The matter – very much complex – of the so called “end of life cases” or, more generally, “euthanasia” finally came to the attention of the Constitutional Court by the criminal jurisdiction, regarding the crime of «aid to suicide» (art. 580 c.p.). Through the ord. 208/2018 – before – and the sent. 242/2019 – after – the Court declared partially illegitimate the aforesaid article, in relation to some rules of the l. n. 219/2107 regarding the “informed consent” and the “advance treatment provisions”. Aside from the merit of the constitutional question, what emerges is the completely new procedural conduct followed by the Court: in fact, with the ord. 208/2018 it has been delayed of one year the final decision, at the same time urging the Legislator to intervene in the aforesaid matter with a proper legislation, consequently recognizing rights and duties related to the institute of euthanasia. Since such warning has been ignored by the Legislator itself, the Court finally decided as above summarized. However, such conduct seems to stretch a little bit too much the recognized “sovereignty” of the Court on its trial; and seems to widen a little bit too much – as well – the judicial recognition of rights, even those “fundamental”, above the political one. So underlining the contemporary problem of the institutional (loyal) relationship between the Parliament and the Constitutional Court and, moreover, among the State Powers.

BREVI CONSIDERAZIONI SUL RAPPORTO FRA TUTELA SOSTANZIALE DEI DIRITTI (FONDAMENTALI) E RISPETTO DELLE FORME PROCESSUALI: LA CORTE COSTITUZIONALE E GLI “ANIMALI FANTASTICI”. THE FINAL CUT.

R. Di Maria
2020

Abstract

The matter – very much complex – of the so called “end of life cases” or, more generally, “euthanasia” finally came to the attention of the Constitutional Court by the criminal jurisdiction, regarding the crime of «aid to suicide» (art. 580 c.p.). Through the ord. 208/2018 – before – and the sent. 242/2019 – after – the Court declared partially illegitimate the aforesaid article, in relation to some rules of the l. n. 219/2107 regarding the “informed consent” and the “advance treatment provisions”. Aside from the merit of the constitutional question, what emerges is the completely new procedural conduct followed by the Court: in fact, with the ord. 208/2018 it has been delayed of one year the final decision, at the same time urging the Legislator to intervene in the aforesaid matter with a proper legislation, consequently recognizing rights and duties related to the institute of euthanasia. Since such warning has been ignored by the Legislator itself, the Court finally decided as above summarized. However, such conduct seems to stretch a little bit too much the recognized “sovereignty” of the Court on its trial; and seems to widen a little bit too much – as well – the judicial recognition of rights, even those “fundamental”, above the political one. So underlining the contemporary problem of the institutional (loyal) relationship between the Parliament and the Constitutional Court and, moreover, among the State Powers.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11387/137640
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact