«The judges cannot criticize the laws»- Corriere.it

In the aftermath of Silvio Berlusconi’s funeral, the minister’s bill on justice arrives today at the Council of Ministers Charles Nordio from the stated goal of predicting “more guarantees for those under investigation”.

The text, divided into eight articles, provides for various changes starting fromabolition of the crime of abuse of office: the one that inspires the fear of signing public administrators. But the controversy is already starting. For the president Anm, Giuseppe Santalucia, “deleting it is unjustifiable”. And it also runs the risk of being declared the rule on the unappealability of acquittals is unconstitutional as had already happened with the analogous Pecorella law of 2006.

But the minister Nordio immediately stops the criticisms: «It is pathological that in Italy politics has very often succumbed to the pressure of the judiciary on the formation of laws. This is inadmissible. The magistrate cannot criticize the laws, like the politician the sentences. We listen to everyone, but the government proposes and Parliament disposes. This is democracy and no interference is allowed,” Minister Nordio said on Sky Tg24. But Joseph Conte retorts: «In memory of Berlusconi the fight against malfeasance weakens»

Highlighting the “imbalance” between entries in the register of suspects and convictions (in 2021 only 18 suspects out of 4,745 were not acquitted) the bill removes the abuse of office from the weapons of contrast to crimes against the Public Administration. The offenses relating to forgery, omissions of official acts, corruption, embezzlement and extortion remain, it is pointed out in via Arenula, and specific aggravating circumstances. Article 2 provides that the prosecutor cannot appeal against the acquittal for the offenses referred to in article 550″. Limitation that does not concern the most serious crimes (including those against the person that cause particular social alarm).

But it is here that the legislation on interceptions is also modified in a restrictive key. The publication of the intercepted interviews is prohibited “if they are not reproduced by the judge in the motivation of a provision or used in the hearing”. And in any case if they concern third parties not involved in the investigations. The release of “copies of interceptions whose publication is prohibited” is excluded, when “the request is presented by a person other than the parties and their defenders”. And “the prosecutor’s obligation to supervise the methods of drawing up the minutes of the operations (so-called draft reports) and the duty of the judge to distract the interceptions” which cannot be published, is extended. On this point it is the Order of Journalists to express concernemphasizing that the right to information must be “guaranteed, particularly on facts of public interest”.

More stakes to be respected for pre-trial detention. Before applying the measure, the judge is required to question the suspect. The invitation to appear must be notified 5 days before the appearance. It must also contain the “summary description of the fact including the date and place of commission of the offence”. But above all, it is expected that the decision will no longer be made by a single judge, but by a college. To make up for the shortage of judges the entry into force of the law is postponed by two years. And in the meantime, 250 magistrates are expected to enter service, with a new competition in 2024. Collegiality only concerns the most serious of the precautionary measures, that in prison. However, it is not extended to house arrest.

expected greater protection for those who receive a notice of guarantee. Among others: the notification must guarantee the confidentiality of the recipient. The crime of trading in influence, deemed “too flexible” by the government, is changed. Mediation is illegal when it is aimed at getting a public official to commit a crime. Mediation consisting in the establishment of a fund “in corruption account” remains punishable. Instead, the hypothesis of “bragging” has been eliminated. For the most serious conduct, the penalty rises from one to one and a half years. Finally, a provision of authentic interpretation is introduced to clarify that the requirement of 65 years as the maximum age for judges of the Assizes Courts applies only at the time of appointment. For avoid that in proceedings for very serious crimes also for mafia and terrorism the sentences pronounced by the Courts of Assizes in which a popular judge is over 65 years of age during the trial are considered void.

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.