The research project analyzes the legal regime of administrative sanctions with a punitive character. The inevitable starting point is represented by the substantivist interpretation advocated by the ECtHR, which adheres to an autonomous notion of criminal accusation on the basis of the nomen iuris criteria, the nature of the punitive provision and the degree of severity of the sanction.Immediately afterwards, attention focuses on the internal system, in the context of which we witness, on the one hand, the adaptation to supranational dicta by the Constitutional Court and the administrative judge, architects of a real process of assimilation between the two figures of illicit; on the other, to an attitude of greater self-restraint held by the Supreme Court. The following chapters review, without any claim to exhaustiveness, the main guarantees which, originally provided for in criminal matters, have been or, if not yet, should be, extended to the administrative sector as well. In detail, the methodological approach followed consists in grouping the institutes by areas of affiliation, i.e. substantive, proceeding and procedural. Starting from the former, the conclusion reached is that the recognition of the punitive nature of an administrative sanction should be followed, in the name of rationality and effectiveness protection requirements, by a tendency to equate it with the substantive regime envisaged for penalties. Different considerations are carried out with reference to proceeding guarantees with respect to which the non-overlapping of “fair proceeding” and fair trial is highlighted. In fact, if as regards the requirements of impartiality and independence of the competent authority - at least with reference to the administrations attributable to the Authorities model - it is possible to grasp some elements of affinity with the procedural discipline, it does not seem possible to assert the same in relation to impartiality, due to the lack of separation between investigative and decision-making functions. Furthermore, proceeding participation does not appear sufficient to ensure the horizontal and equal cross-examination guaranteed in the procedural context. On the other hand, a step forward is represented by the extension of the right to silence also in proceeding investigation of the offence, recognized thanks to the joint activity of national and community jurisprudence. The aforementioned procedural gaps could be filled in the subsequent jurisdictional phase according to the teaching of the ECtHR which, at least with reference to measures attributable to the notion of «minor offences», allows for an ex post amnesty. For this to happen, it is necessary that in this phase the judge in question is authorized to entirely replace the administration that imposed the sanction and, therefore, to rule ex novo on the entire matter (so-called «full jurisdiction»). In relation to this profile, having first clarified the division of jurisdiction between ordinary judge and administrative judge, the limited powers enjoyed by the latter are highlighted, due to the non-substitutive nature of judicial review of technical discretion. From this perspective, the thesis is supported according to which - at least in relation to the disputes in question - an expansion of the powers of the judicial authority is desirable, with a control that is not limited to “mere reliability” but extends up to “greater reliability”.These last considerations, however, could be overcome if we were inclined towards the application of the principle of presumption of innocence also to the administrative process: reasoning in this way, it would not be so much a problem of the degree of pervasiveness of the review, but, even before that, of consider the responsibility of the perpetrator of the offence to be unproven due to the impossibility of guaranteeing the standard of proof required in criminal matters. Lastly, within the framework of procedural guarantees already subject to extension to punitive sanctions, on the one hand, the principle of ne bis in idem is indicated; on the other, the lapsing of the effects as a consequence of the constitutional illegitimacy of the rule concerning the sanctioning treatment.

Il progetto di ricerca analizza il regime giuridico delle sanzioni amministrative dotate di carattere punitivo. L’inevitabile punto di partenza è rappresentato dall’interpretazione sostanzialista propugnata dalla Corte EDU, che aderisce ad una nozione autonoma di «accusa penale» sulla scorta dei criteri del nomen iuris, della natura della disposizione punitiva e del grado di severità della sanzione. Immediatamente dopo l’attenzione verte sull’ordinamento interno, nel cui contesto si assiste da un lato, all’adeguamento ai dicta sovranazionali da parte della Corte Costituzionale e del giudice amministrativo, artefici di un vero e proprio processo di assimilazione tra le due figure di illecito; dall’altro, ad un atteggiamento di maggiore self restraint tenuto dalla Cassazione. Nei capitoli successivi vengono passati in rassegna, senza alcuna pretesa di esaustività, le principali garanzie che, originariamente previste in materia penale, sono state o, se non ancora avvenuto, sarebbe opportuno che lo fossero, oggetto di estensione anche al settore amministrativo. In dettaglio, l’approccio metodologico seguito consiste nel raggruppare gli istituti per aree di afferenza, vale a dire sostanziale, procedimentale e processuale. Prendendo le mosse dalle prime, la conclusione alla quale si giunge è quella secondo cui, al riconoscimento della natura punitiva di una sanzione amministrativa dovrebbe fare seguito, in nome di esigenze di razionalità ed effettività di tutela, una tendenziale equiparazione al regime sostanziale previsto per le pene. Considerazioni diverse si svolgono con riferimento alle garanzie procedimentali rispetto alle quali si evidenzia la non sovrapponibilità del “giusto procedimento” al giusto processo. Infatti, se per quanto concerne i requisiti della imparzialità e dell’indipendenza dell’autorità competente - per lo meno con rifermento alle amministrazioni riconducibili al modello delle Authorities - è possibile cogliere degli elementi di affinità con la disciplina processuale, non sembra possibile dirsi lo stesso in relazione alla terzietà, in ragione della mancata separazione tra funzioni istruttorie e funzioni decisorie. Inoltre, la partecipazione procedimentale non appare sufficiente ad assicurare il contraddittorio orizzontale e paritario garantito in ambito processuale. Di contro, un passo in avanti è rappresentato dall’estensione del diritto al silenzio anche al procedimento accertativo dell’illecito, riconosciuto grazie all’attività congiunta della giurisprudenza nazionale e di quella comunitaria. Le menzionate lacune procedimentali potrebbero essere colmate nella successiva fase giurisdizionale secondo l’insegnamento della Corte EDU che, per lo meno con riferimento alle misure riconducibili alla nozione di «minor offences», ammette una sanatoria ex post. Affinché questo avvenga, è necessario che in tale fase il giudice adito sia abilitato a sostituirsi interamente all'amministrazione che ha irrogato la sanzione e, quindi, a pronunciarsi ex novo sull'intera vicenda (cd. «full jurisdiction»). In relazione a tale profilo, chiarito innanzitutto il riparto di giurisdizione tra g.o. e g.a., si evidenza la limitatezza di poteri di cui gode quest’ultimo, in ragione della natura non sostitutiva del sindacato giurisdizionale sulla discrezionalità tecnica. In tale ottica, si avalla la tesi secondo cui - per lo meno in relazione alle controversie in esame – è auspicabile un ampliamento dei poteri dell’autorità giudiziaria, con un controllo che non si limiti alla “mera attendibilità” ma si estenda fino alla “maggiore attendibilità”. Tali ultime considerazioni, peraltro, potrebbero essere superate qualora si applicasse il principio di presunzione di innocenza anche al processo amministrativo: così ragionando, non si tratterebbe tanto di un problema del grado di pervasività del sindacato, quanto, ancora prima, di ritenere non provata la responsabilità dell’autore dell’illecito in ragione della impossibilità di garantire lo standard probatorio richiesto in materia penale. Da ultimo, nel quadro delle garanzie processuali già oggetto di estensione alle sanzioni punitive si indicano, da un lato, il principio del ne bis in idem; dall’altro, la caducazione degli effetti in conseguenza della illegittimità costituzionale della norma concernente il trattamento sanzionatorio.

