Articles for category: Italien

The First Italian Climate Judgement and the Separation of Powers

On 26th February 2024, in its Giudizio Universale decision, the Tribunal of Rome penned the first Italian climate judgement. Shortly after, on 9 April 2024, the ECtHR handed down its seminal trio of KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland, Duarte Agostinho v. Portugal and Others and Carême v. France. In this monumental string of cases, the ECtHR set the new standard for climate litigation in Europe, also regarding separation of powers. This invites a critical assessment of Giudizio Universale’s stance.

A Malfunctioning System

Party bans do not represent a serious threat to neo-fascist movements in Italy. Despite a constitutional provision and an ordinary law regulating the issue, their use has so far been limited to associations of minor size and relevance.

Climate Litigation Reaches Italian Courts

With Giudizio Universale, climate litigation has found its way to Italy. This case has many aspects in common with the general transnational phenomenon, both in terms of the structure and content of the legal arguments used. The case highlights the difficulties that courts face in view of the high social expectations connected to this kind of proceedings.

A Limping Militant Democracy

Images of hundreds of men gathering outside the former headquarters of the Italian post-fascist party (Movimento Sociale Italiano – MSI), giving the Roman salute in Acca Larentia (Roma) on the 8th of January 2024, have sparked numerous controversies in Italy. The Roman salute was paired with the Fascist ritual of the “roll call”, whereby a leader calls out the name of a fallen soldier and his comrades shout “presente!”. While one would expect the President of the Senate, facing an incident that stirred political controversy, to reason in more institutional terms rather than strictly legally, La Russa was partially correct in stating that the current Italian legal framework is (still) not sufficiently clear and coherent on the matter.

Refoulement As A Crime

Last month, the Italian Court of Cassation upheld the (suspended) sentence of one year’s imprisonment of the shipmaster of the Italian ship Asso28. He was convicted of two offences of abandonment for returning and handing around 100 migrants over to the personnel of a Libyan patrol boat, including some unaccompanied minors and pregnant women, whom he had previously rescued in international waters within the Libyan SAR zone. The case constitutes the first time an individual was held criminally responsible for failing to fulfil the duty of non-refoulement. Until recently, the refoulement duty has only served to exclude the liability of shipmasters who had complied with it whenever they were accused of facilitating irregular immigration. This case indicates the emergence of a new function of the principle, namely that of grounding the criminal liability of those who violate it.

As Good as It Gets

Contrasting the constitutional limitations on the freedom to establish political parties in Italy and Germany brings out two quite different conceptions of militant democracy: one is particularistic, retrospective, and provisional – preoccupied with the transition to democracy; the other is universalistic, prospective, and enduring – concerned with the degeneration of democracy. The Portuguese Constitution, true to its eclectic character and multiple influences, steers a seemingly middle course between these polar options.

Climate Protests and City Bans

As climate protests are mounting across Italy, there is a corresponding escalation in repressive responses from public authorities. This trend is not unique to Italy but is rather widespread throughout Europe, as evidenced by frequent reports in national newspapers and posts on this blog. What sets Italy apart from other European nations is the spectacular increase in the use of preventive measures by the public security administration.

Pushing Back

The CJEU has pending before it a crucial case on the criminalisation of seeking asylum and assistance to those seeking protection. At this critical juncture, this blog post highlights a sample of important decisions in which courts, giving effect to constitutional and international legal principles, set legal limits on this form of criminalisation. These cases reflect not only the appropriate legal limits, but also acknowledge the character of irregular migration and smuggling. Rather than framing individuals as  dangerous illegal migrants and exploitative smugglers, they reassert the humanity of both those in search of refuge and opportunity, and those that assist them.

No Benefit

On January 18, 2024, the German federal parliament (Bundestag) passed the controversial Repatriation Improvement Act which de facto criminalises humanitarian support for entry by land as well as entry of minors by sea, land, and air. The German provision resembles both in wording and substance Article 12 of the Italian Consolidated Immigration Act (TUI) whose compatibility with EU law the CJEU is set to rule on, following a preliminary reference procedure initiated in July 2023. While the effect of a pending referral is uncertain, in the current case, the German government should have suspended its legislative process.

“Rented Uterus” as a Universal Crime

The principle of universal jurisdiction (UJ) has traditionally been grounded in the idea of a collective response to the most heinous crimes on a global scale. Italy, a country that currently lacks universal jurisdiction for international crimes, is amid deliberations on a proposed bill advocating for the use of universal jurisdiction in cases of surrogacy. This analysis contends that the underlying political motive behind this bill is to curb all forms of same-sex parenthood, inadvertently resulting in a criminal law framework that would specifically impact male-gay couples. Secondly, it draws a parallel with “memory law”, illustrating how legal mechanisms initially established in the enthusiasm of the ‘90s are now being repurposed as instruments for divisive political agendas.