Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Principle of Legality and Role of the Judiciary in Criminal Law: The Influence of the ECtHR Case Law on the Italian Legal System

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
General Principles of Law - The Role of the Judiciary

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 46))

  • 1753 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the interpretation of the term “law” given by the European Court of Human Rights and on the subsequent overview of judicial law-making. This approach has had an important influence on the scholarly discussion about the problematic consequences of judicial overruling. In some recent judgments, this phenomenon has been compared to changes in the law, although this conclusion encountered the strong opposition of the Italian Constitutional Court.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Valticos (2000), p. 1472 and Prebensen (2000), p. 1132.

  2. 2.

    See Ganshof van der Meersch (1988), p. 201 ff.; Ost (1989), 440 ff.

  3. 3.

    The existence of a law provision is notably a requirement which has to be satisfied by every kind of public limitation of fundamental rights provided for by the ECHR. For instance, this requirement is established by Article 5 with regard to deprivation of liberty (which may be ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”) and by Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 with regard to the right to respect of private and family life, to the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, to the freedom of expression and to the freedom of assembly and association. Moreover, the existence of a law provision is notably the core of the principle of legality in criminal law (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege) laid down in Article 7 of the ECHR.

  4. 4.

    On this topic, see Matscher (1996), p. 272 ff.; Delmas-Marty (1989), p. 153 ff.; Cremona (1990), p. 190 ff.

  5. 5.

    The requirement of “predictability” of law is probably the main feature of the “formal” conceptions of the rule of law, notably pointed out in Dicey (1959); Cass (1995), p. 954 ff.; Raz (1977), p. 198 ff. On this topic, see also Craig (1997), p. 467.

  6. 6.

    Sunday Times v. The United Kingdom (App. no. 6538/74), ECtHR, judgment of 26 April 1979, para. 49; Kokkinakis v. Greece (App. no. 14307/88), ECtHR, 25 May 1993, para. 40.

  7. 7.

    See Harris et al. (2009), p. 333 ff.; Emmerson et al. (2007), p. 380; van Dijk et al. (2006), p. 653 ff.; Rolland (1999), p. 294 ff. In the Italian scholarship see Bernardi (2001), p. 260 ff.; Zagrebelsky (2011), p. 74 ff.; Manes (2012); Nicosia (2006), p. 57 ff.

  8. 8.

    The contradiction between prohibition of extensive interpretation and recognition of the evolutive role of judicial lawmaking is remarked by Sudre (2001), p. 354, and, before, by Chiavario (1969), p. 105 ff.

  9. 9.

    This point is underlined by Bernardi (2001), p. 263, and, more recently, by Di Giovine (2011), p. 2238.

  10. 10.

    Pessino v. France (App. no. 40403/02), ECtHR, judgment of 10 October 2006.

  11. 11.

    Beian v. Romania (App. no. 30658/05), ECtHR, judgment of 6 December 2007, in which the Court criticized the contradictory case law of the Romanian High Court, with these terms: “The practice which developed within the country’s highest judicial authority is in itself contrary to the principle of legal certainty, a principle which is implicit in all the Articles of the Convention and constitutes one of the basic elements of the rule of law …. Instead of fulfilling its task of establishing the interpretation to be followed, the HCCJ itself became a source of legal uncertainty, thereby undermining public confidence in the judicial system”. Similar observations appear in later judgments, such as Iordanov v. Bulgaria (App. no. 56856/00), ECtHR, judgment of 2 July 2009. On this topic, see Cadoppi (2014a), p. 15; Cerqua (2011).

  12. 12.

    Dragotoniu and Militaru-Pidhorni v. Romania (App. nos. 77193/01 and 77196/01), ECtHR, judgment of 24 May 2007, in which the Court observed that the qualification of bank employees as public officers could not be foreseen at the time of the bribery, being the result of a subsequent evolutive interpretation.

  13. 13.

    Liivik v. Estonia (App. no. 12157/05), ECtHR, judgment of 25 June 2009, in which the conviction for the offence of “misuse of official position” on the basis of a wide interpretation of the concept of “economical prejudice” was considered as unpredictable for the accused.

  14. 14.