Le sanzioni amministrative "punitive": approdi e prospettive di un'ibridazione annunciata / Baldari, Maria. - (2023 Oct 23).

Le sanzioni amministrative "punitive": approdi e prospettive di un'ibridazione annunciata

Baldari, Maria
2023-10-23

Abstract

The research project analyzes the legal regime of administrative sanctions with a punitive character. The inevitable starting point is represented by the substantivist interpretation advocated by the ECtHR, which adheres to an autonomous notion of criminal accusation on the basis of the nomen iuris criteria, the nature of the punitive provision and the degree of severity of the sanction.Immediately afterwards, attention focuses on the internal system, in the context of which we witness, on the one hand, the adaptation to supranational dicta by the Constitutional Court and the administrative judge, architects of a real process of assimilation between the two figures of illicit; on the other, to an attitude of greater self-restraint held by the Supreme Court. The following chapters review, without any claim to exhaustiveness, the main guarantees which, originally provided for in criminal matters, have been or, if not yet, should be, extended to the administrative sector as well. In detail, the methodological approach followed consists in grouping the institutes by areas of affiliation, i.e. substantive, proceeding and procedural. Starting from the former, the conclusion reached is that the recognition of the punitive nature of an administrative sanction should be followed, in the name of rationality and effectiveness protection requirements, by a tendency to equate it with the substantive regime envisaged for penalties. Different considerations are carried out with reference to proceeding guarantees with respect to which the non-overlapping of “fair proceeding” and fair trial is highlighted. In fact, if as regards the requirements of impartiality and independence of the competent authority - at least with reference to the administrations attributable to the Authorities model - it is possible to grasp some elements of affinity with the procedural discipline, it does not seem possible to assert the same in relation to impartiality, due to the lack of separation between investigative and decision-making functions. Furthermore, proceeding participation does not appear sufficient to ensure the horizontal and equal cross-examination guaranteed in the procedural context. On the other hand, a step forward is represented by the extension of the right to silence also in proceeding investigation of the offence, recognized thanks to the joint activity of national and community jurisprudence. The aforementioned procedural gaps could be filled in the subsequent jurisdictional phase according to the teaching of the ECtHR which, at least with reference to measures attributable to the notion of «minor offences», allows for an ex post amnesty. For this to happen, it is necessary that in this phase the judge in question is authorized to entirely replace the administration that imposed the sanction and, therefore, to rule ex novo on the entire matter (so-called «full jurisdiction»). In relation to this profile, having first clarified the division of jurisdiction between ordinary judge and administrative judge, the limited powers enjoyed by the latter are highlighted, due to the non-substitutive nature of judicial review of technical discretion. From this perspective, the thesis is supported according to which - at least in relation to the disputes in question - an expansion of the powers of the judicial authority is desirable, with a control that is not limited to “mere reliability” but extends up to “greater reliability”.These last considerations, however, could be overcome if we were inclined towards the application of the principle of presumption of innocence also to the administrative process: reasoning in this way, it would not be so much a problem of the degree of pervasiveness of the review, but, even before that, of consider the responsibility of the perpetrator of the offence to be unproven due to the impossibility of guaranteeing the standard of proof required in criminal matters. Lastly, within the framework of procedural guarantees already subject to extension to punitive sanctions, on the one hand, the principle of ne bis in idem is indicated; on the other, the lapsing of the effects as a consequence of the constitutional illegitimacy of the rule concerning the sanctioning treatment.
23-ott-2023
Settore IUS/10 - DIRITTO AMMINISTRATIVO
TROPEA, Giuseppe
GORASSINI, Attilio
Doctoral Thesis
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Baldari Maria.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Tesi di dottorato
Licenza: DRM non definito
Dimensione 2.16 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.16 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

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/20.500.12318/141366
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact