Abstract
The chapter analyses the regime applicable to damages for infringements of human rights under Italian law, including the treatment of historical injustices. Before focusing on human rights violations, the essay addresses the case of infringement of constitutional rights, underling the different set rules applicable to it. Finally, it remarks the interplay between principles of domestic jurisdiction and international human rights law, with specific attention to the ECtHR case law. The essay argues that the current regime for human rights infringements resembles a complicate patchwork of separated rules, which are also characterised for a “double standard” of protection of rights, foreign States’ violations of human rights deserving a stricter treatment when compared to domestic violations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
International obligations result in different consequences under Italian domestic law, depending both on the type of international legal order that established them and the binding status of the relevant rules. Human rights enshrined in supranational legal instruments, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter: ECHR), that are the “outcome” of integrated legal systems deserve a more intensive and, from the State’s point of view, “intrusive” protection compared to those stemming from other international charters. In other words, rules prescribing compensation for human rights violations are more likely to result from an integrated international legal order than from the international community as normally understood. On the notion of integrated legal order see McCormick (1993) 17.
- 2.
For the purposes of this study, the word “supranational” is used to identify legal systems that are characterised by high level of integration among their Member States, even though they result purely from international agreements. Indeed integration implies that these legal orders create norms that are more effectively legally enforceable than “ordinary” international norms. See Gerards (2008) 407.
- 3.
For the purpose of this study, human rights are defined as rights that are enjoyed by all individuals subject to a State’s jurisdiction, as also protected by international legal tools: see Feldman (2002). Human rights therefore present themselves as absolute subjective claims that are valid per se and irrespective of their statutory recognition within states: see Zagrebelsky (1992).
- 4.
See Merusi and Clarich (1991) 362.
- 5.
See Colzi (1950) 247.
- 6.
See Cerbo (2009) 1363.
- 7.
See Arts. 68 and 122 of the Italian Constitution .
- 8.
See Merusi and Clarich (1991) 356.
- 9.
See Grossi (1972) 176.
- 10.
- 11.
See Cooper Stephenson (2003) 4.
- 12.
See Merusi and Clarich (1991) 393.
- 13.
Constitutional adjudication in Italy involves the scrutiny of legislative acts and the conflicts between powers or between the State and the Regions or between Regions (see Art. 134, Italian Const.); as far as the constitutional review of legislation is concerned, in the event that a declaration of unconstitutionality is issued, Parliament is not legally responsible.
- 14.
See Lanzi (2005) 2773 and 2775.
- 15.
Court of cassation, dec. no. 500, of 22.7.2000, available in Foro italiano, 1999, I, 2487 ff.
- 16.
Court of Cassation, dec. no. 157 of 10.10.2003, available in Foro italiano, 2003, I, 78 ff.
- 17.
See Abbamonte (2000) 743 ff.
- 18.
- 19.
See Silvestri (2009) 10–11.
- 20.
See Court of Cassation, dec. no. 7713 of 6.6.2000. Legal scholars criticised the criteria developed by the Supreme Court. They seem to favour a different doctrine, which identifies the rights that merit protection inter alia through compensation on the basis of their content and on the type of violation committed, rather than on the basis of their mere classification as “constitutional rights”. On this point see the arguments offered by Principato (2001) 4176 ff. From this perspective only “personal rights” exempt the claimant from the burden of proof. Personal rights are rights that are not absolute, not amenable to pecuniary assessment, and not susceptible of disposal, transferral or prescription: see Messineo (1957) 142.
- 21.
However the existence of the ECtHR, which is charged with the scrutiny of violations of such rights and decisions of which apply within domestic jurisdiction, provides for an alternative instrument, at least in some cases. See infra 10. 4.
- 22.
- 23.
Pursuing to the well known Francovic case, ECJ, dec. 19.11.1991, C-6/90 e C-9/90.
- 24.
