Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Migration and the Janus Faces of Solidarity and the Rule of Law: Brief Remarks in the Light of the Italian Experience

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Solidarity and Rule of Law

Part of the book series: European Union and its Neighbours in a Globalized World ((EUNGW,volume 9))

  • 162 Accesses

Abstract

The chapter explores the link between the principle of solidarity and the rule of law in migration policies by briefly analysing two cases that occurred in the Italian legal system. Such cases concern respectively the instrumental use of ministerial (ir)responsibility in favour and against former Minister of Internal Affairs Matteo Salvini; and the residence registration at local municipalities. Both highlight the dangers related to (1) exclusionary conceptions of solidarity; and (2) conceptions of the rule of law detached from legal certainty and right to access as pre conditions for the effective enjoyment of constitutional and international rights. These considerations, in turn, point to the need—both in research and policy agendas—to take into consideration the different conceptions of solidarity and the rule of law to address the complex and multifaceted issues related to migration governance. Further, such considerations are useful to assess the value and broader effects of recent trends emerging in EU law concerning the principle of solidarity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Ioannidis (2020).

  2. 2.

    For an overview, see generally D’Acunto et al. (2017) and Biondi Dal Monte and Rossi (2020).

  3. 3.

    Cf. Golia (2021). For a similar position in the context of EU social law, see generally Sciarra (2018).

  4. 4.

    Providing that ‘[T]he tax system shall be progressive’.

  5. 5.

    Providing that ‘Private property is recognised and guaranteed by the law, which prescribes the ways it is acquired, enjoyed and its limitations so as to ensure its social function and make it accessible to all’.

  6. 6.

    Providing that ‘[E]very person shall contribute to public expenditure in accordance with their capability’.

  7. 7.

    Despite the shameful commitment to National-Socialism of the author, it is still today useful to read Schmitt (1973); and Schmitt (1996 [1928]).

  8. 8.

    Which, not by chance, was initially developed in the French legal system (acte de gouvernement) of the 19th century as an area of non-justiciability of administrative acts on account of their instrumentality with respect to the ‘supreme interests’ of the state: see Garner (1924), pp. 606 ff.

  9. 9.

    See generally Crouch (2006) and, for the Italian constitutional system, Delledonne et al. (2020).

  10. 10.

    See von Bogdandy (2000) and Sunstein and Vermeule (2020).

  11. 11.

    Cf. Penasa (2020).

  12. 12.

    Cf. Ronchetti (2012).

  13. 13.

    Cf. Bifulco (1999) and Rossi (2010).

  14. 14.

    See, among many, Benvenuti (2018), Ziebritski (2020) and Moser and Rittberger (2021).

  15. 15.

    European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), Judgment (6 September 2017), C-643/15 and C-647/15, Slovak Republic and Hungary v. Council of the European Union; European Court of Justice (Third Section), Judgment (2 April 2020), C-715/17, C-718/17 and C-719/17, Commission v. Poland (Temporary mechanism for the relocation of applicants for international protection), European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), Judgment (15 July 2021), C-848/19 P, Federal Republic of Germany v. European Commission.

  16. 16.

    On such two forms of crossing in the context of migration policies, see Golia (2017).

  17. 17.

    Art. 605 italian penal code.

  18. 18.

    Art. 328 italian penal code.

  19. 19.

    Italian Constitutional Court 186/2020 (9 July 2020).

  20. 20.

    Art. 9 Constitutional Law No. 1, 16 January 1989 (my translation). In most recent literature, see only Masera (2020).

  21. 21.

    In which case the decision cannot be appealed (the Public Prosecutor may only ask the panel to carry out further investigations, specifying the reasons; the panel decides within the following 60 days). Se Art. 8, Constitutional Law No. 1/1989.

  22. 22.

    If the member of the executive is not a member of Parliament, authorisation is requested from the Senate.

  23. 23.

    Which is a judicial body distinct from the Tribunale dei Ministri.

  24. 24.

    See Kirchgaessner (2018). See more generally Penasa (2020).

  25. 25.

    From the perspective of migration governance.

  26. 26.

    Only after more than a year, Art. 1, Decree Law No. 53, 5 August 2019, formalised the transfer of competences regarding the entry into Italian ports to the Minister of Internal Affairs. Such transfer was repealed in 2020, after the change of government coalition: see Art. 1, Decree Law No. 130, 21 October 2020.

  27. 27.

    See generally Benvenuti (2019) and Giupponi (2021).

  28. 28.

    See deliberation 20 March 2019.

  29. 29.

    See deliberation 12 February 2020 and deliberation 30 July 2020.

  30. 30.

    See only Giupponi (2009).

  31. 31.

    Cf. Giupponi (2021), p. 13.

  32. 32.

    Law Decree No. 113, 4 October 2018.

  33. 33.

    See Algostino (2018).

  34. 34.

    Art. 13(1)(a)(2), modifying Art. 4 Legislative Decree No. 142/2015, which in turn was the domestic act implementing Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection; and Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, OJ L 180 (2013).

  35. 35.

