Public interest litigation allows courts to provoke social change to some extent. But court decisions on political issues are not unproblematic in democratic systems. What if we could define circumstances so courts can enhance democratic participation and debate?
After 30 years of waiting for a legislative intervention, the Italian Constitutional Court is ‘rewriting’ the rule of surname attribution to children, the legacy of an outdated marital power that is contrary to the constitutional principles of equality.
Increasingly, courts are now institutions where collective actors, like NGOs, want to achieve change. The field of European asylum law is no different in that sense. But who are these actors and why choose litigation as a strategy?