    Del Rio Prada v. Spain (App. no. 42750/09), ECtHR [GC], judgment of 21 October 2013, in which the Grand Chamber confirmed that the new interpretation given by the Tribunal Supremo (so-called “doctrina Parot”) on sentence adjustments and remissions which entailed a retrospective lengthening of the applicant’s imprisonment constituted a violation of Article 7 of the ECHR.

  15. 15.

    S.W. v. United Kingdom and C.R. v. United Kingdom (App. nos. 20166/92 and 20190/92), ECtHR, judgment of 22 November 1995.

  16. 16.

    Van Drooghenbroeck (1996), p. 473, who observes that the Court seems to make confusion between principle of legality and justification of criminalization policies. For similar observations, see Sudre (2001), p. 355, and Roets (2007), p. 127.

  17. 17.

    See Osborne (1996), p. 406; Ashworth and Horder (2013), p. 59 ff. The judgments are agreed instead by Simester et al. (2013), p. 24 ff.

  18. 18.

    The Constitutional Court notably adopted the position expressed by Pulitanò (1976), p. 545 ff., and Bricola (1973), p. 56 ff.

  19. 19.

    In the German scholarship, see Kaufmann (1967), p. 533 ff.; Achenbach (1974); Roxin (1987), p. 356 ff., in which he finally accepted a “liberal” foundation of the principle of culpability. The liberal approach is also widespread among Italian criminal lawyers: see Fiandaca (1987), p. 855 ff. and Padovani (1987), p. 819 ff.

  20. 20.

    See Roxin (1987); Bartoli (2005); Donini (2004), p. 70 ff. In the English scholarship, on the connections between mens rea and freedom of self-determination, see Ashorth and Horder (2013), p. 155. The idea that for every offence there should be both an actus reus element and a mens rea element which relates to that actus reus is also sometimes referred to the so-called “correspondence principle”, described by Lord Kenyon in Fowler v. Padget (1789) as “a principle of natural justice that the actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”. On this topic, see Spencer and Pedain (2005), p. 237; Simester et al. (2013), p. 196 ff.

  21. 21.

    The connection between self-determination and principle of legality is plainly recognized at least since the statements made by Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria during the eighteen century.

  22. 22.

    Constitutional Court, judgment no. 364 of 1988, para. 8.

  23. 23.

    Sud Fondi Srl and others v. Italy (App. no. 75909/01), ECtHR, judgment of 20 September 2009, para. 116.

  24. 24.

    See Vogliotti (2003), p. 334 ff.

  25. 25.

    This kind of solution is also agreed by the largest part of Italian criminal lawyers: see Fiandaca and Musco (2009), p. 390; Marinucci and Dolcini (2009), p. 293 ff.; Pulitanò (1976), p. 177 ff. and 512 ff.; Donini (1991), p. 493 ff., and Donini (1996), p. 272 ff.; Viganò, (2000), p. 258 ff. In the German legal system, the same solution surfaces in the important judgment of the Bundesgerichtshof of 18 March 1952 and in the Criminal Code of 1975; see also Welzel (1952), and Jescheck (1988), p. 188 ff.

  26. 26.

    See Zagrebelsky (2011), p. 100.

  27. 27.

    See Romano (2004), p. 47.

  28. 28.

    See Grande (1990), p. 417 ff.; Vogliotti (2003), p. 348; Cadoppi (2014b), p. 319 ff., and recently, Donini (2011), p. 95 ff. and Valentini (2012), p. 150 ff.

  29. 29.

    See Cadoppi (2014b), p. 321 ff. On the remedy of prospectivity of overrulings, see also Riondato (2000), p. 239 ff.; Donini (2004), p. 2202 ff.; Balsamo (2007); Scoletta (2013). In the German Scholarship, see Naucke (1968), p. 2321 ff.; Neumann (1991), p. 331 ff.; Schmitz (2011), p. 33 ff., and Hassemer and Kargl (2010), p. 51 ff. It has been observed, however, that even in the United States this technique is not adopted often, being preferred even in that system the mistake of law defence in order to conform to the declaratory nature of precedents: see Grande (1996), p. 469 ff., and Pomorski (1975), p. 192 ff.

  30. 30.

    Court of Cassation, United Chambers, judgment no. 18288 of 2010.

  31. 31.