    See above note 19, spec. paras 4.1–4.2. See also Ciervo (2020), Rossi (2020) and Canzian (2021).

  36. 36.

    See above note 19, para 4.1.

  37. 37.

    ‘All citizens have equal social dignity and are equal before the law, without distinction of sex, race, language, religion, political opinion, personal and social conditions. It is the duty of the Republic to remove those obstacles of an economic or social nature which constrain the freedom and equality of citizens, thereby impeding the full development of the human person and the effective participation of all workers in the political, economic and social organisation of the country’.

  38. 38.

    See above note 19, para 4.2, recalling a line of case-law started in the 1960s. See Luciani (1992); and Rossi (2010).

  39. 39.

    See above note 19, para 4.2: ‘Without entering into the merits of the debated issue relating to the possibility or not to obtain, for each service, the provision by the competent administrations in the absence of the registered residence (…) it is undeniable that the provision of the provision of services in the place of domicile, rather than in the place of residence (…), makes it, at the very least, unjustifiably more difficult to access the services themselves, if only for the practical and bureaucratic obstacles related to the procedures for requesting the provision - which almost always refer to the residence and its certification by the registry - and for the same difficulty in identifying the place of domicile, compared to the certainty offered instead by the formal data of the registered residence.’ (my translation).

  40. 40.

    This point in the Court’s reasoning has been highlighted especially by Rossi (2020), spec. pp. 68–69.

  41. 41.

    See Decree Law No.130, 21 October 2020. See also Canzian (2021), pp. 71–73.

  42. 42.

    In the most recent literature, see only Beinlich (2022) . In the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the point has been addressed especially in Judgment (13 October 2016), 11981/15, B.A.C. v. Greece, para. 35; and Judgment (26 April 2018), 63311/14, Hoti v. Croatia, para. 121, holding that neither Art. 8 nor any other provision of the ECHR can be construed as guaranteeing, as such, the right to the granting of a particular type of residence permit, ‘provided that a solution offered by the authorities allows the individual concerned to exercise without obstacles his or her right to respect for private and/or family life’. In particular, if a residence permit allows the holder to reside within the territory of the host country and to exercise freely there the right to respect for his or her private and family life, the granting of such a permit represents in principle a sufficient measure to meet the requirements of Art. 8.

  43. 43.

    See especially the Regulation (EU) 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (‘Dublin III Regulation’), OJ L 180 (2013); and the Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624 (‘Frontex Regulation’), OJ L 295 (2013) . See also the accompanying report to the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast) (2016).

  44. 44.

    See again Moser and Rittberger (2021).

  45. 45.

    See again the case law recalled above, note 15.

  46. 46.

    Unsurprisingly, in recent times Italian courts have stood out for the several references for preliminary rulings to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), raised in relation to the margin of appreciation due to the judicial authority in the appeal against the decision ordering the transfer within the so-called take-back procedure under the ‘Dublin III’ Regulation (Art. 18(1) Regulation (EU) 604/2013). In the literature, see Di Pascale (2021).

References

  • Algostino A (2018) Il decreto ‘sicurezza e immigrazione’ (decreto legge n. 113 del 2018): estinzione del diritto di asilo, repressione del dissenso e diseguaglianza. Costituzionalismo.it 16:167–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Beinlich L (2022) (forthcoming) Access to Justice. In: Binder C, Nowak M, Hofbauer J-A, Philipp J (eds) Elgar Encyclopedia of Human Rights. Elgar, Cheltenham. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3895602

  • Benvenuti M (2018) Gli hotspot come chimera. Una prima fenomenologia dei punti di crisi alla luce del diritto costituzionale. Diritto, Immigrazione e Cittadinanza 1:1–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Benvenuti M (2019) Lo strano caso Diciotti. Diritti, rovesci e argomenti in una (brutta) pagina di diritto costituzionale italiano. Costituzionalismo.it 17:35–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Bifulco D (1999) Cittadinanza sociale, eguaglianza e forma di Stato. In: Chieffi L (ed) I diritti sociali tra regionalismo e prospettive federali. Cedam, Padua, pp 27 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Biondi Dal Monte F, Rossi E (eds) (2020) Diritti oltre frontiera. Migrazioni, politiche di accoglienza e integrazione. Pisa University Press, Pisa

    Google Scholar 

  • Canzian N (2021) L'iscrizione anagrafica dei richiedenti asilo dopo la sentenza n. 186/2020 della Corte costituzionale. Diritto, Immigrazione e Cittadinanza 4:50–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciervo A (2020) La Corte costituzionale ritorna sul c.d. 'decreto sicurezza' e dichiara illegittimo il divieto di iscrizione anagrafica nei confronti dei richiedenti protezione internazionale. Giurisprudenza costituzionale 75:2025–2033

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouch C (2006) Post-democracy. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • D'Acunto S, De Siano A, Nuzzo V (eds) (2017) In cammino tra aspettative e diritti. Fenomenologia dei flussi migratori e condizione giuridica dello straniero. Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Naples

