Monismo e dualismo nei rapporti tra Cedu e ordinamento costituzionale interno. Fonti e processi interpretativi

La tesi analizza i rapporti tra l’ordinamento italiano e la Cedu, in particolare la collocazione della Cedu all’interno del sistema delle fonti alla luce della modifica dell’art. 117, comma 1 Cost. Si tratta di un tema molto dibattuto in dottrina, specialmente a seguito dell’entrata in vigore del Trattato di Lisbona. Questa tematica risulta strettamente connessa al profilo dell’interazione tra la Corte di Strasburgo e la Corte costituzionale e i giudici ordinari. L’analisi del profilo statico concernente lo status della Cedu nel sistema italiano deve quindi essere accompagnata dall’esame del profilo dinamico, relativo al ruolo della giurisprudenza della Corte di Strasburgo nell’esperienza dell’ordinamento nazionale. Entrambi i profili di indagine sono esaminati alla luce delle indicazioni provenienti dalla giurisprudenza della Corte costituzionale, della Corte di Cassazione e della Corte di Strasburgo. Prima di essere esaminate singolarmente, queste tematiche richiedono la preliminare ricognizione dei termini della dicotomia tra i due modelli concettuali di riferimento in tema di rapporti interordinamentali: il monismo e il dualismo. Trasferite nel peculiare contesto del sistema Cedu, tali categorie dogmatiche si arricchiscono di ulteriori profili, che esorbitano dalla sistemazione del rapporto tra fonti. La tenuta dei due paradigmi concettuali, che sono nati ed operano nel contesto della teorica delle fonti, deve essere verificata anche rispetto all’attuale fenomeno della produzione europea di diritto giurisprudenziale ed alla capacità paradigmatica assunta dalla giurisprudenza di Strasburgo. Il diritto e le istituzioni giuridiche tendono ad assumere sempre più sembianze giurisdizionali, generando un’osmosi che porta a trasferire il focus dai rapporti interordinamentali ai rapporti tra giurisprudenze.

Lotta alla criminalita' e salvaguardia dei diritti e delle liberta' fondamentali nell'U.E.

La ricerca è dedicata a verificare se e come, a livello dell’Unione europea, la lotta alla criminalità (ed in particolare quella organizzata) venga condotta nel rispetto di diritti e libertà fondamentali, e se la cooperazione tra Stati membri su questo fronte possa giungere a promuovere standard omogenei ed elevati di tutela degli stessi. Gli ambiti di cooperazione interessati sono principalmente quello giudiziario in materia penale e quello di polizia, e la ritrosia degli Stati a cedere all’Unione competenze in materia si è accompagnata ad un ritardo ancora maggiore dell’emersione, nell’ambito degli stessi, della dimensione dei diritti. Ciò ha reso molto difficile lo sviluppo completo ed equilibrato di uno “spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia” (art. 67 TFUE). L’assetto istituzionale introdotto dal Trattato di Lisbona e l’attribuzione di valore giuridico vincolante alla Carta hanno però posto le basi per il superamento della condizione precedente, anche grazie al fatto che, negli ambiti richiamati, la salvaguardia dei diritti è divenuta competenza ed obiettivo esplicito dell’Unione. Centrale è per la ricerca la cooperazione giudiziaria in materia penale, che ha visto la ricca produzione normativa di stampo repressivo recentemente bilanciata da interventi del legislatore europeo a finalità garantista e promozionale. L’analisi degli strumenti nella prospettiva indicata all’inizio dell’esposizione è quindi oggetto della prima parte dell’elaborato. La seconda parte affronta invece la cooperazione di polizia e quello degli interventi volti alla confisca dei beni e ad impedire il riciclaggio, misure – queste ultime - di particolare rilievo soprattutto per il contrasto al crimine organizzato. Sottesi all’azione dell’Unione in queste materie sono, in modo preponderante, due diritti: quello alla salvaguardia dei dati personali e quello al rispetto della proprietà privata. Questi, anche in ragione delle peculiarità che li caratterizzano e della loro natura di diritti non assoluti, sono analizzati con particolare attenzione.

