Giusto Processo Amministrativo

Administrative due Process

Giusto processo amministrativo

The rights recognized by the ECHR in the trial context have had a huge impact on the internal discipline of criminal law (see the section dedicated to “Supranational rights and criminal proceedings”). It must, however, be remembered that the guarantees of Article 6 ECHR are not only applicable to criminal law, but also to all judgments in which “rights and duties of a civil nature” are at issue. Another aspect of this research, therefore, sets out to examine those aspects of the case- law of the European Court of Human Rights that have most significance for national legislation on the administrative process.

To this end it is necessary, firstly, to precisely define the boundaries of applicability of the discipline of the Convention to this type of trial, in which the definition of the concept of law “of a civil character” assumes a central role, especially in relation to the question of legitimate interests. The first subsection is dedicated to this argument.

Another subsection is dedicated to the guarantee of the impartiality of the judge and the question of the compatibility of this requirement with the traditional structure of the governing bodies of administrative justice (not only in Italy, but also in several other European countries that adhere to the Convention), which also assigns to the judge, in addition to judicial duties, administrative and advisory responsibilities relating to the business of government. This is a topic which the European Court has had to deal with on several occasions.

A further subsection deals with another important aspect of said requirement of judicial impartiality, in examining the possible consequences of European jurisprudence on the power of prevention as regards national legislation on the administrative process, on which the Court has repeatedly upheld the principle that a judge can not be considered impartial if they have already been called to hear and determine the dispute at any other stage of the proceedings, as they could prove to be “conditioned” to not contradict what has already been decided.

Finally, it was deemed appropriate to dedicate space to the delicate issue of the reasonable duration of a trial, an extremely critical issue for Italy, taking into account the particular issues that can arise in an administrative case due to its specific procedural discipline.

Elenco sottosezioni / Subsections list

Giusto processo amministrativo
Administrative due Process

    PIERONI S. – Ne bis in idem sanzionatorio. La problematica applicazione nella sentenza Jóhannesson c. Islanda dei criteri elaborati dalla Grande Camera


    La Prima Sezione della Corte EDU si è trovata a fare applicazione per la prima volta dei “criteri-guida” forniti dalla Grande Camera della Corte EDU nella nota sentenza A. e B. c. Norvegia del 15 novembre 2016 in materia di ne bis in idem (art. 4, Protocollo 7 alla CEDU), questa volta ravvisando, all’unanimità, la violazione della garanzia convenzionale sotto il profilo dell’assenza di una “connessione sostanziale e temporale sufficientemente stretta” tra i due procedimenti sanzionatori.
    Peraltro, la pronuncia risulta di particolare interesse, in quanto, sottolineandosi le differenze tra il caso esaminato e quello deciso dalla Grande Camera, se, da un lato, sembra indicare agli interpreti i limiti entro i quali va ricondotto il criterio della “connessione sostanziale e temporale sufficientemente stretta” di cui alla sentenza A. e B. c. Norvegia, dall’altro, come vedremo, non chiarisce i parametri definiti per l’individuazione dei medesimi.
    2. Il ne bis in idem ‘sanzionatorio’ nella giurisprudenza della Corte EDU.
    La controversia rappresenta ulteriore declinazione del riconoscimento da parte della Corte EDU della natura “sostanzialmente penale” di molte sanzioni tradizionalmente qualificate nel nostro ordinamento come amministrative , collocandosi nel delicato e controverso dibattito della compatibilità del principio del ne bis in idem (art. 4 del Protocollo n. 7) con il c.d. doppio binario sanzionatorio. Difatti, l’operata riqualificazione, secondo i parametri della Corte EDU, delle sanzioni amministrative in sanzioni penali, comporta l’applicazione, per il medesimo fatto, di due misure afflittive, ancorché una formalmente amministrativa, con conseguente illegittimità convenzionale di siffatto bis in idem sanzionatorio.[…]

    The First Section of the European Court of Human Rights applied for the first time the “guiding principles” provided by the Grand Chamber of the Court in the judgment A. and B. v. Norway of 15 November 2016 on ne bis in idem (Article 4, Protocol 7 ECHR), recognizing in this case a violation of the conventional guarantee due to the absence of a ” sufficiently close connection in substance and time” between the two sanctioning proceedings.
    Moreover, the ruling of particular interest, because it sets out various issues stemming from the fact that, on the one hand, it seems to indicate the limits within which the criterion of the “sufficiently close connection in substance and time” can be applied (as in A and B. v. Norway), on the other hand, it does not provide defined parameters to identify them, grounding, instead, on the basis of factual circumstances that force the interpreter to elaborate case by case the rule in the specific case.[…]