Tokens: 4
.
In
its
seminal
judgments
no
.
348
and
no
.
349
of
2007
,
also
known
as
the
“
twin
judgments
”
(
sentenze
gemelle
)
,
the
Constitutional
Court
reacted
to
this
move
of
the
ordinary
judges
,
taking
into
account
the
new
text
of
Article
117
of
the
Constitution
,
as
amended
by
Constitutional
Law
no
.
3
of
18
October
2001
,
which
requires
the
legislature
to
comply
with
international
obligations[49
]
.
On
this
constitutional
basis
,
the
Constitutional
Court
took
the
view
that
the
Convention
was
a
norm
of
intermediate
rank
between
statute
law
and
the
Constitution
and
asserted
its
monopoly
over
any
conflict
between
Convention
and
domestic
law
.
In
a
discourse
focused
on
the
formal
placement
of
international
treaties
in
the
Italian
system
of
sources
of
law
,
the
supralegislative
rank
of
Convention
law
was
unambiguously
affirmed
.
In
case
of
conflict
between
the
Convention
,
as
interpreted
by
the
Court
,
and
domestic
legislation
subsequent
to
Law
no
.
848
of
4
August
1955
,
ordinary
judges
could
not
give
priority
to
the
former
,
and
therefore
could
not
set
aside
the
conflicting
domestic
provision
,
but
instead
had
to
submit
the
conflict
question
to
the
“
final
say
”
of
the
Constitutional
Court[50
]
.
The
Constitutional
Court
will
then
assess
whether
the
Convention
provision
at
stake
,
as
interpreted
by
the
Court
,
is
compatible
with
the
Constitution
and
,
if
so
,
whether
the
impugned
statute
is
compatible
with
the
Convention
.
In
the
event
that
the
Convention
provision
at
stake
,
as
interpreted
by
the
Court
,
were
incompatible
with
the
Constitution
,
Law
no
.
848
of
4
August
1955
would
have
to
be
partially
struck
down
,
in
respect
of
the
said
provision
,
since
the
Convention
itself
can
not
be
found
unconstitutional
.
Were
the
impugned
statute
incompatible
with
the
Convention
,
the
former
would
have
to
be
struck
down
,
because
it
would
infringe
Article
117
§
1
of
the
Constitution
.
Therefore
the
Strasbourg
Court
’s
interpretation
of
the
Convention
has
normative
value
,
in
so
far
as
it
functions
as
a
normative
standard
in
the
constitutionality
assessment
of
ordinary
laws
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O