Abstract
This article intends to understand whether it is possible to identify and, if so, with which hermeneutic tools, a line of demarcation, a boundary within which the phenomenon of normative production, not directly attributable to the parliamentary sphere but to the creative initiative of the judge, can be considered physiological to the system and outside of which, instead, it must be considered pathological. We are faced with the eternal problem of the comparison between the natural propensity of jurisprudence to interpret the changed social needs, in the name of an evolutionary interpretation, and the position, constitutionally more traditional and rigid, which claims the central and exclusive role of Parliament, as the representative body of the community, in normative and social regulation.