Abstract

The essay focuses on the different trends that surface in the Constitutional court’s case-law on conflicts of attribution raised by members of Parliament (against the judicial authority; over the budget law and the legislative procedure; during the pandemic emergency). It argues that despite formally recognising both individual powers and the possibility of raising intra-institutional conflicts (ordinance n. 17 of 2019), the constitutional guarantees for members of Parliament have not been strengthened. It also argues that the criterion of the «manifest violation», which is required by the constitutional case law as a condition for the action’s admissibility, has turned into an ex ante control that is inconsistent with the «biphasic structure» of this kind of judgment. Nonetheless, the article advances the view that in the event of abuse of powers by the Assembly a judgment on the merits should be guaranteed.