L'equilibrio istituzionale nell'Unione europea

Il lavoro intende dimostrare che lo sviluppo giurisprudenziale del principio di equilibrio istituzionale, il rapporto tra detto principio e il principio di leale cooperazione, il riconoscimento istituzionale e giurisprudenziale dell’importanza della scelta della base giuridica nella tutela dell’equilibrio istituzionale hanno concorso a determinare la dinamicità dell’evoluzione dell’assetto interistituzionale della Comunità e dell’Unione. Focalizzata l’attenzione sulle nuove basi giuridiche introdotte dal Trattato di Lisbona, sono stati definiti gli assetti del nuovo equilibrio istituzionale analizzando, da un lato, il nuovo quadro istituzionale definito dal titolo III del Trattato sull’Unione europea e, in particolare la “costituzionalizzazione” del principio orizzontale di leale cooperazione. In conclusione, si rileva che con l´entrata in vigore del Trattato di Lisbona le dimensioni politica e giuridica dell’equilibrio istituzionale sono state interessate da due mutamenti di ampia portata. In primo luogo, il completamento del processo di revisione dei trattati apertosi con la dichiarazione di Laeken ha definito un nuovo quadro istituzionale, che si è riflesso in rinnovati meccanismi di funzionamento dell’architettura istituzionale. In secondo luogo, la risposta dell’Unione alla crisi economica e finanziaria ha messo al centro dell’agenda il suo bilancio, la programmazione pluriennale e l’Unione economica. Nel primo caso un’analisi dell’articolo 295 TFUE ha costituito la base di una riflessione sulle modalità di codificazione delle relazioni istituzionali attraverso accordi e sul rapporto tra questi ultimi e il titolo III TUE. Si è rilevata, in particolare, un’incongruenza tra gli obblighi di leale cooperazione orizzontale sanciti dall’articolo 13(2) TUE e gli strumenti finalizzati alla loro istituzionalizzazione. Nel secondo caso, invece, è stato evidenziato come il preminente ruolo del Consiglio europeo, al quale il Trattato di Lisbona ha riconosciuto lo status d'istituzione, abbia modificato gli equilibri, determinando un ritorno del ricorso all’integrazione differenziata rispetto a politiche disciplinate dai Trattati.

The autonomy of the EU legal order and the law-making activities of international organizations. Some examples regarding the Council most recent practice. Research Papers in Law 03/2012

[Introduction.] It is generally believed that while the principle of the autonomy of the EU legal order, in the sense of constitutional and institutional autonomy that is to say what concerns the autonomous decision-making of the EU, has been clearly strengthened by the most recent jurisprudence of the Court of Justice (eg. Moxplant3, Intertanko or the Kadi/Al Baraakat judgements or the Opinion 1/2009 of the CJEU etc.) as well as, in my opinion, in many aspects by the Treaty of Lisbon, it is still valid to add that the principle of a favourable approach, stemming from the Court jurisprudence, for the enhanced openness of the EU legal order to international law has remained equally important for the EU4. On the other hand, it should be also seen that in a globalized world, and following the increased role of the EU as an international actor, its indispensable and crucial role concerning the creation of world (legal) order in many policy fields ( for example let's think about the G20 issues, the global economic and financial crisis, the role of the EU in promoting and protecting human rights worldwide, the implementation of the multilateral or regional conventional law, developed in the framework the UN (e.g. in the field of agriculture or environment etc) or what concerns the Kyoto process on climate change or the conservation of marine biological resources at international level etc), it seems reasonable and justified to submit that the influence, for example, of the law-making activities of the main stakeholder international organizations in the mentioned policy-areas on the EU (especially on the development of its constantly evolving legal order) or vice-versa the influence of the EU law-making practice on these international organizations is significant, in many aspects mutually interdependent and more and more remarkable. This tendency of the 21st century doesn't mean, however, in my view, that the notion of the autonomy of the EU legal order would have been weakened by this increasing interaction between international law and EU law over the passed years. This contribution is going to demonstrate and prove these departuring points by giving some concrete examples from the most recent practice of the Council (all occuring either in the second half of 2009 or after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty), and which relate to two very important policy areas in the EU, namely the protection of human rights and the Common Fishery Policy.

Turkey's boycott of the Cyprus EU presidency: context, meaning and its consequences. EU Centre in Singapore Working Paper No. 9, September 2012

In 2011 Turkish officials began indicating their intention to suspend all contact with Cyprus’s presidency of the Council of the European Union (EU), slated for the second half of 2012, given the issues surrounding the unresolved Cyprus conflict. This came as the latest development in a long and arduous path of Turkey’s application for EU membership that began in 1987. This paper provides the context – the Cyprus conflict, Turkey’s EU accession negotiations, and the Cyprus reunification talks – in understanding the reasons and consequences of Ankara’s boycott of the Cyprus presidency. The article also considers the evolving nature and the role of the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, especially after the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, and how this may have played into Turkey’s calculations in calling for the boycott.

