Raffrontando le due tipologie di gi

Raffrontando le due tipologie di giudizi di legittimità costituzionale si evince, come già emerso nel grafico n. 2, un’inversione di peso tra l’incidentale e il principale difficilmente ipotizzabile sino a qualche anno fa, ma che si inserisce in un tendenza che, a partire dal 2003, ha visto una pressoché costante crescita del giudizio in via di azione e in parallelo una tendenziale contrazione del giudizio in via di eccezione.
Anche quest’anno si mantiene la novità verificatasi nel 2011 nei rapporti tra le pendenze dei due giudizi di legittimità costituzionale: nella storia della giurisprudenza costituzionale, mai le pendenze nell’ambito del giudizio in via incidentale, a fine anno, avevano sopravanzato quelle del giudizio in via principale di sole 34 unità (244 rispetto a 210)1.
Il grafico n. 9 illustra la dinamica relativa al giudizio in via principale nel 2012.
Grafico n. 9 – Giudizi pervenuti, decisi e pendenti (giudizio in via principale, 2012)

結果 (英語) 1:

comparing the two types of constitutional legitimacy can be seen, as shown in the graph n. 2, a reversal of the weight between the incidental and the main hardly conceivable until a few years ago, but that is part of a trend that, since 2003,has seen a nearly constant growth of the judgment in the process of action and a parallel trend contraction of judgment by way of exception.
this year remains the novelty that occurred in 2011 in the relationship between the slopes of the two judgments on constitutional legitimacy: the history of constitutional jurisprudence, ever the slopes in the proceedings as a preliminary issue,at year end, had overtaken those of the judgment in the main street of only 34 units (244 compared to 210) 1.
n the graph. 9 illustrates the dynamics relative to the judgment in the main street in 2012.
Graph. 9 - evaluations received, decided and pending (judgment in the main, 2012)

結果 (英語) 2:

Comparing the two types of evaluations of constitutional legitimacy is evident, as shown in graph 2, a reversal of weight among the incidental and the main hardly conceivable until a few years ago, but that is part of a trend that, since 2003, saw a virtually constant growth of judgment in the action and in parallel a contraction trend of judgment by way of exception.
this year keeps the news in 2011 in the relations between the two gradients reviews constitutional legitimacy: in the history of constitutional jurisprudence, the slopes under the judgement indirectly, at the end of the year had surpassed those of judgment in sunny 34 main street unit (compared to 210 244) 1.
The graph 9 shows the dynamics relating to the judgment in the main proceedings in 2012.
Graph 9 – Reviews received, resolved, and pending (judgment in the main proceedings, 2012)

結果 (英語) 3:

By comparing the two types of reviews of constitutional legitimacy can be seen, as already revealed in the graph n. 2, A reversal of weight between the incidental and the main hardly conceivable up until a few years ago, but that is part of a trend that, from 2003,He has seen a nearly constant growth of the judgment in action and in parallel a tendential contraction of the judgment by way of exception.
Also this year keeps the news that occurred in 2011 in the relationship between the slopes of the two reviews of constitutional legitimacy: in the history of the constitutional decisions, never the slopes in the context of the judgment in incidentally,At the end of the year, had surpassed those of judgment in main street of only 34 units (244 compared to 210)1.
The graph n. 9 Illustrates the dynamic relative to the judgment in main street in 2012.
Graph n. 9 - Guest Reviews received, decided and pendants (judgment in main street, 2012)