Ordinamento giudiziario amministrativo e garanzie statiche della giurisdizione

The thesis evaluates if the independence and impartiality of Italian administrative judges is sufficiently respectful of the due process clause. The starting point of this analysis is the fact that administrative justice historically stands at the stormy meeting point between the executive power and the judiciary and in Italy, as it is and as it was in other countries, administrative justice was born even from within the administration. The fact that administrative justice is located in a border area implies that it has undergone strong influences from the executive power capable of compromising its independence and impartiality. The Italian Constitution has not resolved the most critical issues and, in fact, has provided for a complete system of jurisdictional guarantees for the civil judge (i.e. the judge of disputes between citizens) but has also provided for administrative judges to be separate from civil judges. At the same time, however, the Constitution provides, together with the ECHR and the Charter of Nice, useful starting points for believing that the guarantees provided for the civil judge are applicable, at least as fundamental principles, also to administrative judges. Since the fundamental guarantees that are applicable to administrative justice obviously also concern independence and impartiality, my thesis focuses on three specific aspects of the administrative justice system as defined by law 186/1982: 1) the system of self-government; 2) the career of administrative magistrates; 3) the interferences between judicial and non-judicial function. The system of self-government of administrative justice is entrusted to the Consiglio di Presidenza della Giustizia Amministrativa (CPGA). It is intended to prevent administrative magistrates from being conditioned by other powers. This system presents several serious problems such as the excessive power of the President of the CPGA, a disciplinary system full of gaps and, most significantly, the fact that it is the same administrative judges subjected to the CPGA who judge on the acts of the CPGA. Equally problematic are non-judicial activities of administrative judges. In fact, in many cases, the administrative activities of administrative magistrates could be the subject of administrative proceedings in which the judges who carried out the non-judicial activity also participate. From this point of view, the positions that administrative magistrates hold in the Government are particularly dangerous.