    Google Scholar 

  • Delledonne G, Martinico G, Monti M, Pacini F (eds) (2020) Italian populism and constitutional law. Strategies, conflicts and Dilemmas. Palgrave MacMillan, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Pascale A (2021) Garanzie informative e partecipative del richiedente protezione internazionale e limiti al sindacato giurisdizionale nella procedura di ripresa in carico di cui al reg. (UE) n. 604/2013. Nota a margine dei rinvii pregiudiziali alla Corte di giustizia. Diritto, Immigrazione e Cittadinanza 4:272–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner J-W (1924) French administrative law. Yale Law J 33:597–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giupponi T (2009) Quando la forma è sostanza: la riforma dell’art. 96 Cost. di fronte alla Corte costituzionale e la recente prassi delle delibere di ‘ministerialità’. Giurisprudenza costituzionale 54:3054–3064

    Google Scholar 

  • Giupponi T (2021) La responsabilità penale dei ministri alla stregua dei principi costituzionali e della prassi. Legittima prerogativa o illegittimo privilegio? Diritto, Immigrazione e Cittadinanza 4:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Golia A Jr (2017) Costituzioni, confini e attraversamenti. Brevi riflessioni sulle politiche per l’immigrazione in una prospettiva di pluralismo giuridico. In: D'Acunto S, De Siano A, Nuzzo V (eds) In cammino tra aspettative e diritti. Fenomenologia dei flussi migratori e condizione giuridica dello straniero. Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Naples, pp 181–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Golia A Jr (2021) (forthcoming) Il principio di solidarietà nell’ordinamento costituzionale italiano. In: Bifulco R, Benvenuti M (eds) Trattato di diritto costituzionale. Giappichelli, Turin. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3797808

  • Ioannidis M (2020) Between responsibility and solidarity: COVID-19 and the future of the European economic order. Heidelberg J Int Law 80:773–784

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchgaessner S (2018) Matteo Salvini: from far-right fringe player to strongman leader. The Guardian (15 June). https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/15/matteo-salvini-from-far-right-fringe-player-to-strongman-leader

  • Luciani M (1992) Cittadini e stranieri come titolari dei diritti fondamentali. L’esperienza italiana. Rivista critica del diritto privato 10:208–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Masera L (2020) Immunità della politica e diritti fondamentali. I limiti all’irresponsabilità penale dei ministri. Giappichelli, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser C, Rittberger B (2021) (forthcoming) The CJEU and EU (de-)constitutionalization—unpacking jurisprudential responses’, MPIL Research Paper Series No. 2021-09. Int J Const Law. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3805923

  • Penasa S (2020) The Italian way to migration: was it ‘True’ populism? Populist policies as constitutional antigens. In: Delledonne G, Martinico G, Monti M, Pacini F (eds) Italian populism and constitutional law. Strategies, conflicts and Dilemmas. Palgrave MacMillan, Cham, pp 255–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronchetti L (2012) La cittadinanza sostanziale tra Costituzione e residenza: immigrati nelle regioni. Costituzionalismo.it 10:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi E (2010) Da cittadini vs. stranieri a regolari vs. irregolari. Considerazioni sull’evoluzione della disciplina giuridica dei non cittadini nell’ordinamento italiano. Rivista di Diritto Costituzionale 15:87–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi S (2020) Declinazioni della dignità sociale. L’iscrizione anagrafica nella sentenza n. 186/2020 della Corte costituzionale. Federalismi.it 18:143–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt C (1973) [1932)] Legalität und Legitimität. In: Id Verfassungsrechtlichee Aufsätze. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 263–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt C (1996) [1928] The concept of the political. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Sciarra S (2018) Solidarity and conflict. European social law in crisis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein C-R, Vermeule A (2020) Law and Leviathan. Redeeming the administrative state. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bogdandy A (2000) Gubernative Rechtsetzung. Eine Neubestimmung der Rechtsetzung und des Regierungssystems unter dem Grundgesetz in der Perspektive gemeineuropäischer Dogmatik. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziebritski C (2020) The integrated EU hotspot administration and the question of the EU’s liability. In: Kotzur M, Moya D, Sezgi Sözen Ü, Romano A (eds) The external dimension of EU migration and asylum policies. Border management, human rights and development policies in the mediterranean area. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 253–294

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Trento, Trento, Italy

    Angelo Jr Golia

  2. Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration (ASGI), Trento, Italy

    Angelo Jr Golia

Authors
  1. Angelo Jr Golia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angelo Jr Golia .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal Sciences (School of Law), University of Salerno, Fisciano, Italy

    Teresa Russo

  2. Department of Legal Sciences (School of Law), University of Salerno, Fisciano, Italy

    Anna Oriolo

  3. Department of Legal Sciences (School of Law), University of Salerno, Fisciano, Italy

    Gaspare Dalia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Golia, A.J. (2023). Migration and the Janus Faces of Solidarity and the Rule of Law: Brief Remarks in the Light of the Italian Experience. In: Russo, T., Oriolo, A., Dalia, G. (eds) Solidarity and Rule of Law. European Union and its Neighbours in a Globalized World, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29227-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29227-9_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-29226-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-29227-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation