We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
The new Italian Constitution was written by the 556 deputies the Italian people elected to their first Constitutional Assembly on June 2, 1946. The Assembly approved the Constitution on December 22, 1947, by a vote of 453 favorable, 62 opposed, and 31 absent. After this approval the Constitution was promulgated by the Provisional President of Italy, Enrico de Nicola, and became effective ten days later, on January 1, 1948. Numerous evaluations of the Constitution are available, and it is not our purpose here to duplicate this work. We are concerned solely with discovering to what extent the Constitution was actually in effect during the four and one-half year period following its promulgation and with explaining, if possible, why there has been so much delay in implementing some of its basic provisions.
What we shall find is that some enabling legislation was passed by the Constitutional Assembly in the interim period between the effective date of the Constitution and the election of the first Parliament in April, 1948. Parliament has implemented a few more constitutional provisions, but vast and basic sections of the Constitution are still ineffective, owing to Parliament's inaction. To a lesser degree the administration and the courts are in a position to implement the Constitution.
1 Studies in English include Einaudi's, Mario section in Marx, Fritz Morstein, Foreign Governments (New York, 1949)Google Scholar, as well as numerous articles by the same author; and Adams, John Clarke, “The Government of Italy,” in Adams, , et al. , Foreign Governments and Their Backgrounds (New York, 1950)Google Scholar. Studies in Italian include Calamandrei, Piero and Levi, Alessandro, Commentario sistematico alla costituzione italiana (Florence, 1950, 2 vols.)Google Scholar; Amorth, Antonio, La costituzione italiana (Milan, 1948)Google Scholar; Pallieri, Giorgio Balladore, La nuova costituzione italiana (Milan, 1950)Google Scholar; Baschieri, Gastone, D'Espinosa, Luigi Bianchi, and Giannattasio, Carlo, La costituzione italiana (Florence, 1949)Google Scholar; Crosa, Emilio, Diritto costituzionale (Turin, 1951)Google Scholar; di Ruffìa, Paolo Biscaretti, Diritto costituzionale (Naples, 1949)Google Scholar; Falzone, Vincenzo, Palermo, Filippo, and Cosentino, Francesco, La costituzione della Repubblica italiana illustrata con i lavori preparatori (Rome, 1948)Google Scholar; Virga, Pietro, Diritto costituzionale (Palermo, 1950)Google Scholar. Studies in French include Crosa, Emilio (ed.), La constitution italianne de 1948, in Cahiers de la fondation nationale des sciences politiques (Paris, 1950)Google Scholar.
2 Piero Calamandrei, “Cenni introduttivi sulla Costituente e sui suoi lavori,” in Calamandrei-Levi, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. lxxxix–cxl.
3 Except insofar as the provision for the referendum is not implemented.
4 For a discussion of these provisions, see Einaudi, Mario, “The Constitution of the Italian Republic,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 42, pp. 661–76 (08, 1948)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Discussed infra.
6 Testo unico, February 5, 1948, No. 26; Lavagna, Carlo, “Atti e eventi costituzionali in Italia dal 1 gennaio 1948 al 31 dicembre 1950,” Rivista trimestrale di diritto pubblico, Vol. 1, pp. 180–84 (1951)Google Scholar. In June, 1952, the government proposed a new electoral law abolishing proportional representation and guaranteeing a majority of seats to the coalition that receives the plurality of votes. Such a law may be unconstitutional on the grounds that it deprives citizens of an equal vote.
7 This bill passed the Chamber for the second time on July 3, 1952 (two votes at least three months apart are required for constitutional amendments) and will now go to the Senate. This amendment deals primarily with procedural questions. It defines, for instance, the manner in which impeachment proceedings can be brought before the court. Such action will require the vote of a joint session of Parliament.