    In the case law of the Constitutional Court, the constitutional rank of that principle has been recognised since the judgments no. 393/2006 and 304/2006, which made reference also to the judgment of the European Court of Justice, joined cases C-387/02 Silvio Berlusconi, C-391/02 Sergio Adelchi, C-403/02 Marcello Dell’Utri and others [2005] ECR I-3565, and to the wording of Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Finally, the ECtHR in the judgment Scoppola v. Italy  has stated that “a consensus has gradually emerged in Europe and internationally around the view that application of a criminal law providing for a more lenient penalty, even one enacted after the commission of the offence, has become a fundamental principle of criminal law”. See Scoppola v. Italy (App. no. 10249/03), ECtHR, judgment of 17 September 2009, para. 106.

  32. 32.

    Tribunale di Torino, 27 June 2011. http://www.penalecontemporaneo.com (26 July 2011).

  33. 33.

    Court of Cassation, United Chambers, judgment no. 16453 of 2011.

  34. 34.

    This kind of approach can be found notably in Guastini (1998), p. 467 ff., and it has been recently recalled, in a commentary on the instance made by the Court of Turin, by Gambardella (2012).

  35. 35.

    See Cadoppi (2012), p. 262 ff.

  36. 36.

    See Cadoppi (2014b), p. 330 ff.

  37. 37.

    See Ruggeri (2012a, b).

  38. 38.

    See Manes (2012), p. 3481, who observes that the reasoning of the Constitutional Court in judgment no. 230 of 2012 should not be referred to the different problem of detrimental changes of interpretation.

  39. 39.

    One the contrast between declaratory paradigm and activism paradigm, see Sampford (2006), p. 165 ff.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., p. 168.

  41. 41.

    On the strict relationship between rejection of the declaratory paradigm and prospectivity of overrulings, see Charnock (2009), p. 415 ff.

References

  • Achenbach, Hans. 1974. Historische und dogmatische Grundlagen der strafrechtssystematischen Schuldlehre. Berlin: J. Schweitzer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, Andrew, and Jeremy Horder. 2013. Principles of Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balsamo, Antonio. 2007. La dimensione garantistica del principio di irretroattività e la nuova interpretazione giurisprudenziale “imprevedibile”: una “nuova frontiera” del processo di “europeizzazione” del diritto penale. Cassazione penale 47: 2202-2212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartoli, Roberto. 2005. Colpevolezza: tra personalismo e prevenzione. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi, Alessandro. 2001. Articolo 7. Nessuna pena senza legge. In Commentario alla Convenzione europea per la tutela dei diritti dell’uomo e delle libertà fondamentali, eds. Sergio Bartole, Benedetto Conforti and Giuseppe Raimondi, 249-306. Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bricola, Franco. 1973. Teoria generale del reato. Novissimo digesto italiano XIX: 7-93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadoppi, Alberto. 2012. Il principio di irretroattività. In Introduzione al sistema penale, eds. Gaetano Insolera, Nicola Mazzacuva, Massimo Pavarini and Marco Zanotti, 243-282. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadoppi, Alberto. 2014. Giudice penale e giudice civile di fronte al precedente. L’indice penale 17: 11-34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadoppi, Alberto. 2014. Il valore del precedente nel diritto penale. Uno studio sulla dimensione in action della legalità. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cass, Ronald A. 1995. Judging: Norms and Incentives of Retrospective Decision-making. Boston University Law Review 75: 941-996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerqua, Luigi D. 2011. Il valore del precedente nell’ordinamento giuridico italiano. Il giudice di pace 15: 189-192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnock, Ross H. 2009. Overruling as a Speech Act: Performativity and Normative Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 401-426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiavario, Mario. 1969. La Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo nel sistema delle fonti normative in materia penale. Milano: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, Paul P. 1997. Formal and Substantive Conceptions of the Rule of Law: An Analytical Framework. Public law 21: 467-487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremona, John J. 1990. The Interpretation of the Word “Law” in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. In Selected Papers 1946-1989, ed. John J. Cremona, 187-194. Marsa, Malta: Publishers Enterprisers Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas-Marty, Mireille. 1989. Légalité pénale et prééminence du droit selon la Convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales. In Droit pénal contemporain. Mélanges en l’honneur d’André Vitu, 151-167. Paris: Editions Cujas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicey, Albert V. 1959. Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. London: Macmillan; New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Giovine, Ombretta. 2011. Il principio di legalità tra diritto nazionale e diritto convenzionale. In Studi in onore di Mario Romano. Napoli: Jovene.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donini, Massimo. 1991. Illecito e colpevolezza nell’imputazione del reato. Milano: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donini, Massimo. 1996. Teoria del reato. Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donini, Massimo. 2004. Il volto attuale dell’illecito penale. Milano: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donini, Massimo. 2011. Europeismo giudiziario e scienza penale. Milano: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmerson, Ben, Andrew Ashworth, and Alison MacDonald A. (eds.). 2007. Human Rights and Criminal Justice. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiandaca, Giovanni. 1987. Considerazioni su colpevolezza e prevenzione. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 30: 836-880.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiandaca, Giovanni, and Enzo Musco. 2009. Diritto penale. Parte generale. Bologna: Zanichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambardella, Marco. 2012. Eius est abrogare cuius est condere. http://www.penalecontemporaneo.com.

