The ‘controversial’ Judgment No. 262/2017 had resolved doubts on the legitimacy of ‘autodichia’, according to the rule of the connection between normative autonomy and implementation. This made it possible to justify ‘autodichia’ for litigation with employees, but not for litigation with third parties in procurement contracts. This ‘rule’, confirmed by the ‘common’ jurisprudence, from which the conflict resolved in Judgment No. 65/2024 originates, seems to enter into crisis precisely in this last decision, which, behind the appearance of decisional continuity, brings important innovations on the level of determining the theoretical basis of ‘autodichia’
La Corte costituzionale e la “crisi d’identità” dell’autodichia. A margine della sentenza n. 65/2024
Antonello Lo Calzo
2024-01-01
Abstract
The ‘controversial’ Judgment No. 262/2017 had resolved doubts on the legitimacy of ‘autodichia’, according to the rule of the connection between normative autonomy and implementation. This made it possible to justify ‘autodichia’ for litigation with employees, but not for litigation with third parties in procurement contracts. This ‘rule’, confirmed by the ‘common’ jurisprudence, from which the conflict resolved in Judgment No. 65/2024 originates, seems to enter into crisis precisely in this last decision, which, behind the appearance of decisional continuity, brings important innovations on the level of determining the theoretical basis of ‘autodichia’I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
