[Autom. eng. transl.] With the sent. n. 45/2005, the Court declared the referendum for the repeal of the entire law n. 40/2004, regarding medically assisted procreation. At a first reading of this decision it would seem that the Court has provided a systematic reconstruction of its jurisprudence in terms of the admissibility of the referendum, with reference to the limits constituted by the laws with constitutionally bound content and by the constitutionally necessary laws. In reality the sentence differs from the known precedent constituted by sent. 16/1978 and in general it appears difficult to find in the jurisprudence on referendums that linearity and the coherence suggested, instead, by the Court. After all, you already heard 35/1997 in terms of abortion had marked a logical leap with respect to the previous pronunciation always in terms of abortion, the n. 26/1981, with reference to the limit also used in the pronunciation on medically assisted procreation. The latter is criticizable both for the use of the limit of the constitutionally necessary laws, since the control on the admissibility of the referendum appears to be more and more connoted as a judgment on the constitutional legitimacy of the resulting legislation, both for the lack of an adequate motivation. Moreover, the other four referendums for the repeal of some parts of law no. 40/2004. If the four remaining referendums had all had a positive outcome, the law n. 40 would have been distorted and the qualifying elements of the same would have disappeared. Therefore, the doubt about the consistency of the Court's five rulings, which excluded the referendum for the total repeal of the law, was legitimate, while it admitted the other four questions.
|Translated title of the contribution||[Autom. eng. transl.] The referendum for the repeal of the law on medically assisted procreation in the face of the limit of constitutionally necessary laws|
|Number of pages||10|
|Publication status||Published - 2005|
- leggi costituzionalmente necessarie