There is an extensive bibliography on the Constitutional Court. See Calamandrei, Piero, La illegiltimità costituzionale delle leggi del processo civile (Florence, 1950)Google Scholar; Garbagnati, Eduardo, “Sull'efficacia delle decisioni della Corte Costitutionale,” in Studi in onore di Francesco Carnelutti, Vol. 4 (Padua, 1950), pp. 191–213Google Scholar; Michele Petrucci, “La corte costituzionale,” in Calamandrei-Levi, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 431–64; Tesauro, Alfonso, “Relazione sul progetto di legge per la Corte costituzionale,” Atti parlamenlari, Camera dei Deputati, No. 469A, pp. 1–42 (1950)Google Scholar; Bruneri, Ernesto, La corte costituzionale (Florence, 1952)Google Scholar; Carlo Lavagna, op. cit., pp. 170–95, 429–52.
8 For the powers and functions of the region, see Giovanni Miele, “La regione,” in Calamandrei-Levi, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 225–379.
9 One author has suggested that in failing to implement this part of the Constitution the senators and deputies may be guilty of violating two articles of the Constitution itself: Article 54, which reads, “All citizens have the duty of remaining faithful to the Republic and to observe the Constitution and the laws,” and Transitory Article VIII, which specifically directs Parliament to establish the regions and hold regional and provincial elections within a year of the promulgation of the Constitution. (Predieri, Alberto, “Due anni di esperienza costituzionale,” Belfagor, Vol. 5, pp. 80–88, at 81–82 (1950)Google Scholar.) The provincial elections, which according to the Constitution should have been held in 1948, were held in 1951 and 1952.
10 Giannini, Massimo Severio, in some remarks made before the Congresso dei giuristi democratici in Rome on 06 2, 1952Google Scholar.
11 Predieri, op. cit., p. 88. Hundreds of bills for the creation of new communes, for instance, have been presented, some of which have been acted on favorably.
12 La nuova stampa, Turin, Vol. 8, No. 98, 04 24, 1952Google Scholar. The function of this body is to protect the judiciary from undue influence by other branches of the government. According to the Constitution, the Council is to be presided over by the President of the Republic, and the Chief Justice and the Chief Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation are members ex officio. Two-thirds of the other members are elected by the judges from their own ranks, and the other third by Parliament in joint session, from among law professors and lawyers with at least 15 years' practice. Among the functions of the Council are the selection and promotion of magistrates.
A similar innovation was adopted by the French in the Constitution of the Fourth Republic. The Italian Constitution provides for a substantially independent Council, in that the majority of its members are career judges elected by career judges. The majority of the members of the French Council, however, represent the non-judicial branches of the government. (See Carlo Giannattasio, “La magistratura,” in Calamandrei-Levi, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 169–97, at 179.)
13 According to the Constitution (Art. 125), the referendum is not to be admitted in the case of tax bills, amnesties, or authorizations of treaty ratifications. These limitations pose a serious problem, as it will not always be clear whether or not a law for which a referendum is requested falls within the subject matter for which the Constitution permits a referendum. The Constitution is silent as to what government agency is empowered to decide this question. It is proposed to give it to the Constitutional Court by a constitutional amendment. On the specific question, see Lucifredi, Roberto, “Il controllo sulla costituzionalità delle richieste di referendum abrogativo,” Rivista trimestrale di diritto pubblico, Vol. 1, pp. 128–37 (1951)Google Scholar. On the referendum in general see Maurice Battelli, “Le instituzioni di democrazia diretta,” in Calamandrei-Levi, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 61–78.
14 Lavagna, op. cit., pp. 189–92.
15 Alberto Bertolino, “L'attività economioa, funzioni e forme organizzative del lavoro. Il consiglio nazionale dell'economia e del lavoro,” in Calamandrei-Levi, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 407–40, at 440.
16 Predieri, op. cit., p. 83.
17 On the general subject of the President of the Council of Ministers, see Predieri, Alberto, Lineamenti della posizione costituzionale del presidente del consiglio (Florence, 1951)Google Scholar.
18 See, for example, a speech by Calamandrei, Piero in Atti dell'Assemblea costituente, Vol. 49, pp. 1743–55 (03 4, 1947)Google Scholar.
