Informativa si avvale di cookie, anche di terze parti, per offrirti il migliore servizio possibile. Cliccando 'Accetto' o continuando la navigazione ne acconsenti l'utilizzo. Per saperne di più
Estratto da
Quadrimestrale dell’Istituto Internazionale di Studi Giuridici

Tardiva notificazione del decreto ex art. 5, comma 2 della «legge Pinto» e non riproponibilità della domanda: dubbi di incostituzionalità e ipotesi di disapplicazione della norma
Article 5, paragraph 2, Law no. 89/2001 (also known as “Legge Pinto”), concerning the equitable monetary compensation due to those who have been subject to a legal proceeding whose duration was not reasonable, clarifies – after its 2012 amendment (Law no. 134/2012) – that the missing, or late, notice of the decree providing for the Ministry of Justice to pay the afore mentioned monetary compensation implies its ineffectiveness and prevents the party seeking for the equitable compensation to reiterate the request for said equitable compensation. In the view of the author, the provision appears in contrast with Article 3 and Article 24 of the Italian Constitution, since it introduces an unreasonable differentiation with respect to other categories of creditors by limiting the exercise of this specific credit right. In addition, also Article 117, paragraph 5 of the Italian Constitution could be assumed indirectly violated as a consequence of the direct violation of Article 6 (Right to a fair trial), Article 13 (Right to an effective remedy) of the echr. On the other side Article 5, paragraph 2, Law no. 89/2001, due to the principle of eu law prevalence over national law, should be not applied, while should be considered directly applicable Article 47 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, whereby is clearly stated that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.
pagine: 22-40
DOI: 10.4399/97888255173783
data pubblicazione: Agosto 2018
editore: Aracne