Court of Rome, Mustacchia v. Ministero di grazia e giustizia, dec. of 7.8.1984, Temi Romana, 1985, 977. See Francioni (1997) 16 ff.
- 25.
See dec. of 27.5.1992, in Rivista internazionale dei diritti dell’uomo, 1992, 1151 ff. See also Vezzani (2010) 1148 ff.
- 26.
See Izar (2002) 957 ff.
- 27.
Which was eventually completed by the Italian Constitutional Court : see Ruggeri (2008) 217.
- 28.
See dec. no. 28507 of 23.12.2005; on this issue Vezzani (2010) 1149.
- 29.
See Court of Cassation, dec. no. 15746 of 11.7.2006 and no. 16284 of 10.7.2009.
- 30.
- 31.
As far as the matter of jurisdiction is concerned, the Law specifies that the complaint must be addressed to the president of the court of appeal responsible for deciding on judicial liability within the district in which the case alleged to constitute violation was settled: see Art. 4(1), which refers to Art. 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. One of the most controversial issues, which lies partially beyond the scope of this study, is the classification of the “process”, the excessive duration of which caused the harm: see Focarelli (2005) 5163 ff.
- 32.
In any case, Art. 3 stipulates that the amounts shall be liquidated insofar as possible taking account of actually available resources. Indeed, with a view to granting effective compensation but also safeguarding public resources, Art. 5-quinquies lays down specific rules on foreclosures and seizures of public goods. On the uncertainties and difficulties of the law enforcement, see Sanna (2011) 160 ff.
- 33.
The minimum amount is 500 euros, while the maximum is 1500 euros. In both cases, the amounts are compensated for each year or part thereof (subject to a minimum of 6 months) in excess of the reasonable duration of the trial concerned. Initially, the Law provided that non-pecuniary losses should be compensated also through “appropriate forms of publicity of the decision holding that a violation has occurred”: see Art. 2(3). The provision was eventually repealed by Art. 55(1)(a)(3) of Decree-Law no. 83 of 22.6.2012, converted into Law no. 134 of 7.8.2012.
- 34.
While punitive damages are normally not awarded to the successful claimant.
- 35.
See Court of Cassation, judgment no. 6725 of 2005.
- 36.
See Court of Cassation, judgment no. 1999 of 14.10.2005.
- 37.
Court of Cassation, judgment no. 8716 of 13.4.2006. See Azzalini (2012) 1707B.
- 38.
See Art. 2-quinques(a)-(f). Moreover the Act extends to heirs who have standing to sue in order to claim damages for the violation of the right to a trial in a reasonable time suffered by a deceased relative.
- 39.
See Decree-Law no. 83 of 22.6.2012, converted into Law no. 134 of 7.8.2012.
- 40.
See Azzalini (2012) 1702 ff.
- 41.
See Azzalini (2012) 1707.
- 42.
See Chindemi (2008) 690 ff.
- 43.
See Azzalini (2012) 1707B.
- 44.
The Law provides that the court hearing the civil proceedings seeking compensation shall consider the specific circumstances of the case as well as the complexity of the legal issues to be decided: see Art. 1.
- 45.
- 46.
See Art. 35 ter, L. no. 354 of 1975 as amended by Art. 1, l. no. 117 of 2014, in O.G. 20.8.2014, n. 192.
- 47.
Thus pushing commentators to qualify this measure as part of the compensation regime: see Gori (2014) 1.
- 48.
The law prescribes that the judge shall award eight euros for each day of impairment suffered by the detainee.
- 49.
See supra 10.2.1.
- 50.
The summary is, to some extent, approximate. The constituent phase was indeed more problematic and has its own unclear points as regards the full and effective rejection of the authoritarian regime. Some of the constitutional provisions remained unenforced for a long time; at the same time, many of the statutory provisions of codes and laws approved during the Fascist period remained in force until their progressive demolition by the Italian Constitutional Court . On this issue see Paladin (1997) 102 ff. and Mortati (1931). See also Bognetti (1982) 435 ff.