19 Barile, Paolo, La costituzione come norma giuridica (Florence, 1951), pp. 44–58Google Scholar.
20 Barile, Paolo, “Religione cattolica, religione dello stato, religione privilegiata (a proposito della vigenza dell'art. 402 c.p.),” Diritto ecclesiastico, Vol. 52 (1951)Google Scholar; Barile, Paolo, “Regime costituzionale e disciplina concordatoria in tema di educazione di prole,” Il foro padano, Vol. 4, Sec. 4, pp. 168–74 (07-Aug., 1949)Google Scholar; di Valsassina, Marino Bon, “La Repubblica italiana è uno stato confessionista?,” Rassegna di diritto pubblico, Part 1, pp. 50 ff. (1952)Google Scholar; Balladore Pallieri, op. cit.; Bertola, , “L'état, l'église catholique et les autres confessions religieuses,” in Crosa, (ed.), La constitution italienne, pp. 215 ff.Google Scholar; Bertola, , “Constituzionalizzazione dei patti lateranensi?,” Giurisprudenza italiana, Vol. 102, Sec. 4, pp. 172 ff. (1950)Google Scholar; Mortati, Costantino, ’L'évolution constitutionelle italienne,” in Crosa, (ed.), La constitution italienne, pp. 40 ff.Google Scholar; Virga, op. cit., p. 394; Checchini, , “Stato e chiesa dallo statuto albertino alla costituzione repubblicana,” Nel centenario del 1848 (Padua, 1949), pp. 119 ff.Google Scholar; Del Giudice, , Manuale di diritto ecclesiastico, 7th ed. (Milan, 1949), pp. 93 ff.Google Scholar; Guido Calogero, “La scuola, la scienza e le arti,” in Calamandrei-Levi, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 315–24; Cesare Grassetti, “I principi costituzionali relativi al diritto familiare,” in Calamandrei-Levi, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 296–300; Luigi Bianchi D'Espinosa in Baschieri, Bianchi D'Espinosa, Giannattasio, op. cit., p. 32. The opposite view is held by the following authors: Amorth, op. cit., pp. 52–53; Pietro Agostino D'Avack, “I rapporti fra stato e chiesa,” in Calamandrei-Levi, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 107–16; Crisafulli, Vezio, “Articolo 7 della costituzione e ‘vilipendio della religione dello Stato’,” Archivio penale, pp. 416–17 (1950)Google Scholar; Jemolo, Arturo Carlo, “Religione dello stato ed articoli 402–404 c.p.,” La giustizia penale, Vol. 54, Sec. 2, pp. 203 ff. (1949)Google Scholar; Jemolo, Arturo Carlo, Chiesa e stato in Italia negli ultimi cento anni (Turin, 1949), pp. 702–14Google Scholar.
21 Verbale dell'Assemblea costituente, No. 60, p. 2038, and No. 75, p. 2438.
22 Ibid., No. 70, p. 2327 (the words are those of Giuseppe Dossetti). See also No. 62, p. 2113 (Count Stefano Iacini) and No. 70, p. 2319 (Dossetti).
23 Ibid., No. 75, p. 2470.
24 Ibid., No. 75, pp. 2444, 2483.
25 The Constitution (Art. 36), for example, states that an act which the Constitutional Court declares unconstitutional will become ineffective the day after the publication of the sentence. Parliament should clarify this provision. If it means that the party to a dispute who claims that the Constitution has been violated can get no redress for his personal grievance, but only the altruistic satisfaction of having helped others, only those persons who can expect to be handicapped in the future by a law or regulation are likely to go to the trouble and the expense of testing its validity. (See Alfonso Tesauro, op. cit., pp. 37–38; Michele Petrucci, op. cit., pp. 456–59; Piero Calamandrei, La illegittimità costituzionale).
26 Law of February 8, 1948, No. 47.
27 The Bianchi bill passed in the Chamber July 17, 1952.
28 See Ferrara, Mario, “La legge sulla stampa,” Il nuovo corriere della sera, Vol. 77, No. 155 (07 2, 1952)Google Scholar; Ferrara, Mario, “Ancora sulla stampa,” Il nuovo corriere della sera, Vol. 77, No. 156 (07 3, 1952)Google Scholar; and Crosa, Emilio, “Le insidie d'un progetto,” La nuova stampa, Vol. 8, No. 157 (07 4, 1952)Google Scholar.
