Ancora contrasti, nella recente giurisprudenza in tema di referendum costituzionale, sulla natura dell'attività dell'Ufficio centrale presso la Corte di cassazione

[Autom. eng. transl.] The work examined the control activity to which the central office set up at the Court of Cassation was called, pursuant to art. 12 of the l. 352/1970, with respect to the constitutional referendum announced on 28 September 2016. If in fact the Constitutional Court, albeit with reference to referendums other than the one provided for by art. 138 of the Constitution, has repeatedly stated that before the Central Office there is a 'judgment', this qualification is not shared by administrative jurisprudence, which has recently defined the Office's acts as «acts that participate fundamentally in the legislative function, therefore sharing its nature ». Thesis, the latter, which had no particular doctrine followed, more inclined to consider the activity of the Central Office as jurisdictional and, according to a certain orientation, more precisely as 'objective content' jurisdiction, with consequent limitation of the contradictory before the Office itself. Yet the citizen voter must be able to effectively enforce his right to vote and, in consideration of the obvious difficulties of obtaining protection through a precautionary appeal pursuant to art. 700 cpc, it would then be preferable to also allow subjects other than the promoters to intervene in the judgment on the legitimacy of the referendum request that takes place before the Central Office.