- 51.
- 52.
A series of provisions concerning pensions for the surviving victims of Fascism: see Arts. 4–7 of Law no. 96 of 1955. In the aftermath of the Second World War and before the Terracini Law was passed, the transitional government issued a series of decrees repealing all of the decrees and laws that had previously been directed at and discriminated against the Jewish population. Furthermore, the new measures fully restored the civil, political and economic rights of Jewish citizens: see Royal Decree-Laws no. 24 of 1944 and no. 26 of 1944. On this point see Falconieri (2012) 139.
- 53.
See Art. 1 of Law no. 96 of 1955.
- 54.
See Art. 6 of Law no. 12 of 25.1.1962.
- 55.
This was the case for the so-called “marocchinate”, that is the gross violation of human rights perpetrated by Moroccan-French troops in central Italy in May 1944. See Speciale (2012) 117.
- 56.
See Arts. 10(1) and 22 of Law no. 648 of 10.8.1950; Arts. 9(1) and 11 of Law no. 313 of 18.3.1968; Arts. 1, 8(1), 11 and 83 of Presidential Decree no. 915 of 28.12.1978.
- 57.
See Constitutional Court , dec. no. 561 of 18.12.1987.
- 58.
Art. 1 of Law no. 17 of 16.1.1978 specifies that the word “Jewish” written down on the registry office certificate shall be held as proof of moral damages .
- 59.
See Court of Auditors, 1st Division, judgment of 27.1.2003, central appellate instance and of 11.11.2002, central appellate instance.
- 60.
See Court of Cassation, Joint Divisions, Ferrini v. Germany , dec. no. 5044 of 11.3.2004, available in Rivista di diritto internazionale, 2004, 539 ff.
- 61.
- 62.
See Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom , App. no. 35763/97, 21.11.2001 (joint dissenting opinion of judges: Rozakis, Caflish, Wildhaber, Costa, Cabral Barreto, Vajić, par. 3) and Kalogeropoulou and ors. v. Greece and Germany , App. no. 59021/00, 12.12.2002.
- 63.
This conclusion is highly arguable: indeed Italian international scholars have argued that the Supreme Court used the general categories of crimes against humanity, serious violations of human rights and international individual crimes in an inconsistent and not entirely appropriate manner: see Pisillo Mazzeschi (2012) 310 ff.
- 64.
The case arose in relation to the massacre committed at Civitella, Cornia and S. Pancrazio on 26.6.1944. The massacre caused the death of 203 civilians and was committed by the German armed forces as a reprisal for the murder of 4 German soldiers. See Frulli (2009) 442 ff.
- 65.
This seems to be the position of the majority of international law scholars: see ex multis Zimmerman (1995) 438 ff. and Brömer (1997) 195 ff. Among Italian scholars see Marongiu Buonaiuti (2011) 236 ff. Furthermore, the derogation from the principle of State immunity was substantially undisputed in the 1930s and 1940s: see Verdross (1937) 571 ff. and Lauterpacht (1937) 306 ff.
- 66.
- 67.
Jurisdictional Immunities of the State ( Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 99. The decision raised a significant scholarly debate: see ex multis Marongiu Buonaiuti (2011) 232 ff. For the effects of the decision in the Italian legal order, see Salerno (2012) 350 ff.
- 68.
As opposed to acts iure gestionis, that is those concerning non-sovereign act of the State, especially private and commercial acts.
- 69.
See Jurisdictional Immunities of the State ( Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), Judgment, par. 70–81. The only exceptions to the aforementioned State practice seem to be the cases of Italy and Greece.
- 70.
See Jones v. UK, dec. 14.1.2014, App. nos. 34356/06 and 40528/06, par. 198.
- 71.
Court of Appeal of Turin, 3rd Civil Division, Germany v. De Guglielmi, dec. of 14.5.2012, reg. no. 1470/10.
- 72.
