In its preliminary ruling of 5 December 2017, the CJEU held that the duty of disapplication of national rules on limitation periods falling on domestic judges, deriving from Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU as interpreted in Taricco, is not absolute, but it is conditional to the respect of the principle of legality. This decision represents a cooperative response to the concerns expressed by the Italian Constitutional Court, which had engaged in a peaceful dialogue with the CJEU instead of directly applying the ‘counter-limits’ doctrine. The so-called Taricco II judgment may thus be regarded as the result of the multilevel cooperation among courts in Europe, where also national constitutional courts may play an important role. Moreover, this decision is a landmark case as far as the rank of EU law is concerned, because it recognizes the primacy of human rights over conflicting obligations, even flowing from EU treaties. Therefore, the hierarchy of EU sources is now redrawn in favour of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, interpreted in light of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as of the constitutional traditions common to all the Member States.
The protection of human rights in the European Union by means of judicial dialogue. A comment of the ECJ's preliminary ruling in the Taricco II case
Anna Facchinetti
2018-01-01
Abstract
In its preliminary ruling of 5 December 2017, the CJEU held that the duty of disapplication of national rules on limitation periods falling on domestic judges, deriving from Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU as interpreted in Taricco, is not absolute, but it is conditional to the respect of the principle of legality. This decision represents a cooperative response to the concerns expressed by the Italian Constitutional Court, which had engaged in a peaceful dialogue with the CJEU instead of directly applying the ‘counter-limits’ doctrine. The so-called Taricco II judgment may thus be regarded as the result of the multilevel cooperation among courts in Europe, where also national constitutional courts may play an important role. Moreover, this decision is a landmark case as far as the rank of EU law is concerned, because it recognizes the primacy of human rights over conflicting obligations, even flowing from EU treaties. Therefore, the hierarchy of EU sources is now redrawn in favour of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, interpreted in light of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as of the constitutional traditions common to all the Member States.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
