In Judgment no. 237/2022, the Constitutional Court was asked to rule on the legitimacy of provisions regarding the annuities of former parliamentarians. The referring judge, who after a few years is once again the judge of "autodichia" of the Senate, raised the object of his doubts not only to the law, but also to provisions adopted by the administrative bodies of the Senate. These acts, which normally have the rank of "minor" regulations, have traditionally been excluded from the possible objects of the judicial review, on the basis of the formal argument that they are not considered to be included in the limits of art. 134 of the Constitution. The Court reiterated this strict position, declaring the inadmissibility of the question and equating the "minor" regulation to the "major" one.
Regolamenti parlamentari “minori” e sindacato di legittimità costituzionale: una decisione di inammissibilità annunciata. Osservazioni a margine di Corte cost., 28 novembre 2022, n. 237
Antonello Lo Calzo
2023-01-01
Abstract
In Judgment no. 237/2022, the Constitutional Court was asked to rule on the legitimacy of provisions regarding the annuities of former parliamentarians. The referring judge, who after a few years is once again the judge of "autodichia" of the Senate, raised the object of his doubts not only to the law, but also to provisions adopted by the administrative bodies of the Senate. These acts, which normally have the rank of "minor" regulations, have traditionally been excluded from the possible objects of the judicial review, on the basis of the formal argument that they are not considered to be included in the limits of art. 134 of the Constitution. The Court reiterated this strict position, declaring the inadmissibility of the question and equating the "minor" regulation to the "major" one.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