As it is clearly evident from the travaux préparatoires: see Third Commission for Constitutional Affairs, 19.9.2012 – Chamber of Deputies, act no. 5434.
- 73.
See Art. 3, par. 2, Law no. 5/2013, adding new grounds for the reopening of a proceeding other than those provided for in the Arts. 395 and 306, Code of Civil Procedure .
- 74.
Tribunal of Florence, dec. of 21.1.2014.
- 75.
Stating that “[a]nyone may bring cases before a court of law in order to protect their rights under civil and administrative law”.
- 76.
According to which “[t]he Italian legal system conforms to the generally recognised principles of international law”.
- 77.
See Italian Constitutional Court , dec. 22.10.2014, no. 238, available in Italian at http://cortecostituzionale.it. Accessed 24 March 2015. For a comment see Fontanelli (2014) and Passaglia (2014).
- 78.
See dec. 238/2014, par. 3.2.
- 79.
See CC dec. 98/1965; 18/1982; 82/1996; 26/1999; 29/2003; 386/2004 and 120/2014.
- 80.
On this issue see Passaglia (2014).
- 81.
See Ruggeri (2006) 398.
- 82.
See dec. 238/2014, par. 3.1.
- 83.
See supra note 60.
- 84.
See supra 10.3.2.
- 85.
- 86.
The Italian Constitutional Court has clarified that the ECHR represents an interposed principle of constitutional review of domestic legislation conflicting with the ECHR: see Const. Court, judgements no. 348 and 349 of 2007. On this issue see Ruggeri (2008) 217 ff. and Bartole (2008) 291 ff. For a broader perspective on the interplay between constitutional courts and the European Court of Human Rights as far as the ranking of the ECHR in domestic systems is concerned see Eissen (1990) 137 ff.
- 87.
See Court of cassation, dec. no. 10894 of 11.5.2006.
- 88.
See Court of cassation, dec. no. 14 of 3.1.2008. See also Angelini (2010) 97.
- 89.
See Gitti (2009) 645 ff.
- 90.
The issue is analysed in a broader perspective by Ponzanelli (2012) 611 ff.
- 91.
See Chindemi (2008) 690 ff.
- 92.
See Bianchi (2012) 307 ff.
- 93.
See Court of Rome, Mustacchia v. Ministero di grazia e giustizia, dec. of 7.8.1984, supra note 24.
- 94.
See Vezzani (2010) 1153 ff.
- 95.
See Court of cassation, dec. no. 28507 of 23.12.2005. See contra dec. no. 17650 of 2002 and dec. no. 360 of 2003.
- 96.
See Salerno (2010) 663 ff.
- 97.
- 98.
On this point see Sironi (2012) 32 ff.
- 99.
ECtHR, dec. of 29.3.2006, application no. 36813/97, Scordino v. Italy. See Azzalini (2012) 1711.
- 100.
ECtHR, dec. of 16.7.2009, application no. 22635/03, Sulejmanovic v. Italy. See Angelini (2010) 97.
- 101.
See also ECtHR, dec. of 23.2.2012, application no. 27765/09, Hirsl Jamaa et al. v. Italy. On this issue see Napoletano (2012) 436 ff.
References
Abbamonte, Giuseppe. 2000. L’affermazione legislativa e giurisprudenziale della risarcibilità del danno derivante dall’esercizio illegittimo della funzione amministrativa. Profili sostanziali e procedurali. Consiglio di Stato 4: 743–787.
Amato, Fabrizio. 2007. Se la Corte europea rinnega i diritti dell’uomo. Foro italiano 3: 126–129.
Angelini, Niccoló Guido. 2010. Detenzione e divieto di tortura. Responsabilità civile e previdenza 1: 89–103.
Azzalini, Marco. 2012. L’eccessiva durata del processo e il risarcimento del danno: la legge Pinto tra stalli applicativi e interventi riformatori. Responsabilità civile e previdenza 5: 1702–1737.