29 Decision of Consiglio di stato March 20, 1952, reported in Il foro padano, Vol. 7, Sec. 4, p. 33 (1952)Google Scholar. The government has appealed this decision to the Court of Cassation.
30 Atti parlamentari, Camera dei Deputati, Vol. 855, pp. 35564–35579 (02 13, 1952)Google Scholar. This problem was avoided in the case of Sardinia when the Sardinian Regional Legislature authorized the temporary use of the national election law (Sardinian Regional Law of August 10, 1951, No. 12).
31 The constitutional position of the President of Italy is somewhat obscure. Many authorities believe he is not part of the executive branch of the government, which is headed by the President of the Council of Ministers, and place him outside of all three conventional branches. (See Sandulli, Aldo M., “Il presidente della Repubblica e la funzione amministrativa,” in Studi in onore di Francesco Carnelutti, Vol. 4 (Padua, 1950), pp. 215–42Google Scholar; Guarino, Giuseppe, “Il presidente della Repubblica italiana,” Revista trimestrale di diritto pubblico, Vol. 1, pp. 903–92 (10-Dec., 1951)Google Scholar; Teodosio Marchi, “Il capo dello stato,” in Calamandrei-Levi, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 105–24; Crosa, Emilio, “Gli organi costituzionali e il presidente della Repubblica nella costituzione italiana,” Rivista trimestrale di diritto pubblico, Vol. 1, pp. 91–113 (01-Mar., 1951)Google Scholar; Ruini, Meuccio, “La controfirma ministeriale degli atti del capo dello stato,” Il foro padano, Vol. 7, Sec. 4, pp. 18–32 (1952)Google Scholar.
32 Ruini, op. cit.; Guarino, op. cit., p. 985; Marchi, op. cit., p. 119.
33 Atti parlamentari, Camera dei Deputati, pp. 27232 ff. (1951)Google Scholar.
34 Ruini, op. cit.; Guarino, op. cit., pp. 985, 988–89; Luigi Bianchi D'Espinosa, “Il parlamento,” in Calamandrei-Levi, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 1–60, at 23.
35 Guarino, op. cit., pp. 986–92.
36 This information was obtained from the Office of the Secretary of the President of Italy.
37 Barile, , La costituzione, pp. 93–100Google Scholar. Decision, Court of Cassation, United Criminal Sections, March 5, 1949, reported in Giurisprudenza italiana, Vol. 101, Sec. 2, pp. 281–89 (1949)Google Scholar.
38 Barile, La costituzione, Paolo Barile and Alberto Predieri, “Efficacia abrogante delle norme della costituzione,” in Calamandrei-Levi, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 69–86; Piero Calamandrei, La illegittimità costituzionale; Azzariti, Gaetano, Problemi attuali di diritto costituzionale (Milan, 1951)Google Scholar.
39 In decisions dated May 31, June 19, July 17, July 24, and July 27, 1950, various sections of the Tribunal of Rome held that Article 114 of the Law on Public Security, prepared by the Fascists, prohibiting the printing of photographs of persons who have committed a crime, was unconstitutional because it was in conflict with the guarantee of freedom of the press in Article 21 of the Constitution. On July 1, 1950, another section of the same tribunal convicted the editor of one of Rome's prominent newspapers of violating this article by printing a picture of a man accused but not convicted of a crime, in spite of the fact that Article 27 of the Constitution provides that “The accused is not considered guilty until he has been convicted (sino alla condanna definitiva).” (See Giurisprudenza italiana, Vol. 103, Sec. 2, pp. 52–60 (1951).Google Scholar)
40 These are the words of an Italian judge, Severino, Massimo, “Rimpatrio coattivo e costituzione,” Il foro padano, Vol. 6, Sec. 4, pp. 103–7, at 103 (1950)Google Scholar.
