di Caterina Francesca Gala
Benché ogni intervento di riforma vada considerato nella sua specificità (esaminando, per un verso, i motivi e le giustificazioni della scelta normativa e, per altro, le conseguenze impattanti sull’equilibrio complessivo dell’ordinamento) pare doveroso non considerare la singola disciplina isolata rispetto al contesto di riferimento in cui si inserisce. Al contrario, essa deve necessariamente porsi in costante dialogo con ciò che è già cristallizzato, applicato e consolidato nella prassi interpretativa.
Questo approccio metodologico, pur dovendo caratterizzare l’analisi di qualsiasi innovazione legislativa, assume particolare rilievo quando si interviene con frequenza in materia penale con lo strumento della decretazione d’urgenza. In tali ipotesi può emergere un contrasto strutturale: l’invocazione della necessità e dell’urgenza del provvedere, che talvolta poggia su basi controverse, rischia di entrare in tensione con principi fondamentali dell’ordinamento, generando dubbi di legittimità costituzionale.
Abstract
Law No. 80 of 9 June 2025, converting Decree-Law No. 48 of 11 April 2025, falls within the “established practice” of intervention in criminal matters through the instrument of decree-law. The investigation begins with an analysis of the constitutional issues underlying the systematic recourse to emergency decree-making in criminal matters, first examining the scope of application of the principle of legality, and subsequently questioning the existence of the prerequisites ex Article 77 of the Constitution and the heterogeneity (substantive or purposive) of the measure. The doctrine, through examination of the principal innovations introduced by the reform, has identified a framework characterized by a form of “punitive hypertrophy”: new criminal offences, anticipation of the thresholds of criminal liability, harsher penalties, which raise significant doubts regarding compatibility with principles of criminal law. Tensions have emerged with the principles of legal certainty, proportionality, the offense principle, and subsidiarity, leading to what has been defined as a symbolic criminal law oriented toward the pursuit of security. The reflection reveals a kind of blurring of the boundary between ordinary and exceptional, where emergency becomes the rule; consequently, consideration is given to forms of alternative planning approaches, broad-ranging interventions that privilege preventive approaches, capable of addressing the causes of deviance rather than limiting themselves to merely repressive responses.