Barbera, Augusto. 2007. Le basi filosofiche del costituzionalismo. In Le basi filosofiche del costituzionalismo, ed. Augusto Barbera, 3–42. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
Bartole, Sergio. 2008. Integrazione e separazione della tutela costituzionale e convenzionale dei diritti umani. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 2: 291–300.
Bartolini, Giulio. 2009. Riparazione per violazione dei diritti umani e ordinamento internazionale. Napoli: Jovene.
Bianchi, Andrea. 2012. Il tempio e i suoi sacerdoti. Considerazioni su retorica e diritto a margine del caso Germania c. Italia. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 6: 293–309.
Bognetti, Giovanni. 1982. Direct application and indirect impact of the Constitution in the Italian legal system. In Italian national reports to the XIth international congress of comparative law, 429–448. Milano/Caracas: Giuffrè.
Bordoni, Matteo. 2009. L’ordine pubblico internazionale nella sentenza della Cassazione sulla esecuzione della decisione greca relativa al caso Distomo. Rivista di diritto internazionale 2: 496–503.
Brömer, Jürgen. 1997. State immunity and the violation of human rights. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Cerbo, Pasquale. 2009. Leggi idonee a ledere posizioni giuridiche di soggetti individuati (o individuabili) e responsabilità dei pubblici agenti nell’art. 28 Cost.: alla ricerca di un equilibrio. Giurisprudenza costituzionale 2: 1363–1415.
Chindemi, Domenico. 2008. “Legge Pinto”: questioni processuali, sostanziali e di “etica del diritto”. Responsabilità civile e previdenza 3: 690–721.
Cohen, Jean L. 2012. Globalization and sovereignty: Rethinking legality, legitimacy, and constitutionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Colzi, Giorgio. 1950. La responsabilità dei pubblici funzionari. In Commentario sistematico alla Costituzione Italiana, vol. I, ed. Piero Calamandrei and Alessandro Levi, 247–279. Firenze: Barbera.
Cooper Stephenson, Ken. 2003. Theoretical underpinning for reparations. A constitutional tort perspective. Windsor Y. B. Access Justice 22: 3–40.
Corongiu, Serena. 2001. L’equa riparazione dei danni derivanti dalla durata irragionevole del processo nella «legge Pinto»: prime riflessioni. Studium Iuris 9: 1003–1009.
De Vittor, Francesca. 2008. Immunità degli Stati dalla giurisdizione e risarcimento del danno per violazione dei diritti fondamentali: il caso Mantelli. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 3: 632–637.
Eissen, Marc A. 1990. L’interaction des jurisprudences constitutionnelles nationales et la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. In Conseil constitutionnel et Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, ed. Dominique Rousseau and Frédéric Sudre, 137–215. Paris: STH.
Fabri, Marco. 2009. The Italian Maze towards trial within a reasonable time, in the right to trial within a reasonable time and short-term reform of the European Court of Human Rights. Publication of the Council of Europe. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/cddh/Publications/bledproceedings_book.pdf. Accessed 24 Mar 2015.
Falconieri, Silvia. 2012. Riparare e ricordare la legislazione antiebraica: la reviviscenza dell’istituto della discriminazione (1944–1950). In Riparare Risarcire Ricordare. Un dialogo tra storici e giuristi, ed. Resta Giorgio and Zeno-Zencovich Vincenzo, 139–155. Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica.
Feldman, David. 2002. Civil liberties and human rights in England and Wales. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Focarelli, Carlo. 2005. La Legge Pinto e l’applicabilità del diritto alla durata ragionevole del processo alle indagini preliminari e ai giudizi tributari. Giurisprudenza costituzionale. 6: 5163–5178.
Fontanelli, Filippo. 2014. I know it’s wrong but I just can’t do right. First impressions on judgment no. 238 of 2014 of the Italian Constitutional Court. http://www.diritticomparati.it/2014/10/i-know-its-wrong-but-i-just-cant-do-right-first-impressions-on-judgment-no-238-of-2014-of-the-italianconstitutional.html Accessed 24 Mar 2015.
