Abstract

The paper analyzes some recent views of the European Court of Human Rights ("Parrillo v. Italy", Application no. 46470/11, Judgment 28 August 28 2015), in order to the admissibility criteria of applications in terms of the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies (Art. 35, par. 1, ECHR), in cases where Italian applicants complain violations descending from a law or legislative omission. Starting from the case "Broycek" of 1989 the Court had ruled that Italian applicant was required to bring the matter before the Italian courts, before lodging an application in according to the art. 34 ECHR, due to the absence, in the Italian system of constitutional justice, of a direct appeal to the Constitutional Court, and therefore of an action available to the individual, suitable to obtain the annulment of the law. Recently the ECtHR seems to be inclined to accept the arguments of the Italian Government that invokes the well-known 'twin' judgments n. 348 and n. 349 of 2007 of the Constitutional judge, to support the existence by now of an "obligation" for the ordinary judge to interpret the law in conformity with the ECHR and, in case where this is not possible, to raise the issue of constitutionality/conventionality.