The Cyprus Presidency: Pragmatism amid European anxiety. CEPS Commentary, 24 January 2013

Despite several daunting obstacles, the low expectations and the high level of apprehension that accompanied the start of the Cyprus Presidency, Thomas Linders and Steven Blockmans find in a new CEPS Commentary that the small, remote and politically divided island nevertheless succeeded in scoring a number of positive results, thanks in part to the country’s pragmatic approach to the job and the perpetual motion of the EU legislature. As a corrective instrument to big state politics in the EU, however, the role of the Presidency remains limited. This underscores the changed nature of the rotating Presidency of the the Council of the EU since the Lisbon Treaty entered into force. Despite several daunting obstacles, the low expectations and the high level of apprehension that accompanied the start of the Cyprus Presidency, this CEPS Commentary by Thomas Linders and Steven Blockmans expresses surprise that the small, remote and politically divided island succeeded in scoring a number of positive results at all, thanks in part to the country’s pragmatic approach to the job

O Serviço Europeu de Acção Externa

Com esta dissertação pretendemos analisar o Serviço Europeu de Ação Externa como uma das principais inovações do Tratado de Lisboa. O Serviço Europeu de Ação Externa é o corpo diplomático da União Europeia que se define pela coesão, cooperação, e divulgação da Politica Externa da União Europeia. No entanto, os seus primeiros anos não foram fáceis, iniciou a sua vigência em plena crise económica e suscitou várias dúvidas aos Estados-Membros, no que diz respeito à soberania. Contudo, defendemos que o SEAE mostra a verdadeira força da União, pois permite a coesão dos Estados-Membros que falam a uma só voz perante outros Estados e organizações. Para além disso, o papel do SEAE afigura-se relevante pelo número de cidadãos que residem em Estados terceiros, cabendo assim à União Europeia através do SEAE a proteção destes cidadãos europeus.

National Parliaments and their Role in European Integration: The EU’s Democratic Deficit in Times of Economic Hardship and Political Insecurity. Bruges Political Research Paper 28/2013

The article describes and assesses the role of national parliaments in EU legislation considering the reforms introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. This is closely connected with the understanding and (political) application of the principle of subsidiarity. After an analysis of the possibilities and limitations of the relevant legal regulations in the post-Lisbon age, alternative ways for participation of national legislators on the European level are being scrutinized and proposed. The issue of democratic legitimization is also interconnected with the current political reforms being discussed in order to overcome the Euro Crisis. Finally, the authors argue that it does not make sense to include national parliaments in the existing legislative triangle of the EU, but instead to promote the creation of a new kind of supervisory body.

Bridging qualified majority and unanimity decision-making in the EU. IHS Political Science Series No. 132, February 2013

The EU has tried to bridge decision making by qualified majority and unanimity over the years by expanding qualified majorities (consensus) or by making unanimities easier to achieve. I call this decision-making procedure q-“unanimity” and trace its history from the Luxembourg compromise to the Lisbon Treaty, and to more recent agreements. I analyze the most recent and explicit mechanism of this bridging (article 31 (2) of the Lisbon Treaty) and identify one specific means by which the transformation of qualified majorities to unanimities is achieved: the reduction of precision or scope of the decision, so that different behaviors can be covered by it. I provide empirical evidence of such a mechanism by analyzing legislative decisions. Finally, I argue that this bridging is a ubiquitous feature of EU institutions, used in Treaties as well as in legislative decision-making.

The European Citizen's Initiative: next big thing or new false good idea? Egmont Paper No. 59, July 2013

From the Introduction. One innovative element of the Lisbon Treaty was the creation of a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI). At the time, this was sometimes hailed as a fundamental change in the European institutional system. A few years after the entry into force of the Treaty, however, much less is heard about this “first truly transnational instrument of modern direct democracy”, this “revolution in disguise”, this “very innovative and symbolic” provision. This could seem surprising at first sight. Since the entry into force of the Treaty, the implementation of this provision has been remarkably rapid. Meanwhile, new arguments have risen concerning the lack of democratic legitimacy of the European Union, and the lack of connection between the European institutions and the citizens.

The European Citizens‘ Initiative – Chances, Constraints and Limits. IHS Political Science Series No. 134, April 2013

In order to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the establishment of European Union citizenship under the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, the year 2013 has been designated by the European Commission as the ‘European Year of Citizens’. The European Citizen’s Initiative (ECI) – labelled by the Commission as a ‘direct gateway through which citizens can make their voices heard in Brussels’ - may emerge in the European awareness as a new appealing platform for policy-shaping and communication. The ECI, through its transnational vox civilis character, figures among the most important novelties in the Lisbon Treaty and in the long run may facilitate and accelerate the bottom-up building of a European demos. The question is, however, whether the mechanism of pan-European signature collection is strong enough to face the democratic challenges present in the EU, especially during the ongoing financial crisis.