41 There is no systematic reporting of the decisions of the Italian courts. Interesting cases, chosen somewhat at random, are written up and commented on in the various law reporters. The only exception is for the Court of Cassation. All of the points of law decided by this court are collected and published as maxims (massimari).
42 Spini, Giorgio, “Le minoranze protestanti in Italia,” Il ponte, Vol. 6, pp. 670–89 at 682 (06, 1950)Google Scholar. See also a note by Spini, Giorgio in Il ponte, Vol. 8, p. 844 (05-June, 1952)Google Scholar; and Salvemini, Gaetano, “I protestanti in Italia,” Il mondo, Vol. 4, No. 32, pp. 3–4 (08 9, 1952)Google Scholar.
43 The Minister of the Interior in the Fascist era sent instructions to the prefects interpreting Article 650 of the Criminal Code so as to make it a crime for Holy Rollers to hold religious services. The instructions read: “The Pentecost cult is not admitted in the Kingdom because it expresses itself in rites that are contrary to social order and are harmful to the physical and psychic integrity of the race.” Several years later, after the fall of Fascism and the promulgation of the new Constitution, at the instigation of a local priest the prefect decided to break up the Holy Rollers' meetings and so instructed the police. In his decision upholding the Holy Rollers' right to meet, the pretor observed (1) that the instructions were invalid because the Holy Rollers had not been advised of their content, (2) that the instructions were unconstitutional because they were incompatible with Article 19 of the Constitution, (3) that Article 18 of the Law on Public Security, requiring notification of public meetings, was abrogated with respect to religious services. The following extract from the pretor's decision is worthy of citation: “They abandon themselves to shouts, to sudden rough bodily contacts, and to the emission of incomprehensible words. Now, admitting that such incandescence and fanatical collective exuberance (not unknown to the greatest religious movements) may in certain instances and over a period of time upset the nervous equilibrium of the less balanced persons, it would still be absurd to hold that public morals are offended by these meetings … to such an extent as to justify their suppression.” (Pretura of San Giorgio del Sannio, June 24, 1950, reported in Giurisprudenza ilaliana, Vol. 102, Sec. 2, pp. 310–16 [1950].Google Scholar)
44 Reported in Diritto ecclesiastico, p. 150 (1951)Google Scholar.
45 Decision of April 13, 1950, reported in Giurisprudenza italiana, Vol. 102, Sec. 1, Part 2, pp. 241–48 (1950)Google Scholar.
46 Barile, Paolo, “Appunti sulla condizione dei culti acattolici in Italia,” Diritto ecclesiastico, p. 342 (1952)Google Scholar. It is the opinion of two prominent Italian lawyers that under the present Codes it is a criminal offense in Italy to recite the Articles of Faith of the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church, as such recitation would be a slander of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church.
47 Reported in Giurisprudenza italiana, Vol. 102, Sec. 2, p. 129 (1950)Google Scholar, and in Il foro padano, Vol. 5, Sec. 4, p. 67 (1950)Google Scholar, and La giustizia penale, Vol. 55, Sec. 2, p. 291 (1950)Google Scholar.
48 Court of Cassation, January 24, 1950, reported in Il foro italiano, Vol. 73, Sec. 2, p. 73 (1950)Google Scholar.
49 Court of Cassation, April 15, 1950, reported in Il foro italiano, Vol. 73, Sec. 2, p. 105 (1950)Google Scholar, and Il foro padano, Vol. 5, Sec. 4, p. 121 (1950)Google Scholar; Court of Cassation, October 12, 1950, reported in La giustizia penale, Vol. 56, Sec. 2, p. 14 (1951)Google Scholar; Court of Cassation, January 11, 1951, reported in La giustizia penale, Vol. 56, Sec. 2, p. 640 (1951)Google Scholar.
50 Court of Cassation, October 16, 1950, reported in Giurisprudenza italiana, Vol. 103, Sec. 2, p. 287 (1951)Google Scholar, also in La giustizia penale, Vol. 56, Sec. 2, p. 115 (1951)Google Scholar.