  • Ganshof van der Meersch, Walter J. 1988. Le caractère “autonome” des termes et la “marge d’appreciation” des gouvernements dans l’interprétation de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. In Protection des droits de l’homme: la dimension européenne. Mélanges en l’honneur de Gérard J. Wiarda, eds. Franz Matscher, Herbert Petzold and Gérard Wiarda, 201-220. Köln: Heymanns.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grande, Elisabetta. 1990. La sentenza n. 364/1988 della Corte costituzionale e l’esperienza di “common law”: alcuni possibili significati di una pronuncia in tema di errore di diritto. Foro italiano 113: 415-427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grande, Elisabetta. 1996. Principio di legalità e diritto giurisprudenziale: un’antinomia?. Politica del diritto 27: 469-484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guastini, Riccardo. 1998. Teoria e dogmatica delle fonti. Milano: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, David J., Michael O’Boyle, and Colin Warbrick (eds.). 2009. Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. II ed. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassemer, Winfried, and Walter Kargl. 2010. § 1 StGB. In Strafgesetzbuch, eds. Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann and Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen, 160-208. III ed. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jescheck, Hans-Heinrich. 1988. L’errore di diritto nel diritto penale tedesco e italiano. L’indice penale 22: 185-204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, Arthur. 1967. Dogmatische und kriminalpolitische Aspekte des Schuldgedankens im Strafrecht. Juristenzeitung 22: 554-560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manes, Vittorio. 2012. Commento all’art. 7. In Commentario breve alla Convenzione europea di diritti dell’uomo, eds. Sergio Bartole, Pasquale de Sena e Vladimiro Zagrebelsky, 258-288. Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manes, Vittorio. 2012. Prometeo alla Consulta: una lettura dei limiti costituzionali all’equiparazione tra “diritto giurisprudenziale” e “legge”. Giurisprudenza costituzionale 57: 3474-3482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marinucci, Giorgio, and Emilio Dolcini. 2009. Manuale di diritto penale. Parte generale. III ed. Milano: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matscher, Franz. 1996. Il concetto di legge secondo la recente giurisprudenza della Corte di Strasburgo. In Scritti in onore di Guido Gerin, 265-281. Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naucke, Wolfgang. 1968. Rückwirkende Senkung der Promillegrenze und Rückwirkungsverbot (Art. 103 Abs. 2 GG). Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 21: 2321-2324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, Ulfrid. 1991. Rückwirkungsverbot bei belastenden Rechtsprechungsänderungen der Strafgerichte? Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 103: 331-356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicosia, Emanuele. 2006. Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo e diritto penale. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, Craig. 1996. Does the End Justify the Means? Retrospectivity, Article 7, and the Marital Rape Exemption. European Human Rights Law Review 4: 406-416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ost, François. 1989. Originalité des méthodes d’interprétation de la CEDH. In Raisonner la raison d’État, ed. Mireille Delmas-Marty, 404-463. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padovani, Tullio. 1987. Teoria della colpevolezza e scopi della pena. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 30: 798-835.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomorski, Stanislaw. 1975. American Common Law and the Principle nullum crimen sine lege. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prebensen, Søren C. 2000. Evolutive Interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights. In Protection des droits de l’homme: la perspective européenne. Mélanges à la mémoire de R. Ryssdal, eds. Paul Mahoney, Franz Matscher, Herbert Petzold and Luzius Wildhaber, 1123-1137. Berlin: Carl Heynemans Verlag KG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulitanò, Domenico. 1976. L’errore di diritto nella teoria del reato. Milano: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raz, Joseph. 1977. The Rule of Law and its Virtue. Law Quarterly Review 93: 195-211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riondato, Silvio. 2000. Retroattività del mutamento penale giurisprudenziale sfavorevole, tra legalità e ragionevolezza. In Diritto e clinica per l’analisi della decisione del caso, ed. Umberto Vincenti, 241-257. Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roets, Damien. 