Francioni, Francesco. 1997. The jurisprudence of international human rights enforcement: Reflections on the Italian experience. In Enforcing international human rights in domestic courts, ed. Benedetto Conforti and Francesco Francioni, 15–34. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Frulli, Micaela. 2009. La “derogabilità” della norma sull’immunità degli Stati dalla giurisdizione in caso di crimini internazionali: la decisione della Corte di cassazione sulla strage di Civitellla della Chiana. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 2: 442–448.
Gaeta, Paola. 2011. Are victims of serious violations of international humanitarian law entitled to compensation? In International humanitarian law and international human rights law, ed. Orna Ben Naftali, 305–327. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gavouneli, Maria. 1997. War reparation claims and state immunity. Revue hellénique de droit international 50: 595–608.
Gerards, Janneke. 2008. Judicial deliberations in the European court of human rights. In The legitimacy of the highest courts’ rulings, ed. Nick Huls, Maurice Adams, and Jacco Bomhoff, 407–436. The Hague: Asser Press.
Gitti, Angelo. 2009. Riparazione del danno non patrimoniale in caso di violazione del termine ragionevole del processo: la sentenza della Corte europea nel caso Simaldone. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 3: 645–650.
Gori, Pierpaolo. 2014. Art. 3 CEDU e risarcimento da inumana detenzione. http://www.questionegiustizia.it/articolo/art_3-cedu-e-risarcimento-da-inumana-detenzione_02-10-2014.php. Accessed 24 Mar 2015.
Grossi, Pierfranceso. 1972. Introduzione ad uno studio sui diritti inviolabili nella Costituzione italiana. Padova: CEDAM.
Izar, Simone. 2002. Prime applicazioni giurisprudenziali della legge n. 89/2001 (c.d. Legge Pinto) sulla responsabilità dello Stato per violazione del termine ragionevole del processo. Responsabilità civile e previdenza 4: 957–978.
Jarmul, Holly D. 1996. The effect of decisions of regional human rights tribunals on national courts. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 28: 311–366.
Lanzi, Fabrizio. 2005. Fermo amministrativo di veicolo e risarcimento del danno. Giurisprudenza di merito 12: 2773–2777.
Lauterpacht, Hersch. 1937. Règles générales du droit de paix. In Recueil des cours de l’Académie de droit international, vol. 62, 95–422. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Marongiu Buonaiuti, Fabrizio. 2011. Azioni risarcitorie per la commissione di crimini internazionali ed immunità degli Stati dalla giurisdizione: la controversia tra la Germania e l’Italia innanzi alla Corte internazionale di giustizia. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 5: 232–270.
McCormick, Neil. 1993. Beyond the Sovereign State. Modern Law Review 56: 1–18.
Merusi, Fabio, and Marcello Clarich. 1991. Art. 28. In Commentario alla Costituzione italiana. Rapporti civili, ed. G. Branca, 356–393. Bologna: Zanichelli.
Messineo, Francesco. 1957. Manuale di diritto civile e commercial. Milano: Giuffré.
Mortati, Constantino. 1931. L’ordinamento del governo nel nuovo diritto pubblico. Roma: ARE.
Napoletano, Nicola. 2012. La condanna dei “respingimenti” operati dall’Italia verso la Libia da parte della Corte europea dei diritti umani: molte luci e qualche ombra. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 2: 436–447.
Nardin, Terry. 1987. Realism, cosmopolitanism and the rule of law. American Society of International Law Proceedings 81: 416–419.
Paladin, Livio. 1997. Diritto costituzionale. Padova: CEDAM.
Passaglia, Paolo. 2014. Una sentenza (auspicabilmente) storica: la Corte limita l’immunità degli Stati esteri dalla giurisdizione civile. http://www.diritticomparati.it/2014/10/una-sentenza-auspicabilmente-storica-la-corte-limita-limmunit%C3%A0-degli-stati-esteri-dalla-giurisdizion.html#sthash.GIZYCHzF.dpuf. Accessed 24 Mar 2015.
