2006

Judgment No. 50 of 2006 (Annibale MARINI, Chairman - Alfio FINOCCHIARO, Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 200 of 2006 (Annibale MARINI, Chairman - Alfonso QUARANTA, Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 266 of 2006 (Annibale MARINI, Chairman - Alfio FINOCCHIARO, Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 341 of 2006 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Gaetano SILVESTRI, Author of the Judgment)

2007

Judgment No. 26 of 2007 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Giovanni Maria FLICK , Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 77 of 2007 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Romano VACCARELLA, Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 103 of 2007 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Alfonso QUARANTA, Author of the Judgment)

In this case, certain public sector directors challenged a law which provided for the automatic termination of their employment according to the logic of a political "spoils system". The Court held that, against the background of the "contractualisation" of the employment position of directors (i.e. their engagement on fixed-term contracts), it was necessary to provide adequate guarantees in order to uphold "principles of impartiality and the proper conduct of the business of administration". The ability of directors to work efficiently and effectively to achieve the results set for them would be compromised by the contested legislation, which the Court therefore struck down insofar as contrary to "the principle of continuity of administrative action which is closely related to that of the proper conduct of the business of administration".

Judgment No. 104 of 2007 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Sabino CASSESE, Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 171 of 2007 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Francesco AMIRANTE, Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 254 of 2007 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Maria Rita SAULLE, Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 320 of 2007 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Giovanni Maria FLICK , Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 322 of 2007 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Giovanni Maria FLICK , Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 348 of 2007 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Gaetano SILVESTRI, Author of the Judgment)

This case involved a challenge to the sums payable as compensation for the expropriation of building land at amounts below the market value of the properties concerned, averring a breach of their rights under the ECHR. The Court held that, in accordance with the amended Article 117(1) of the Constitution, the ordinary courts did not have the power to set aside legislation where incompatible with the Convention. Moreover, although international law may not be used to set aside Constitutional law, the Court "must always aim to establish a reasonable balance between the duties flowing from international law obligations, as imposed by Article 117(1) of the Constitution, and the safeguarding of the constitutionally protected interests contained in other articles of the Constitution", although on the facts, "there is no indication, on the basis of the above findings, of any incompatibility between Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR, as interpreted by the Strasbourg Court and the Italian constitutional order, with particular reference to Article 42 of the Constitution". The Court therefore struck down the contested legislation on the grounds that "The legitimate sacrifice which may be required in the public interest cannot have the practical effect of eliminating private property rights".

Judgment No. 349 of 2007 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Giuseppe TESAURO, Author of the Judgment)

In this case, owners of certain property requested compensation for the state's seizure of property without concluding the required compulsory purchase procedures. The Court rejected the argument that the provisions of the ECHR were directly effective in Italian law by virtue of the ECJ's findings that Convention rights form part of the general principles which it is to uphold. The force of Article 117 is to impose "a duty on Parliament to respect [international law] when enacting ordinary legislation". Ultimately, when weighing up the public interest and the conflicting private property rights, the Court must take into account the ECHR and jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court. The Court therefore struck down the contested provision since it required a sacrifice by private individuals in order to achieve the general interest of the recovery of the public finances.

Judgment No. 378 of 2007 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Paolo MADDALENA, Author of the Judgment)

In this case the Court considered various direct applications by the office of the Prime Minister against a law enacted by the autonomous province of Trento regulating environmental law matters (diversions of public waters for hydro-electricity, waste management and habitats protection). The Court struck down the legislation, insofar as not amended whilst the dispute was pending, on the grounds that: (a) it undermined the state's ability to enact uniform protection standards throughout the country, pursuant to its primary legislative competence over environmental law; (b) the provincial legislation purported to amend state legislation implementing Community directives; and c) relations with the EC are to be managed on a unitary level by the state and not by local self-governing bodies.

