{"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}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
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。