Il ricorso alla legge per l'esercizio dei poteri "europei" da parte del Parlamento italiano. Spunti per una lettura costituzionalmente orientata

di Giovanni Piccirilli

SOMMARIO: 1. La difficile gestazione della nuova legge sulla partecipazione dell’Italia all’UE. – 2. I poteri parlamentari riconosciuti dal Trattato di Lisbona e la necessità di una loro lettura costituzionalmente orientata. – 3. La prassi emersa medio tempore: l’assai poco condivisibile esempio della formale “ratifica” nella fase nazionale della revisione dell’art. 136 TFUE. – 4. Il ricorso alla necessaria approvazione con legge secondo la legge n. 234 del 2012 e i casi di (difficilmente comprensibile) silenzio. – 5. La non necessità (ma neanche il divieto) dell’intervento con legge rispetto ai poteri di opposizione e alle clausole “passerella”. – 6. In conclusione, una proposta: ricorso alla legge almeno per le revisioni semplificate (ex art. 48, par. 6, TUE), purché non di “autorizzazione” alla ratifica.

The essay investigates the way in which law no. 234/2012 implemented in the Italian legal order the new powers attributed by the Lisbon Treaty to national parliaments. In particular, it focuses on those powers to be exercised jointly by the two Houses and on the cases in which a parliamentary statute (rather than other - and less formalized - deliberative processes) is required in order to attain the positive conclusion of the proceeding. The provisions of the European Treaties leave room for very different procedures at the national level, but the way chose by the Italian legislator might end up to be not inspired to a consistent interpretation of further Constitutional provisions, such as art. 80 Const. concerning the authorization to the ratification of international treaties. Notwithstanding the deep differences between the authorization to the ratification of international treaties and the exercise of "European powers" of the national parliament (topic that is however tackled in the essay), the essay shows that the constitutional framework of the former should have led to set a similar outline for the exercise of the latter, in order to maintain comparable safeguards in terms of transparency and active involvement of the relevant parliamentary bodies. The aim is to raise some criticism of the law no. 234/2012, with particular regard to the fact that it seems to miss the point about the novelties related to the European role of the national parliaments after the Lisbon Treaty, seeming to be largely inspired to the aim of limiting to the minimum the possible parliamentary bounds to the action of the Government at the European level.