Judgment No. 401 of 2007 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Alfonso QUARANTA, Author of the Judgment)

2008

Judgment No. 26 of 2008 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Alfonso QUARANTA, Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 51 of 2008 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Sabino CASSESE, Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 64 of 2008 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Franco GALLO, Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 85 of 2008 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Giovanni Maria FLICK , Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 102 of 2008 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Franco GALLO, Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 103 of 2008 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Franco GALLO, Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 112 of 2008 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Giuseppe TESAURO, Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 128 of 2008 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Alfio FINOCCHIARO, Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 131 of 2008 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Luigi MAZZELLA, Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 143 of 2008 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Giovanni Maria FLICK, Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 181 of 2008 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Paolo Maria NAPOLITANO, Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 200 of 2008 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Gaetano SILVESTRI, Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 215 of 2008 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Giuseppe TESAURO, Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 219 of 2008 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Ugo DE SIERVO, Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 306 of 2008 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Francesco AMIRANTE, Author of the Judgment)

Judgment No. 326 of 2008 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Sabino CASSESE, Author of the Judgment)

In this case various regions seized the Court directly with a challenge to legislation implementing a decree-law issued by the government imposing certain limits on companies under public ownership or with mixed public-private ownership established by regional or local authorities which were more stringent than the limits placed on similar companies established by the state. The Court upheld the contested legislation on the grounds that it fell “under the state's exclusive legislative competence over private law insofar as ...aimed at defining the boundaries between administrative operations and business operations, ...and under the state's exclusive legislative competence over competition law insofar as ..aimed at eliminating distortions to competition”.

Judgment No. 334 of 2008 (Franco BILE, Chairman - Ugo DE SIERVO, Author of the Judgment)

In this case the Court considered a jurisdictional dispute between the Milan Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation on the one hand and the two houses of Parliament on the other concerning a case in which the courts had ordered the termination of the feeding of a person in a persistent vegetative state. The Chamber of Deputies and the Senate claimed that the courts had adopted “a substantially legislative decision”. The Court dismissed the dispute, finding that the houses of Parliament had sought to challenge the substantive merits of the court rulings, rather than establish that the courts “used the contested measures – which had all the characteristics of court rulings typical of them, and which thus had effects only in the case before them – as mere formal pretexts for exercising legislative functions or for infringing Parliament's lawmaking powers”.

Judgment No. 350 of 2008 (Giovanni Maria FLICK, Chairman - Ugo DE SIERVO, Author of the Judgment)

In this case the Court considered an appeal from the Regional Administrative Tribunal for Lombardy concerning legislation enacted in order to regulate premises providing telephone and internet services to the general public. The legislation stipulated various sanitation requirements which such premises were obliged to comply with, and that any business activity for which a permit had not been issued was to be closed. The Court stuck down the legislation in toto because it provided for regime of authorisations parallel to that stipulated in the Communications Code, implementing various Community directives, which had the status of a general principle of state legislation that was accordingly binding on regional legislatures.

Judgment No. 351 of 2008 (Giovanni Maria FLICK, Chairman - Sabino CASSESE, Author of the Judgment)

In this case the Court considered an administrative law reference from the Council of State. A director general of a Lazio health authority had been dismissed from his post under the terms of regional legislation which removed certain senior officials from their posts in the aftermath of regional elections, operating a so-called political spoils system. That legislation was ruled unconstitutional by the Court (judgment No. 104 of 2007). In order to avoid reinstatement, the Regional Council enacted legislation providing that the director could be compensated. The Court struck down the legislation on the grounds that the private law principle of compensation for unfair dismissal could not be extended to the public sector, in which the dismissal of civil servants was detrimental also to the public interest on various grounds.

Judgment No. 411 of 2008 (Giovanni Maria FLICK, Chairman - Giuseppe TESAURO, Author of the Judgment)

In this case the Court considered a direct application by the office of the Prime Minister challenging a Sardinian regional law making various provisions in the area of public sector contracts (also implementing directive 2004/18/EC). The Court struck down the regional legislation because it enacted exceptions to the general rules enacted in the framework state legislation contained in the Code of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public services contracts, and also made provision in the area of competition law and private law, both matters reserved exclusively to the state.

