Intersection Point of Judicial Review between the Modulation of Decisional Effects and Extrafiscality under a Consequentialist Approach

Abstract

The limits of judicial review of extrafiscal norms are a matter that gives rise to significant doctrinal controversy. This is because part of the legal scholarship understands that such review should be intranormative, considering only the elements of the legal norm itself. Another line of thought, by contrast, argues that compliance with the norm’s purpose should also be taken into account for purposes of its validity. The debate over whether consequences may define the validity of the hypothesis finds fertile ground in the study of consequentialism, especially when reference is made to the modulation of the effects of judicial decisions. This study aims to investigate the possible relationship between approaches to the control of extrafiscality and consequentialism, ultimately presenting the cognitive gains that this relationship may offer to the study of the discipline.