Rivista di diritti comparati Rivista quadrimestrale Anno II – N. 2/2018 DIREZIONE Andrea Buratti (Università di Roma – Tor Vergata) Giuseppe Martinico (Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna) Oreste Pollicino (Università Bocconi) Giorgio Repetto (Università di Perugia) Raffaele Torino (Università Roma Tre) COMITATO SCIENTIFICO Richard Albert (University of Texas), Vittoria Barsotti (Univ. Firenze), Francesco Bilancia (Univ. Chieti- Pescara), Roberto Bin (Univ. Ferrara), Giuseppe Bronzini (Corte di cassazione), Ermanno Calzolaio (Univ. Macerata), Paolo Carrozza (Scuola Sant’Anna, Pisa), Marta Cartabia (Univ. Bicocca, Corte costituzionale), Ginevra Cerrina Feroni (Univ. Firenze), Francesco Cerrone (Univ. Perugia), Roberto Conti (Corte di cassazione), Diego Corapi (Univ. Sapienza, Roma), Barbara De Donno (Luiss “Guido Carli”), Pasquale De Sena (Univ. Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano), Giuseppe de Vergottini (Univ. Bologna), Alessandra Di Martino (Univ. Sapienza, Roma), Giuseppe Franco Ferrari (Univ. Bocconi), Tommaso Edoardo Frosini (Univ. Suor Orsola Benincasa), Anna Gamper (Universität Innsbruck), Javier García Roca (Universidad Complutense de Madrid), Michele Graziadei (Univ. Torino), Peter Hay (Emory University), Nicola Lupo (Luiss “Guido Carli”), Elena Malfatti (Univ. Pisa), Francesco S. Marini (Univ. Roma Tor Vergata), Giovanni Marini (Univ. Perugia), Roberto Mastroianni (Univ. Napoli Federico II), Petros Mavroidis (Columbia University, NY; Université de Neuchâtel), Antonello Miranda (Univ. Palermo), Luigi Moccia (Univ. Roma Tre), Laura Montanari, (Univ. Udine), Massimo Papa (Univ. Roma Tor Vergata), Ernst Ulrich Petersmann (European University Institute), Valeria Piccone (Corte di Cassazione), Cesare Pinelli (Univ. Sapienza, Roma), Giovanni Pitruzzella (Univ. Palermo, AGCM), Miguel Poiares Maduro (European University Institute), Marie-Claire Ponthoreau (Université de Bordeaux), Patricia Popelier (University of Antwerp), Paolo Ridola (Univ. Sapienza, Roma), Roberto Romboli (Univ. Pisa), Antonio Ruggeri (Univ. Messina), Alejandro Saiz Arnaiz (Universitat Pompeu Fabra), Roberto Scarciglia (Univ. Trieste), Robert Schütze (Durham University), Francesco Viganò (Univ. Bocconi, Corte costituzionale) REDAZIONE Marco Bassini (Università Bocconi) Antonello Ciervo (Università di Perugia) Giacomo Delledonne (Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna) Claudio Di Maio (Università Roma Tre) Francesco Saitto (La Sapienza - Università di Roma) SOMMARIO Saggi BEKHZOD KODIROV, Reinterpretation of the Scope of the Early Warning System by National Parliaments: Yellow Card against the Revision of the Posted Workers Directive [pp. 4-36] ELENA BELLIARDO, Logica condizionale e poteri decisionali: una introduzione [pp. 37-75] BALÁZS FEKETE, Interpreting the History of Modern Comparative Law: Beyond Descriptive Linearity. The Case of Historical-Comparative Jurisprudence [pp. 76-108] EMANUELE LA ROSA, Libertà di ricerca scientifica come limite all’intervento penale? [pp. 109- 135] GUIDO PANZANO, Power-sharing Executives in Northern Ireland and South Tyrol: Theories, Structures, Practices and Political Stability [pp. 136-184] SILVIA NUZZO, Affinità e divergenze tra lo sfruttamento illecito delle risorse naturali ed il crimine internazionale di saccheggio [pp. 185-209] ALBERTO MARCHESE, La fecondazione post mortem: irriducibile ossimoro o nuova frontiera del biodiritto? [pp. 210-231] Note e commenti ADORACIÓN GALERA VICTORIA, The displacement of social Europe. The Spanish case [pp. 232-258] RICCARDO CABAZZI, Governance economica europea e riforme negli ordinamenti degli Stati membri: spunti di comparazione [pp. 259-287] PIETRO INSOLERA, Mass shootings, culture war e diritto individuale a detenere e portare armi negli U.S.A. Brevi riflessioni sul ruolo della Supreme Court, traendo spunto da un’invettiva del giudice Thomas [pp. 288-305] Recensioni e letture critiche MARCO DANI, Recensione a Alessia-Ottavia Cozzi, Diritti e principi sociali nella Carta dei Diritti Fondamentali dell’Unione Europea: profili costituzionali (Jovene, 2017) [pp. 306-317] ANDREA BURATTI, Between Judicial Activism and Political Cooperation: The Case of the Canadian Supreme Court [pp. 318-325] GIACOMO DELLEDONNE, Le continuità profonde nel costituzionalismo dell’Europa centrale: ragionando su un’opera memorialistica di Sándor Márai [pp. 326-332] Il regolamento relativo alla procedura di valutazione dei contributi pubblicati nella Rivista è pubblicato in coda al presente numero, unitamente alle linee guide etiche. L’elenco dei revisori che hanno partecipato alla procedura di valutazione suddetta è reso disponibile in coda all’ultimo numero pubblicato nel corso dell’anno solare. Editore: Andrea Buratti (Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”), Giuseppe Martinico (Scuola Universitaria Superiore Sant’Anna di Pisa), Oreste Pollicino (Università commerciale “L. Bocconi” - Milano), Giorgio Repetto (Università di Perugia), Raffaele Torino (Università Roma Tre) Coordinatore Editoriale: Serenella Quari Sede: Via Roentgen, 1 – 20136 Milano / Via O. Raimondo, 18 – 00173 Roma ISSN: 2532-6619 Reinterpretation of the Scope of the Early Warning System by National Parliaments: Yellow Card against the Revision of the Posted Workers Directive * Bekhzod Kodirov CONTENTS: 1. Introduction. – 2. The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Early Warning System. – 2.1. The EWS in the EU legal framework. – 2.2. The analyses of the functioning of the EWS in academic literature. – 3. The Monti II Regulation and EPPO Proposal. – 3.1. Yellow card against the Monti II Regulation. – 3.2. The Reaction of National Parliaments to EPPO Proposal. 4. Third Y ellow C ard against the Revision of Posted Workers Directive. – 4.1. The Commission’s Proposal for the revision of the Posted Workers Directive. – 4.2. The reasoned opinions of National Parliaments against the Proposal. – 4.3. The response of the Commission to the reasoned opinions and further developments. – 4.4. National Parliaments and the politics in the revision of the PWD. – 5. Conclusions. 1. Introduction The functioning of the Early Warning System (EWS) so far has demonstrated different and even conflicting approaches of the institutions of the European Union (EU) and National Parliaments (NPs) to the scope and nature of the EWS. In this regard, this paper aims at analyzing how NPs of Member States (MSs) reinterpret the scope of the scrutiny of EU legislative proposals in the framework of the EWS. The strictly formalistic reading of the EWS in the Treaties and the Protocols defines the EWS as a narrow mechanism for the scrutiny of the compliance of the legislative proposals with the subsidiarity principle, the point stressed by the Commission and some scholars.1 * L’articolo è stato sottoposto, in conformità al regolamento della Rivista, a double blind peer review 1 F. Fabbrini and K. Granat, “Yellow Card, But No Foul”: the Role of the National Parliaments under the Subsidiarity Protocol and the Commission Proposal for ISSN 2532-6619 - 4 - N. 2/2018 Bekhzod Kodirov Reinterpretation of the Scope of the Early Warning System by National Parliaments Yellow Card against the Revision of the Posted Workers Directive In contrast, several scholars assert that also the scrutiny of the principle of proportionality in the framework of the EWS is inevitable since the principle of subsidiarity and the principle of proportionality are interlinked and ‘even overlap in some manner’ which makes strict separation of these principles impossible, and due to the necessity of consideration of the principle of proportionality in assessing the efficacy of EU legislation.2 Moreover, according to some authors, the political nature of NPs presupposes the political interpretation of the EWS on the part of NPs who are predisposed to use the EWS as a political instrument to contain competence creep of EU institutions and to protect national constitutional essentials from the adverse effect of EU decision-making.3 The Lisbon Treaty introduced among other novelties the EWS for the subsidiarity monitoring to address ‘democratic deficit’ and ‘democratic disconnect’ problems in European governance. The former problem is characterized by the incapability of the EU decision-making to ensure ‘government of the people, by the people and for the people’.4 The latter is defined as the ‘disconnect’ between the bureaucratic and distant EU governance and the national institutions as the sources of democratic and constitutional legitimacy.5 The subsidiarity is one of the fundamental principles for the Union competences alongside with the principle of conferral and the principle of proportionality, which consider a specific question in the vertical allocation of powers between the EU and the MSs, since the conferral principle asks “can” the EU take a proposed measure, an EU Regulation on the Right to Strike, in Common Market Law Review, vol. 50, 2013, p. 115. 2 S. Gernat, Interpreting Subsidiarity – How to Develop into a Constitutional Principle?, in MaRBLe Research Papers, vol. 4, 2013; K. Borońska- Hryniewiecka, Democratizing the European Multi-level Polity? A (re-) Assessment of the Early Warning System, in Yearbook of Polish European Studies, 2013. 3 M. Goldoni, The Early Warning System and the Monti II Regulation: The Case for a Political Interpretation, in European Constitutional Law Review, vol. 10, p. 90 ss. 4 P. De Wilde, Why the Early Warning Mechanism Does Not Alleviate the Democratic Deficit, in OPAL Online Paper, vol. 6, 2012, p. 6. 5 P.L. Lindseth, Power and Legitimacy: Reconciling Europe and the Nation- State, Oxford,