Diritto Pubblico Comparato ed Europeo

Sommario

Sommario: 1. Impostazione della tematica. – 2. Il landmark case Köbler e il suo inquadramento nel contesto della giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia: conferma della dottrina Francovich e “rilettura” del precedente Cilfit. – 3. L’indipendenza della magistratura, da una parte, e l’autorità della regiudicata, dall’altra, non possono costituire alcun ostacolo all’affermazione di una responsabilità dello Stato-giudice. – 4. La responsabilità della Comunità per fatto della Corte di giustizia e l’argomento del “quis custodies ipsos custodes”. – 5. Köbler c. l. 117/88: la pronuncia Traghetti del Mediterraneo Spa c. Repubblica Italiana del 13 giugno 2006 (in C-173/03). – 6. L’uso della comparazione nella ricostruzione/identificazione del principio di responsabilità. – 7. Spunti conclusivi.

Abstract

The article deals with the important subject-matter of the State’s liability for violations of EC/EU law attributable to the last instance judges of a Member State. Apart from the fact that according to the Court of Justice, the national competent court should take into account “the specific nature of the judicial function”, in reality that statement sounds more like a sort of lip service, being rather clear that “State liability for loss or damage caused by a decision of a national court adjudicating at last instance which infringes a rule of Community law is governed by the same conditions” (Köbler C-224/01). The confirmation of such a thesis (no special regime for the responsibility of judges in line with the Francovich doctrine) in a certain way comes out as a result of a subsequent case in which the ECJ, in evaluating the compatibility of Italian Law n. 117/88 (“Risarcimento dei danni cagionati nell’esercizio delle funzioni giudiziarie e responsabilità civile dei magistrati”), makes it clear that “Community law precludes national legislation which excludes State liability, in a general manner, for damage caused to individuals by an infringement of Community law attributable to a court adjudicating at last instance by reason of the fact that the infringement in question results from an interpretation of provisions of law or an assessment of facts or evidence carried out by that court” (Traghetti del Mediterraneo). Finally, it seems that this line of ECJ case-law will have a fundamental consequence upon the national legal systems, in which, traditionally, there is a tendency for judges to be almost absolutely immune from any responsibility for their acts, no matter how arbitrary and manifestly erroneous they might be.