‘Common law-ization of criminal law’? The evolution of nullum crimen sine lege and the forthcoming challenges
| Author | Vittorio Manes |
| Published date | 01 September 2017 |
| Date | 01 September 2017 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/2032284417722673 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
‘Common law-ization of
criminal law’? The
evolution of nullum crimen
sine lege and the
forthcoming challenges
Vittorio Manes
University of Bologna, Italy
Abstract
This article focuses on the cross-constitutional influences pursued by the European Court of
Human Rights (ECtHR) case law which modify the Constitutional assets of the Italian legal order,
reconsidering the nullum crimen sine lege. The outline is a hybrid model, resulting from the
contamination of several common law patterns, which requires the traditional categories to be
shaped into the judicial lawmaking approach and the stare decisis doctrine.
Keywords
Criminal law, principle of legality, common law-izat ion, cross-constitutional influences, judicial
lawmaking
Premises
The cross-constitutional influences are transforming the principle of legality, following a path
which is quite distant from the Enlightenment’s formalistic model and, vice versa, close to the
flou,
1
substantial and Rights-based paradigm pursued by the ECtHR,
2
acquiring for the case law a
co-protagonist’s role.
Corresponding author:
Vittorio Manes, University of Bologna, Bologna 40126, Italy.
Email: vittorio.manes@unibo.it
1. In this perspective, see M. Delmas Marty, Le flou du droit. Du code pe
´nal aux droits de l’homme (Paris: PUF, 1996),
p. 11.
2. As for an instructiveanalysis, see J. SilvaSanchez, ‘Sullo stato della legalita` penale’, in A. M. Stile,S. Manacorda and V.
Mongillo, eds., I principifondamentali del diritto penale tra tradizioni nazionali e prospettive sovranazionali (Naples:
New Journal of European Criminal Law
2017, Vol. 8(3) 334–351
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2032284417722673
njecl.sagepub.com
NJECL
NJECL
The outline is a hybrid model, resulting from the contamination of several common law
patterns
3
: some of the more relevant aspects, which characterize the principle of legality in civil
law jurisdictions, have been modified and substituted,
4
implying the need to adapt the European
jurisdictions, which rely on the nullum crimen sine lege as a boundary for the judicial powers, to
the judicial lawmaking approach and to the stare decisis doctrine.
In this frame, a new trend emerges where the guarantees related to nullum crimen are gaining
the status of fundamental rights and fostering in the fair trial perspective
5
(i.e. the foreseeability
principle
6
and the retrospective application of the more lenient criminal law). This trend reflects
the representation of the process – in the common law jurisdictions – as a ‘system of rules’
7
corresponding to specific fundamental rights, on the advantage of the accused person.
8
However, considering this new perspective – together with the increasing standards of protec-
tion for the nullum crimen sine lege – an epistemological revolution seems to involve the relation
among judges and statutes, the principle of separation of powers and the criminal law itself,
9
being
undermined by the judge-made law but, at the same time, challenged by the need to increase
foreseeability.
10
This article, starting from the Italian legal order, aims to cover this transition, highlighting the
final results, together with the concerns which involve the consolidating ‘patchwork system’.
ESI, 2015), p. 181; on the ‘Rightsrevolution’ which has been creating a commonlanguage across jurisdictions, see also
M. Lasser, Judicial Transformations. The Rights Revolution in the Courts of Europe (Oxford:OUP, 2009).
3. The neologism ‘common law-ization’ has been embraced even by E. Grande, ‘Reato in diritto comparato’, in Digesto
penale (Turin: Utet, 2016), p. 418.
A synthesis on the main differences among common law and civil law legal orders can be found in Digesto penale
(Utet 1996), vol XI, 279, 287, which observes that this dualism – although criticized from several perspectives – seems
to conserve a paradigmatic relevance.
4. On the crucial aspects of the common law model, see A. T. Kronman, ‘Verso il tramonto della ‘‘common law’’?’Riv.
crit. Dir. priv (1992), 569, affirming that each attempt to rationalize the law implies the loss of the common law best
practices.
5. It is sufficient to observe the ECtHR case law which recognizes a violation of fair trial (Article 6) where the applicant
suffers a prejudice because of ‘conflicting courts decisions’, in the absence of any national tool to overtake those
difficulties. The case undermines legal certainty together with the rule of law as judicial decisions foster the citizens’
trust into the judicial order (see Stankovic and Trajkovic v. Serbia (ECtHR, 22 September 2015) 40 and Nejdet Sahin
and Perinan Sahin v. Turchia (GC, 20 October 2011).
6. F. Vigano` , ‘Il principio di prevedibilita` della decisione giudiziale in materia penale’, in DPC (also in C. E. Paliero, S.
Moccia, G. A. De Francesco, G. Insolera, M. Pelissero, R. Rampioni and L. Risicato (eds)), La crisi della legalita
`.Il
‘sistema vivente delle fonti penali’ (Naples: ESI, 2016), p. 213.
7. A. Garapon, Del giudicare. Saggio sul rituale giudiziario (Milano: Raffaello Cortina, 2007), p. 137, encouraging a
juxtaposition among the diverse conceptions of process in common law and civil law jurisdictions.
8. Rather, this tendency involves even the fair trial guarantees, as the adversarial process is increasing, implying a
progressive convergence among the common law and civil law models. On this topic, see M. Langer and K. Roach,
‘Rights to Criminal Process: A Case Study of Convergence and Disclosure Rights’, in M. Tushnet, T. Fleiner and
C. Saunders (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Constitutional law (New York: Routledge, 2013), p. 273. As for the attempt
of the Italian legal order to imitate the adversary paradigm, outlined almost in a failure, see E. Grande, Imitazione e
diritto: ipotesi sulla circolazione dei modelli (Turin: Giappichelli, 2000), p. 47, 83.
9. A field which has been already crossed by several issues due to the pluralism of legal sources: V. Militello, ‘L’identita`
della scienza giuridica penale nell’ordinamento multilivello’, Riv. it. dir. e proc. pen (2014), p. 106.
10. See M. Donini, ‘Il diritto giurisprudenziale penale. Collisioni vere e apparenti con la legalita` e sanzioni dell’illecito
interpretativo’ (2016). Available at: www.penalecontemporaneo.it (accessed April 2017), and Vigano` , ‘Il principio di
prevedibilita` della decisione giudiziale in materia penale’, cit.
Manes 335
To continue reading
Request your trial