Consorzio Italiano Management: (solo) una “precisazione” della dottrina CILFIT
Abstract: The blog post comments on the ECJ decision in Consorzio Italiano Management (C-561/19) of 6 October 2021.
​
The decision revisits (and substantially confirms) the CILFIT doctrine concerning the duty of national courts of last instance to refer preliminary questions to the ECJ under art. 267 TFEU and the exceptions thereto.
​
The post assesses the decision against the backdrop of AG Bobek's opinion, who, in light of the increasing workload of the Court suggested the Court to revisit the CILFIT doctrine, drawing upon the distinction between matters of interpretation and of application. National courts could be allowed a wider margin of operation as to matters of application, while maintaining a strong duty to refer as to the interpretation of EU law.
​
It is argued that the refusal by the Court to follow the AG's suggestions might be considered as a missed opportunity; however – it is submitted – the increasing pressure on the preliminary reference mechanism by new authoritarian governments in Europe is to be taken into consideration in explaining the Court's conservative (and defensive) decision.
Rinvio pregiudiziale ex art. 267 TFUE e procedimenti disciplinari nazionali nell’ambito della crisi del rule of law: CGUE, sentenza del 23 novembre 2021, C-564/19, IS
Abstract: The post comments on the ECJ Decision in IS (C-564/19) of 23 November 2021.
​
It is submitted that the decision is a strong defence of the preliminary ruling mechanism established under art. 267 TFEU in the context of the Rule of Law crisis in the EU.
​
Indeed, finding disciplinary proceedings initiated against national judges for having referred preliminary questions to the ECJ, the Court steps in (once again) in defence of national judges and their independence. However, it is argued, the core of the decision is not the independence of the judiciary under art. 19 TEU, rather the correct and unobstructed functioning of the preliminary referral mechanism, which has to be understood as the main device for legal integration in the EU.
Consorzio Italiano Management: (solo) una “precisazione” della dottrina CILFIT
Abstract: The blog post comments on the ECJ decision in Consorzio Italiano Management (C-561/19) of 6 October 2021.
​
The decision revisits (and substantially confirms) the CILFIT doctrine concerning the duty of national courts of last instance to refer preliminary questions to the ECJ under art. 267 TFEU and the exceptions thereto.
​
The post assesses the decision against the backdrop of AG Bobek's opinion, who, in light of the increasing workload of the Court suggested the Court to revisit the CILFIT doctrine, drawing upon the distinction between matters of interpretation and of application. National courts could be allowed a wider margin of operation as to matters of application, while maintaining a strong duty to refer as to the interpretation of EU law.
​
It is argued that the refusal by the Court to follow the AG's suggestions might be considered as a missed opportunity; however – it is submitted – the increasing pressure on the preliminary reference mechanism by new authoritarian governments in Europe is to be taken into consideration in explaining the Court's conservative (and defensive) decision.
I diritti LGBTIQ+ in Ungheria tra retorica identitaria e istanze sovranazionali(a margine di alcune recenti novità legislative)
Abstract: The blog post discusses the Hungarian legislation concerning LGBTIQ+ rights passed in June 2021.
​
First, a brief description of the content of said legislation is provided.
​
Afterwards, relevant diplomatic and legal reactions by other EU Member States, as well as supranational Institutions is reviewed.
​
Finally, the link between the identitarian rhetoric developed in Hungary and Poland and homophobic politics and legislation will be shown.
Il Parlamento nella pandemia. Note a commento delle misure adottate a tutela della continuità istituzionale
Abstract: the contribution discusses the measures adopted by the Italian Parliament during the Covid-19 pandemic in order to ensure the continuity of its proceedings.
​
Specifically, the contribution deals with the legitimacy of the application to MPs of limitations to the freedom of movement – both those with a general subjective scope of application (ie. the so called 'lockdown') and those with an individual one.
Furthermore, organisational dispositions (both with regard to the places of Parliamentary proceedings and their calendar) will be analysed.
​
Finally the contribution deals with the adaptation of the Anglo-Saxon parliamentary praxis of pairing to the Italian Parliament, highlighting its genesis, application and failure and discussing the reasons thereof.
La cooperazione rafforzata: la clausola del last resort
Abstract: La differenziazione è venuta caratterizzando strutturalmente il processo di integrazione europea e, con ogni verosimiglianza, manterrà questo ruolo anche in seguito al recesso del Regno Unito.
​
L’attuazione della logica in parola comporta tuttavia rischi di frammentazione, che devono essere bilanciati con le esigenze di flessibilità dell’Unione. La funzione di operare questo bilanciamento, nell’ambito della cooperazione rafforzata, è ricoperta dal requisito del last resort, la cui tutela dinanzi alla Corte di Giustizia risulta però piuttosto debole.
​
A fronte di questo quadro, si argomenta, spetta alla Commissione assicurare il rispetto del requisito del last resort: questa dovrà, in particolare, rifiutare di presentare una proposta di cooperazione rafforzata ogni qual volta ritenga che gli Stati membri siano in disaccordo su singoli punti di disciplina e non sull’opportunità di un’azione congiunta da parte dell’UE in un determinato settore.
Per tale via, si conclude, il requisito del last resort riceve un’adeguata tutela e la cooperazione rafforzata risulta una procedura allo stesso tempo equilibrata e percorribile.
Cittadinanza europea e circolazione delle persone nell'Area Europea di Libero Scambio
Abstract: The article discusses the case law of the Court of Justice of the EFTA States concerning the free movement of persons under the EEA Agreement.
It is submitted that the Court departs from the established case
law of the CJEU as it bases rights against the home State on the Directive 2004/38/EC (also known as Citizenship Directive).
First, the fundamental traits of the EEA Agreement – including the principle of homogeneity and the principle of structural heterogeneity – will be discussed, focusing on the transposition of the Directive in the EFTA Pillar.
The relevant case law of the EFTA Court will be then taken into critical consideration as it will be argued that it presupposes, against both the will of the Parties and the purpose of the Agreement, a normative framework equivalent to that of the EU Citizenship.