judicial review

An appeal to the Court of Cassation (against a decision of the Council of State) for reasons of jurisdiction can never concern a principle of law, even if this principle is stated in an interpretive ruling issued by the Council of State. The 'nomophylactic role' attributed to the plenary session of the Council of State (i.e. its exclusive role in the interpretation of the substantive and procedural rules which it applies), is a safeguard of the balance between the two jurisdictions (ordinary and administrative) that is enshrined in the Italian Constitution.

The Author briefly reviews the major problems of administrative justice in the Third Millennium. These include: digitalization and judicial review of automated decisions by administrative judges; the relationships between national and EU law; legal measures to reduce delays in judgments without affecting their effectiveness and the uncertainty of rules and the excessive discretion left to judges.

In recent years, the Italian system of judicial protection against public administration has undergone important transformations. Some are connected to the pandemic emergency. Others concern the need to optimize the ability of administrative judges to decide disputes. This contribution underlines how these experiments are a symptom of wider-ranging changes. In particular, these are changes in which the importance of specific organizational factors and the renewal of technical skills suitable for supporting the activity of the judge emerge as determining elements.

This is the introductory speech to the Round Table which outlines some of the aspects that have characterized the progress made by administrative justice with a view to tackling a new challenge: that of continuing to ensure a balanced relationship between private and public interests even in the presence of, on the one hand, extensive and significant transformations and, on the other, judicial instruments that are evolving towards hybrid forms, different from the original models.

To what extent, and in what ways, is judicial review shaped by its specific constitutional context? Recent developments in Australian judicial review of administrative and adjudicative powers may be of some interest in exploring this terrain. This paper discusses the impact of Australia’s basic law, the Constitution, on judicial application of a concept central to judicial review: invalidity. It argues that the full impact of the separation of judicial power in Australia’s Constitution on thinking about the status of “invalid” decisions has yet to be revealed; and indicates some potential areas where doctrinal adjustments may be necessary to reflect and integrate the ‘constitutionalised’ role of invalidity.