“Limited interceptions so that public opinion is not informed” – Corriere.it

Eugenio Albamonte, Area secretary and former president of the national magistrates’ association, rejects the Nordio reform from every point of view. For the method: «The minister gave a hasty acceleration to celebrate the disappearance of Silvio Berlusconi, forgetting the commitment to speak with the magistrates ». And on the merits.

Doctor Albamonte, let’s start with the new crackdown on wiretapping.

«The reform limits the right of public opinion to know the facts which are the subject of the proceedings. This is the only clear objective of the double prohibition of entering the name of third parties in the prosecutor’s and judge’s records and of publishing wiretaps that are not in those records”.

Isn’t this an attempt, as explained by the government, to limit the rush of gossip?

“No. The rush of gossip had already been limited by the Orlando reform. In fact, the guarantor of privacy, in the Senate Justice Committee, only a few months ago, declared that he had not recorded any case of publication of interception relating to third parties”.

Doesn’t it save any looks?

“Nobody. The media are prevented from carrying out their double role of informing public opinion and being the watchdog of power in the exercise of its functions”.

What do you think about the abrogation of the crime of abuse of office?

«An intervention that will certainly be the subject of an infringement procedure by the European Union. In a crucial sector in which Italy is observed in a special way, namely that of illegal conduct in the public administration, eliminating the crime will lead to the belief that our system is no longer aligned with the required standards».

However, the 2021 numbers report a clear disproportion between proceedings for this crime and convictions: shouldn’t we intervene on the risk that the fear of being subjected to investigations paralyzes the offices?

«The disproportion between investigations and convictions is due to the continuous interventions of Parliament to save the illegal conduct. The squeeze is made, then it is said that the rule is not needed and then it is eliminated. But the crime of abuse of office was a wake-up call compared to the crime of corruption. With regard to speeding up procedures, the rule for this government seems to be: if it’s hard to spend, let’s loosen the controls. We have already seen this with the rule that eliminates the concurrent audits by the Court of Auditors. Is everything okay to spend? Also generate waste and illegality, fueling organized crime? Here too, I doubt that Europe will be happy».

Another theme: the limitation of pre-trial detention.

«On the precautionary measures, having ordered that they be anticipated by an interrogation in which the intention to arrest is communicated is paradoxical. A rule “save whoever can”: whoever is warned will have plenty of time to pollute the evidence or escape, that is, the eventualities that pre-trial detention should avert. Then deciding to entrust the instance to a panel, rather than to a single judge, will put the offices of medium and small cities in difficulty: where there are 4 judges who prosecute, after three have ordered the measure, who will it occupy the subsequent phases?

The Political Diary newsletter

If you want to stay updated on political news, subscribe to the newsletter “Political Diary”. It is dedicated to Corriere della Sera subscribers and arrives twice a week at 12. Just click here.