Abstract

The reconstruction of the relationship between the Constitutional Court and ordinary courts is very complex as it needs to delve into 60 years of case law deriving from incidental review of legislation as well as conflicts of power born out of judicial acts. In order to do this, the essay relies on the annual reviews of the Presidents of the Court: starting with the speech of President De Nicola in the first hearing of the Court (23 April 1956) until the last press statement of President Criscuolo (12 March 2015). By comparing its original hesitations with its modern day conquests, the study attempts to disentangle key notions in the relationship between the Court and ordinary judges: the scope of justiciable acts; the notion of the a quo judge; the requirement of «non manifest groundlessness»; the limits of admissible questions; the decision-making techniques and the temporal effects of declarations of unconstitutionality; finally, the role of the court in the emergence of a supranational constitutional law. The hypothesis, which is confirmed by the findings, is that the Court and ordinary judges must collaborate within the constitutional process, whose rules must not be violated, derogated nor circumvented.