이탈리아 헌법재판제도에 관한 소고― 대법원의 재판권 행사와 헌법재판소의 사법심사의 조화로운 공존가능성 ―

Indeed in the Italian legal system the judicial body which has the power to give the final interpretation of the law is the Court of Cassation (the supreme ordinary court). So still faced with the interpretative sentences of the Constitutional Court, in many cases, the Court of Cassation refuses to conform its jurisprudence to the interpretation given by the constitutional judge. The main duty of the Constitutional Court, however, is to ensure the respect of the rigidity of the Italian Constitution through a differentiated series of attributions that are indicated in art. n° 134 of the Constitution and in art. n° 2 of the constitutional law n° 1 of 1953. Constitutional review, centralized or not, was alien to the Italian legal system. The most important of these attributions is to control the constitutional legitimization of the laws and of those acts that have the validity of State or regional law in order to verify that the regulations contained in the documents do not present formal or substantial mistakes. This control is undertaken considering the dispositions of the constitutional ranking but also the dispositions of the other sources to which the Constitution guarantees a special protection (though this category is not comprehensive of the parliamentary regulations). The Italian Constitutional Court can decide in the sense of illegitimacy of the denounced regulation (accepted sentences) or reject the constitutionality doubts (rejected sentences). Only when the illegitimacy is declared, the sentence has an erga omnes effect and determines the retroactive cancellation of the unconstitutional law, maintaining the no more revocable juridical effects. The action of the Court is often carried out also with sentences that, even maintaining the legislative text intact, have proposed or even imposed to attribute or eliminate from the provision the possibility of a precise unconstitutional application. Another important function of the Constitutional Court is given from the resolution of the attribution conflicts between the State and the Regions or between the powers of the State. It is essentially a mean to safeguard or maintain intact the spheres of competence that the Court itself attributes to the different Boards and to the different organs that contribute to the exercise of the public power. The Constitutional Court is also called to evaluate the admissibility of the requests to the abrogative referendums. This means that it verifies if the laws of which the abrogation is requested can be abridged through a referendum as it is foreseen in the art. n° 75 of the Constitution or if the requests are structurally adjudicated to allow a free and aware abrogation, and without damaging other formal or substantial constitutional values. The relationships among the lawyers and constitutional judges involved in the Constitutional Court’s first decision are of interest in understanding how the Court’s jurisprudence and Italian constitutional doctrine evolved in harmony to support the institution of judicial review of constitutionality in Italy. I explored Italian constitutionality argument system in the literature. Readers may understand a lots of constitutional issues through this piece when confronted with seeking for solutions with conflicts between Supreme Court and Constitutional Court of Korea. This is first work argued in Italian judicial review and searched in constitutional court background of Italy.