Judgment No. 438 of 2008 (Giovanni Maria FLICK, Chairman - Maria Rita SAULLE, Author of the Judgment)

In this case the Court considered a direct application by the office of the Prime Minister against regulations issued by Piedmont Region setting out requirements relating to informed consent from a parent or guardian for the administration of psychoactive drugs to minors, as well as the provision of information regarding possible alternative treatment. The Court struck down the contested regulations on the grounds that they purported to regulate matters directly touching on a fundamental principle in the area of healthcare, over which competence was reserved to the state legislature, and were not limited to the issue of detailed ancillary regulations.

2009

Judgment No. 10 of 2009 (Giovanni Maria FLICK, Chairman - Paolo Maria NAPOLITANO, Author of the Judgment)

In this case the Court considered provisions enacted by Puglia Region which prohibited the treatment of hazardous and non hazardous special waste produced outwith the region, unless the treatment plant located in Puglia was geographically closest to the place where the waste is produced. The Court drew a distinction between non hazardous urban waste, for which the principle of self-sufficiency in disposal applied, and special waste, where self-sufficiency could not apply due to difficulties in precisely forecasting the quality and quantity of waste for disposal (even though it was an aspiration under state legislation). Furthermore, the legislation was also unconstitutional since it infringed the state's exclusive legislative competence over the "environment and ecosystem".

Judgment No. 11 of 2009 (Giovanni Maria FLICK, Chairman - Francesco AMIRANTE, Author of the Judgment)

In this case the Court considered a body of legislation which made the award of incapacity benefit (a measure of income support) to foreign nationals subject to possession of an EC residence card for long-term residents (the issue of which is dependent on receipt of a minimum level of income). The Court declared the provisions unconstitutional, first due to the unjustified difference in treatment between Italian citizens and foreign citizens legally resident in Italy, and secondly because "the subjection of the award of this benefit to the possession by the foreigner of a right of residence, the granting of which presupposes the receipt of an income, renders the inherent unreasonableness of the body of legislation under review even more evident.

Judgment No. 19 of 2009 (Giovanni Maria FLICK, Chairman - Maria Rita SAULLE, Author of the Judgment)

In this case the Court considered a legislative decree from 2006 which granted an entitlement to paid leave to various cohabiting family members of seriously disabled persons, but not to the cohabiting child who was the only cohabiting family member able to provide care and assistance. The Court applied by analogy its ruling from judgment No. 158 of 2007 (which extended such a right to the cohabiting spouse). The Court therefore read the legislation as providing such a right also to cohabiting children, as a requirement of solidarity (Article 2), on equality grounds (Article 3) and pursuant to the right to healthcare (Article 29).

Judgment No. 28 of 2009 (Giovanni Maria FLICK, Chairman - Ugo DE SIERVO, Author of the Judgment)

In this case the Court considered a challenge to a law which granted compensation to persons infected with HIV following compulsory vaccinations, transfusions or administration of blood or blood derivatives, but did not provide for analogous compensation for infection with hepatitis. Although judgment No. 476 of 2002 had extended such protection to persons infected with hepatitis following blood transfusions, those infected following the administration of blood derivatives still lacked cover. The Court accordingly read the provision as providing compensation also for those infected with hepatitis following the administration of blood derivatives, on equality grounds (Article 3) since there was no justification for the unreasonable difference in treatment.

Judgment No. 106 of 2009 (Francesco AMIRANTE, Chairman - Alfonso QUARANTA, Author of the Judgment)

In this case the Court considered a reference from the criminal court of Milan regarding the classification by the Prime Minister of certain information relating to the activities of the security and intelligence services as state secrets, some of which was already on file pursuant to pre-trial discovery. The Court rejected the complaint, finding that the information had been validly classified, and that any review of the substantive merits of that classification was a matter for Parliament and not the courts. Although certain information which could be useful to the inquiries was indeed classified, the offence as such was not an official secret, and the courts were not barred from investigating, and where appropriate prosecuting, the offence (the abduction and “extraordinary rendition” of Abu Omar) on the basis of non classified information.

Judgment No. 262 of 2009 (Francesco AMIRANTE, Chairman - Franco GALLO, Author of the Judgment)