Peces-Barba Martinez, Gregorio. 1993. Teoria dei diritti fondamentali. Milano: Giuffré.
Persano, Federica. 2008. Immunità statale dalla giurisdizione civile e violazione dei diritti fondamentali dell’individuo. Responsabilità civile e previdenza. 11: 2259–2274.
Pisillo Mazzeschi, Riccardo. 2012. Il rapporto tra norme di ius cogens e la regola sull’immunità degli Stati: alcune osservazioni critiche sulla sentenza della Corte internazionale di giustizia del 3 febbraio 2012. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 6: 310–326.
Ponzanelli, Guido. 1986. La Corte costituzionale, il danno non patrimoniale e il danno alla salute. Foro italiano 9: 2053–2062.
Ponzanelli, Giulio. 2012. La Cassazione bloccata dalla paura di un risarcimento non riparatorio. Danno e responsabilità 6: 611–613.
Principato, Luigi. 2001. Risarcimento. Responsabilità aquiliana e lesione di diritti costituzionali. Giurisprudenza costituzionale 6: 4170–4181.
Randazzo, Barbara. 2007. Responsabilità dello Stato per atti di guerra: la «ragion di stato» alla Corte di Strasburgo? Quaderni costituzionali 3: 673–675.
Ruggeri, Antonio. 2006. Le pronunzie della Corte costituzionale come controlimiti alle cessioni di sovranità a favore dell’ordinamento comunitario. In Id. Itinerari di una ricerca sul sistema delle fonti, vol. IX. Torino: Giappichelli.
Ruggeri, Antonio. 2008. La CEDU alla ricerca di una nuova identità, tra prospettiva formale-astratta e prospettiva assiologico-sostanziale d’inquadramento sistematico. Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo 1: 215–220.
Salerno, Francesco. 2010. La garanzia costituzionale della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo. Rivista di diritto internazionale 3: 637–665.
Salerno, Francesco. 2012. Gli effetti della sentenza internazionale nell’ordinamento italiano: il caso Germania c. Italia. Diritto internazionale e diritti umani 6: 350–370.
Sanna, Cecilia. 2011. Il ritardato pagamento degli indennizzi per la durata irragionevole dei processi: una violazione strutturale destinata a restare tale. Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 1: 160–164.
Silvestri, Gaetano. 2009. L’effettività e la tutela dei diritti fondamentali nella giustizia costituzionale. Napoli: ESI.
Sironi, Alice. 2012. La tutela della persona in conseguenza di danni all’ambiente nella giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti umani. Diritto internazionale e diritti umani 6: 5–33.
Speciale, Giuseppe. 2012. Il risarcimento dei perseguitati politici e razziali: l’esperienza italiana. In Riparare Risarcire Ricordare. Un dialogo tra storici e giuristi, ed. Resta Giorgio and Zeno-Zencovich Vincenzo, 115–138. Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica.
Verdross, Alfred V. 1937. Forbidden treaties in international law. American Journal of International Law 31: 571–577.
Vezzani, Simone. 2010. Sul fondamento del diritto dell’individuo al risarcimento dei danni subiti in conseguenza della violazione degli obblighi posti dalla Convenzione europea. Rivista di diritto internazionale 4: 1148–1154.
Zagrebelsky, Gustavo. 1992. Il diritto mite. Libertà, diritti, giustizia. Torino: Einaudi.
Zimmerman, Andreas. 1995. Sovereign immunity and violation of international Jus Cogens. Some critical remarks. Michigan Journal International Law 16: 433–440.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Romeo, G. (2016). Looking Back in Anger and Forward in Trust: The Complicate Patchwork of the Damages Regime for Infringements of Rights in Italy. In: Bagińska, E. (eds) Damages for Violations of Human Rights. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18950-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18950-5_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-18949-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-18950-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)