51 Court of Cassation, January 20, 1951, reported in Giurisprudenza italiana, Vol. 103, Sec. 2, p. 289 (1951)Google Scholar, and in La giustizia penale, Vol. 57, Sec. 2, p. 11 (1952)Google Scholar.
52 Court of Cassation, December 9, 1950, reported in Il foro padano, Vol. 6, Sec. 4, p. 271 (1951)Google Scholar, and in La giustizia penale, Vol. 56, Sec. 2, p. 99 (1951)Google Scholar; Court of Cassation, June 19, 1950, reported in La giustizia penale, Vol. 55, Sec. 2, p. 971 (1950)Google Scholar; Court of Cassation, April 28, 1951, reported in La giustizia penale (Vol. 56, Sec. 2, p. 922 (1951)Google Scholar; Court of Cassation, January 20, 1951, reported in Il foro padano, Vol. 6, Sec. 4, pp. 175–84 (1951)Google Scholar. See also Barile, Paolo, “Costituzione e misure di sicurezza ristrettive della libertà personale,” Il foro padano, Vol. 6, Sec. 4, pp. 175–82 (1951)Google Scholar.
53 Court of Cassation, March 31, 1951, reported in Il foro italiano, Vol. 74, Sec. 2, p. 124 (1951)Google Scholar, and in Giurisprudenza italiana, Vol. 103, Sec. 2, p. 281 (1951)Google Scholar, and in La giustizia penale, Vol. 56, Sec. 2, p. 673 (1951)Google Scholar.
54 Court of Cassation, February 7, 1948, reported in Il foro italiano, Vol. 71, Sec. 2, p. 57 (1948)Google Scholar, in Giurisprudenza italiana, Vol. 100, Sec. 2, p. 129 (1948)Google Scholar, and in Il foro padano, Vol. 3, Sec. 4, p. 7 (1948)Google Scholar. See also decision of Court of Appeals of Milan, January 27, 1948, reported in Il foro padano, Vol. 3, Sec. 4, p. 33 (1948)Google Scholar, and articles by Carnelutti, Francesco, “Abrogazione del reato di collaborazionismo,” Rivista penale, pp. 34 ff. (1948)Google Scholar, and Barile-Predieri, op. cit., p. 81.
55 Notably Court of Cassation, February 21, 1952, reported in Orientamenti della giurisprudenza del lavoro, Vol. 1, p. 203 (1952)Google Scholar.
56 Tribunal of Milan, April 18 to August 6, 1951, reported in Orientamenti della giurisprudenza del lavoro, Vol. 1, p. 205 (1952)Google Scholar; Tribunal of Parma, November 3, 1951, reported in Orientamenti della giurisprudenza del lavoro, Vol. 1, p. 207 (1952)Google Scholar. See also the discussion on this point in Orientamenti della giurisprudenza del lavoro, Vol. 1, pp. 208–13 (1952)Google Scholar.
57 Decision of July 24, 1950, reported in Giurisprudenza italiana, Vol. 102, Sec. 2, p. 353 (1950)Google Scholar.
58 Decision of December 16, 1950, reported in Giurisprudenza italiana, Vol. 103, Sec. 1, Part 2, p. 300 (1951)Google Scholar, and in Il foro padano, Vol. 6, Sec. 4, p. 132 (1951)Google Scholar. See also decision of the same Tribunal of June 29, 1949, reported in Il foro padano, Vol. 5, Sec. 4, p. 112 (1950)Google Scholar.
59 Decision of March 15, 1952, reported in Il foro padano, Vol. 7, Sec. 4, p. 9 (1952)Google Scholar.
60 Sicilian Constitution, Art. 25.
61 High Court of the Region of Sicily, September 20, 1948, reported in Giurisprudenza italiana, Vol. 101, Sec. 1, Part 1, pp. 1 ff. (1949)Google Scholar. This law was to have been effective for only two years.
62 Jemolo, , Chiesa e stato, pp. 718–719Google Scholar.
