{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"IRPA","provider_url":"https:\/\/archivio.irpa.eu\/en\/","author_name":"Watuppa","author_url":"https:\/\/archivio.irpa.eu\/en\/author\/gag\/","title":"National Administrative Judges and Supranational Judgments - IRPA","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"SwtRYfDbRF\"><a href=\"https:\/\/archivio.irpa.eu\/en\/article\/giudicato-amministrativo-nazionale-e-sentenza-sovranazionale-2\/\">National Administrative Judges and Supranational Judgments<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/archivio.irpa.eu\/en\/article\/giudicato-amministrativo-nazionale-e-sentenza-sovranazionale-2\/embed\/#?secret=SwtRYfDbRF\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;National Administrative Judges and Supranational Judgments&#8221; &#8212; IRPA\" data-secret=\"SwtRYfDbRF\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,d){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(d.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=d.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=d.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),l=0;l<n.length;l++)n[l].style.display=\"none\";for(l=0;l<i.length;l++)if(r=i[l],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=d.createElement(\"a\"),a=d.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,!o.test(a.protocol));else if(a.host===s.host)if(d.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),d.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=d.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"The essay takes, as a starting point, Judgment n. 6\/2018 of the Constitutional Court and the Court of Cassation&#8217;s approach in favour of a dynamic\u00a0conception of jurisdiction in addressing the issues arising when judgments\u00a0given by national administrative courts contrast with preceding or subsequent\u00a0rulings of the European Court of Justice or of the European Court of"}