Now We Are One...A Rough Start for the EEAS

The first year of the European External Action Service (EEAS) has already elicited much comment, both internally and externally. This contribution briefly reviews the nature of this commentary and then suggests some possible short-term ‘wins’ for the Service, as well as some challenges that will require a longer-term perspective. The main shorter-term issue considers the need to create stronger linkages and priorities between existing strategies and to start the difficult process of melding a common mindset within the Service. The longer-term challenges revolve around recruitment, balance and resources. The latter is particularly important in order to enable the delegations to assume their full roles. The barrage of criticism that greeted the EEAS’s first birthday is also a commentary on how critical the role of the Service is to achieving the core goals of the Lisbon Treaty in external relations; namely, to aim towards more coherence, effectiveness and visibility.

The ‘Lisbonisation’ of the European Parliament: Assessing progress, shortcomings and challenges for democratic accountability in the area of freedom, security and justice. CEPS Paper on Liberty and Security in Europe No. 58, September 2013

This paper examines the performance of the European Parliament in EU AFSJ law and policy-making from the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty until the end of the first half of 2013. The paper situates the EP in the new post-Lisbon institutional setting, documenting its transition to ‘AFSJ decision-maker’, and its new powers to shape and make policy covering the EU’s internal and external security agenda. While the paper finds that the EP has become an active co-owner of the EU AFSJ post-Lisbon, with the Parliament demonstrating a dynamic adjustment to its new post-Lisbon role and powers, the authors identify a set of new developments and challenges that have arisen in the conduct of democratic accountability by the EP in the AFSJ since 2009, which call for critical reflection ahead of the new parliamentary term 2014-2019 and the post-2014 phase of the EU’s AFSJ.

The Common Agricultural Policy: The Future of the CAP and why real reform will never happen. EUMA Paper Vol. 6 No. 7, May 2010

This paper sets out to examine the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union from its inception to present day 1. Specifically, this paper seeks to answer the following questions: (1) What long-term effects, if any, did the circumstances surrounding, and leading up to the formation of the CAP have; (2) What have internal and external responses been to the CAP; (3) How has the CAP responded to major events both internally (within the European Union), and externally (internationally); (4) What affect does the recently implemented Lisbon Treaty2 have on the CAP, and (5) What is the future of the CAP and CAP reform? In order to answer these questions this paper begins with the contention that the CAP is in fact the largest and strongest driving force of EU expansion. In support of this proposition, this paper first examines the circumstances and events leading to the creation of the CAP in the European Community. Second, this paper examines what long-term effects the circumstances surrounding the CAP’s inception have had on the policy, particularly calling attention to the disproportionate Franco-German CAP benefits. Third, the paper then examines how the CAP has responded to historical events that have had significant effects on the European community, particularly EU expansion, the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, and the recent worldwide economic crisis. Finally, this paper examines common criticisms of and conflicts surrounding the CAP, both internally and externally, and argues that CAP reform, at least within the current institutional framework of the European Union, can never truly occur.

EU citizenship: Citizenship and identity beyond national borders. EU Centre Singapore Background Brief No. 10, October 2013

The 1992 Maastricht Treaty introduced the concept of European Union citizenship. All citizens of the 28 EU member states are also EU citizens through the very fact that their countries are members of the EU. Acquired EU citizenship gives them the right to free movement, settlement and employment across the EU, the right to vote in European elections, and also on paper the right to consular protection from other EU states' embassies when abroad. The concept of citizenship in Europe – and indeed anywhere in the world – has been evolving over the years, and continues to evolve. Against this time scale, the concept of modern citizenship as attached to the nation-state would seem ephemeral. The idea of EU citizenship therefore does not need to be regarded as a revolutionary phenomenon that is bound to mitigate against the natural inclination of European citizens towards national identities, especially in times of economic and financial crises. In fact, the idea of EU citizenship has even been criticised by some scholars as being of little substantive value in addition to whatever rights and freedoms European citizens already have. Nonetheless the ‘constitutional moment’ that the Maastricht Treaty achieved for the idea of EU citizenship has served more than just symbolic value – the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights is now legally binding, for instance. The idea of EU citizenship also put pressure on the Union and its leaders to address the perceived democratic deficit that the EU is often accused of. In attempts to cement the political rights of EU citizens, the citizens’ initiative was included in Lisbon Treaty allowing citizens to directly lobby the European Commission for new policy initiatives or changes.