di Luca Poltronieri Rossetti

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione. – 2. Il procedimento ex art. 87, par. 7 dello Statuto di Roma. – 2.1 La posizione del Procuratore e la (contraddittoria) difesa italiana – 3. La decisione della Camera preliminare del 17 ottobre 2025. – 4. Il rinvio della decisione sul deferimento della mancata cooperazione all’Assemblea degli Stati Parte e al Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite. – 5. Le questioni di costituzionalità della l. n. 237/2012 sollevate dalla Corte d’appello di Roma. – 6. Considerazioni conclusive.

On 17 October 2025, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court issued a decision under Article 87(7) of the Rome Statute establishing that Italy failed to comply with its obligation to cooperate with the Court in the arrest and surrender of Libyan general Osama Elmasry Njeem, addressee of a warrant of arrest for crimes against humanity and war crimes issued on 18 January 2025. The Court, however, postponed the decision on whether to defer the issue of non-cooperation to the Assembly of States Parties and the United Nations Security Council. This contribution analyzes the Court’s reasoning regarding Italy’s violation of its cooperation obligations. It focuses on the inconsistencies in the Italian defense and how the Court used precedents to justify both its finding of non-compliance and its exercise of discretion concerning deferral to political bodies. The Chamber’s decision confirms the near-unanimous critical stance of international criminal law and procedure scholars, who have argued that certain provisions of Law No. 237/2012 on the cooperation with the Court – as interpreted by political and judicial bodies in this case – present serious shortcomings that prevent Italy from fully and expeditiously cooperating with the Court in the execution of crucial decisions. These provisions have now been brought before the Constitutional Court to assess their constitutionality.

di Stella Romano

Sommario: 1. Le norme penali di favore ed il vaglio del Giudice delle Leggi sull’abuso d’ufficio: quale limite alla discrezionalità legislativa?. – 2. Il sindacato in malam partem Vs vuoti di tutela: una necessaria premessa metodologica. – 3. L’evoluzione normativa del delitto di abuso d’ufficio. – 4. La decisione n. 95 del 2025 e l’effettività degli obblighi di criminalizzazione. – 5. Conclusioni.

This contribution aims to analyse, through the lens of the latest decision by the Constitutional Court, the complex issues surrounding the crime of abuse of office and the difficult balance between the principle of criminal legality and the demands of international protection.

di Deborah Russo

SOMMARIO: 1. Il caso. – 2. L’oggetto del ricorso. – 3. La ricostruzione del quadro giuridico interno in chiave critica. – 4. Gli argomenti posti a fondamento della condanna. – 5. Osservazioni conclusive.

The Scuderoni v. Italy judgment marks an important step in the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence on domestic violence and States’ positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court held Italy responsible for failing to prevent and effectively respond to domestic violence, while critically addressing the restrictive interpretation of the offence of ill-treatment under Article 572 of the Italian Criminal Code. The article argues that the requirement of habitual and systematic conduct, as applied by Italian courts, is incompatible with the standards set by the Istanbul Convention and the principle of due diligence. By focusing on the Court’s reasoning and the observations of the GREVIO, the analysis highlights how this interpretative approach trivialises domestic violence, reinforces gender stereotypes, and undermines victim protection. The judgment underscores the need for a gender-sensitive interpretation of criminal law capable of addressing the dynamics and escalation of domestic violence from its earliest manifestations. The article ultimately calls on ordinary courts to interpret domestic criminal law in conformity with international human rights obligations, ensuring effective protection from the earliest manifestations of domestic violence.

di Rossella Vassallo               

SOMMARIO: 1. Introduzione. – 2. La disciplina in materia di elezione dei Consiglieri degli ordini territoriali e del Consiglio nazionale e i motivi del ricorso. – 3. Gli atti normativi coinvolti: fra la riserva di regolamento governativo e l’eccesso di delega. – 4. La portata immediatamente precettiva dell’articolo 51, primo comma, della Costituzione nella giurisprudenza costituzionale e amministrativa. – 5. Considerazioni conclusive: il rapporto fra l’articolo 51 e 97 della Costituzione.

The paper focuses on the Lazio Regional Administrative Court's ruling no. 15521/2025, to address the issue of the effectiveness of the constitutional principle of gender equality.This principle is now binding not only on the legislator but also on all public authorities. Administrative action, even discretionary action, must therefore comply with it, providing solutions aimed at promoting equal opportunities in sectors where one of the two sexes is underrepresented.