Why a 'saga' (and why that name)? Between 2015 and 2018, a chain of judicial decisions by the European Court of Justice and the Italian Constitutional Court (hereinafter 'Corte Costituzionale', 'the Italian Court', or simply 'the Court') drew significant attention in academic and judicial circles. At the core of the legal dispute, in constitutional terms, there was the possibility of the first application of so-called 'counter-limits' by a founding Member State. Partially overlapping with the conclusion of the Gauweiler case, 1 the Brexit negotiations, and the turmoil caused by the rule of law crisis in some Central European states, the 'Taricco saga' further stressed this difficult moment for European integration. The case arose from a question of interpretation of the Member States' commitment to countering frauds that affected the financial interests of the Union and the inability of Italian domestic law to properly attain that aim. Revolving around this original issue, the focus slightly changed in each passage to capture broader topics such as the competence of the EU to intervene in the substantive criminal law of member states, the dialogue between the European Court of Justice and national constitutional courts and, ultimately, some of the most fundamental principles of EU law (i.e. primacy, uniformity, direct effect). The interest and suspense induced by every new decision along this chain made it seem, in terms of

No abstract

Rule of law and the legality principle – Legality principle in the Italian legal system – ‘Prescribed by law’ – Legality in supranational dimension – ‘Democratic disconnect’ – Margin of appreciation – Concepts of ‘law’ and ‘legislation’ – Democracy-based legislation – Quality of legislation – ‘Political constitutionalism’ versus ‘legal constitutionalism’

No abstract

Constitutional Court' or simply 'the Court') declared inadmissible a question of constitutionality related to the 4% threshold set down by Law No. 18/1979 (as amended by Law No. 10/2009) for the election of the 73 Members of the European Parliament attributed to Italy. Together with the German 1 and Czech 2 constitutional judges, the Italian Constitutional Court is the third in an EU member state to be called to decide on the same issue. As opposed to the double declaration of unconstitutionality by the German Court, and the outright rejection by the Czech one, the Italian Court issued a decision of inadmissibility (sentenza di inammissibilità), without assessing the constitutionality of the 4% electoral threshold on its merits. Nevertheless, the case deserves attention from both European and domestic constitutional law