2007. La non-rétroactivité de la jurisprudence pénale in malam partem consacrée par la CEDH. Recueil Dalloz 183: 124-128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolland, Patrice. 1999. Article 7. In La Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. Commentaire article par article, eds. Louis Edmond Pettiti, Emmanuel Decaux and Pierre Henri Imbert, 293-303. II ed. Paris: Economica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romano, Mario. 2004. Commentario sistematico del codice penale. III ed. Milano: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roxin, Claus. 1987. Was bleibt von der Schuld im Strafrecht übrig?. Schweizerische Zeitung für Strafrecht 104: 356-377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggeri, Antonio. 2012. Ancora a margine di Corte cost. n. 230 del 2012, post scriptum. Consulta online: 1-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggeri, Antonio. 2012. Penelope alla Consulta: tesse e sfila la tela dei suoi rapporti con la Corte EDU, con significativi richiami ai tratti identificativi della struttura dell’ordine interno e distintivi rispetto alla struttura dell’ordine convenzionale. Consulta online: 1-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampford, Charles. 2006. Retrospectivity and the Rule of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, Roland. 2011. § 1 StGB. In Münchner Kommentar zum StGB, ed. Wolgang Joecks, Klaus Miebach, 41-76. II. ed. Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scoletta, Marco. 2013. La legalità penale nel sistema europeo dei diritti fondamentali. In Europa e diritto penale, eds. Carlo Enrico Paliero and Francesco Viganò, 195-283. Milano: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simester, Andrew P., John R. Spencer, Robert Sullivan, and Graham J. Virgo (eds.). 2013. Simester and Sullivan’s Criminal Law. Theory and Doctrine. V ed. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, John R., and Antje Pedain. 2005. Approaches to Strict and Constructive Liability in Continental Criminal Law. In Appraising Strict Liability, ed. Andrew P. Simester, 237-283. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudre, François. 2001. Le principe de la légalité et la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. Revue pénitentiaire et de droit pénal 4: 335-356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentini, Vico. 2012. Diritto penale intertemporale. Milano: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valticos, Nicolas. 2000. Interprétation juridique et idéologies. In Protection des droits de l’homme: la perspective européenne. Mélanges à la mémoire de R. Ryssdal, eds. Paul Mahoney, Franz Matscher, Herbert Petzold and Luzius Wildhaber, 1471-1482. Berlin: Carl Heynemans Verlag KG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, Pieter, Fried Van Hoof, Arjen van Rijn, and Leo Zwaak (eds.). 2006. Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights. IV ed. Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Drooghenbroeck, Sébastien. 1996. Interprétation jurisprudentielle et non-retroactivité de la loi pénale. Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme 27: 459-479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viganò, Francesco. 2000. Stato di necessità e conflitto di doveri. Milano: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogliotti, Massimo. 2003. Penser l’impensable: le principe de la non-rétroactivité du jugement pénal in malam partem. La perspective italienne, Diritto & questioni pubbliche 3: 331-378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welzel, Hans. 1952. Il nuovo volto del sistema penale. Jus 3: 31-76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zagrebelsky, Vladimiro. 2011. La Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo e il principio di legalità nella materia penale. In La Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo nell’ordinamento penale italiano, eds. Vittorio Manes and Vladimiro Zagrebelsky, 69-107. Milano: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Fellow in Criminal Law, Researcher in University of Parma, Parma, Italy

    Francesco Mazzacuva

Authors
  1. Francesco Mazzacuva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Mazzacuva .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Parma, Parma, Italy

    Laura Pineschi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mazzacuva, F. (2015). Principle of Legality and Role of the Judiciary in Criminal Law: The Influence of the ECtHR Case Law on the Italian Legal System. In: Pineschi, L. (eds) General Principles of Law - The Role of the Judiciary. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 46. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19180-5_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation