The article deepens the problem of the systematic placement of the judiciary in the Constitution, analyzing within it the institute of the strike of magistrates. It is a highly debated institution because it underlies the more general problem of the content and limits of the powers of the judiciary. In particular, historical occasions in which, in 1991 and 2002, the National Association of Magistrates proclaimed a strike to protect the values of autonomy and independence of the judiciary, guaranteed by the Constitution, are analyzed. The content and limits of the magistrates' strike in the Constitution and, in particular, the validity or not of its legitimacy in the Constitution are examined, since the institute is located, on a systematic level, straddling several on the back of various institutions provided for by the Constitutions such as, by way of example, the judiciary, the economic rights of citizens. The research starts from the identification of the notion of "strike" in the light of art. 40 Cost. which provides for the strike as a "right exercisable within the framework of the laws that regulate it" noting that the constitutional norm is placed in the Constitution in Title III "Economic Relations". In particular, it is proposed to place the strike of the magistrates in a tertium genus between the economic strike (subjective right) and the political strike (freedom) of all citizens ex art. 3 Cost. building the figure of the "strike c.d. guarantee", to protect the independence of the magistrates, understood as functional independence. From this premise they result the features of the legal discipline and the functional features of the institute under which when the strike is proclaimed outside these constitutional limits is not legitimate. The arguments in support of the position are: a) the prohibition of the registration of judges to political parties; b) the autonomy and independence of the magistrates as non-exclusive and unrivalled relational assets with the consequent unavailability of autonomy and independence by the magistrates themselves; c) the autonomy and independence of the judiciary as a guarantee of the functional independence of the judiciary in the exercise of the judicial function; d) the role of the Superior Council of the Judiciary as a guarantee body.

L'articolo approfondisce il problema della collocazione sistematica della magistratura nella Costituzione, analizzando al suo interno l’istituto dello sciopero dei magistrati. Trattasi di un istituto molto dibattuto perché sottende il problema più generale del contenuto e dei limiti dei poteri della magistratura. In particolare sono analizzate le occasioni storiche nelle quali, negli anni 1991 e 2002, l’Associazione Nazionale dei Magistrati ha proclamato lo sciopero a tutela dei valori di autonomia ed indipendenza della magistratura, garantiti dalla Costituzione. Si esaminano contenuto e limiti dello sciopero dei magistrati nella Costituzione e, in particolare, la fondatezza o meno della sua legittimità nella Costituzione, essendo l’istituto collocato, sul piano sistematico, a cavallo di diversi istituti previsti dalla Costituzioni quali a titolo esemplificativo la magistratura, i diritti economici dei cittadini. La ricerca parte dalla individuazione della nozione di “sciopero” alla luce dell’art. 40 Cost. che prevede lo sciopero come “diritto esercitabile nell’ambito delle leggi che lo regolano” rilevando che la norma costituzionale è collocata nella Costituzione nel Titolo III “Rapporti economici”. In particolare, si propone di collocare lo sciopero dei magistrati in un tertium genus tra lo sciopero economico (diritto soggettivo) e lo sciopero politico (libertà) di tutti i cittadini ex art. 3 Cost. costruendo la figura dello “sciopero c.d. di garanzia”, a tutela dell’indipendenza dei magistrati, intesa come indipendenza funzionale. Da questa premessa conseguono i tratti della disciplina giuridica ed i lineamenti funzionali dell’istituto in forza dei quali quando lo sciopero è proclamato fuori da questi limiti costituzionali non è legittimo. Gli argomenti a sostegno dell’assunto sono: a) il divieto di iscrizione dei magistrati ai partiti politici; b) l’autonomia e l’indipendenza dei magistrati come beni relazionali non esclusivi e non rivali con conseguente indisponibilità dell’autonomia e dell’indipendenza da parte degli stessi magistrati; c) l’autonomia e l’indipendenza dei magistrati come garanzia di indipendenza funzionale dei magistrati nell’esercizio della funzione giurisdizionale; d) il ruolo del Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura come organo di garanzia.

Note in tema di sciopero dei magistrati

Bocchini Francesco
2012-01-01

Abstract

The article deepens the problem of the systematic placement of the judiciary in the Constitution, analyzing within it the institute of the strike of magistrates. It is a highly debated institution because it underlies the more general problem of the content and limits of the powers of the judiciary. In particular, historical occasions in which, in 1991 and 2002, the National Association of Magistrates proclaimed a strike to protect the values of autonomy and independence of the judiciary, guaranteed by the Constitution, are analyzed. The content and limits of the magistrates' strike in the Constitution and, in particular, the validity or not of its legitimacy in the Constitution are examined, since the institute is located, on a systematic level, straddling several on the back of various institutions provided for by the Constitutions such as, by way of example, the judiciary, the economic rights of citizens. The research starts from the identification of the notion of "strike" in the light of art. 40 Cost. which provides for the strike as a "right exercisable within the framework of the laws that regulate it" noting that the constitutional norm is placed in the Constitution in Title III "Economic Relations". In particular, it is proposed to place the strike of the magistrates in a tertium genus between the economic strike (subjective right) and the political strike (freedom) of all citizens ex art. 3 Cost. building the figure of the "strike c.d. guarantee", to protect the independence of the magistrates, understood as functional independence. From this premise they result the features of the legal discipline and the functional features of the institute under which when the strike is proclaimed outside these constitutional limits is not legitimate. The arguments in support of the position are: a) the prohibition of the registration of judges to political parties; b) the autonomy and independence of the magistrates as non-exclusive and unrivalled relational assets with the consequent unavailability of autonomy and independence by the magistrates themselves; c) the autonomy and independence of the judiciary as a guarantee of the functional independence of the judiciary in the exercise of the judicial function; d) the role of the Superior Council of the Judiciary as a guarantee body.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11695/5036
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact