose. In the absence of such an instrument, no specific obligation to do so obligates the State and the conflict only imposes a duty for compensation.

Intangibilità del giudicato nazionale amministrativo ed esecuzione delle sentenze delle Corti europee: un’ipotesi di convergenza di soluzioni

PETRALIA, GIUSEPPINA
2017

Abstract

The article analyses the issue of the conflict between a national final non-criminal judgment and the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union, on the one hand, and of the European Court of Human Rights, on the other hand, on the basis of a reconstruction of the case law of the European Courts and of the Italian Constitutional Court. In particular, the article investigates whether the concept of ius superveniens, capable of circumscribing or preventing the effects of the national final judgment, may also be attributable to the case law of the European Courts or, instead, whether the national final judgment opposing to the European Courts judgments remains valid, but only imposing a State liability. Although the system of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Union Law are different and the degree of integration between national courts and each of the two European Courts is different, too, the question of the conflict between the national final non-criminal judgment and each of the two European Courts judgments has come to the same conclusion: the national final judgement is opposed to the reopening of the internal trial or to the revocation of itself, if the national law has not provided an appropriate instrument for this purpose. In the absence of such an instrument, no specific obligation to do so obligates the State and the conflict only imposes a duty for compensation.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

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: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11769/312245
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact