foto da Lastampa.it

photo from Lastampa.it

I’m publishing the letter that I have sent this morning to the President of the Council, Romano Prodi and to ministers Chiti and Mastella.

“The text of the reform measure concerning the organisation of the justice system approved by the Justice Commission of the Senate presents obvious elements of great perplexity that by noticeably altering the balance of matters as discussed by the Council of Ministers are dangerously attacking its legitimacy.
From the multiple modifications made to it in the Commission with respect to the text approved by the Council of Ministers, in fact, I want to indicate some in particular that introduce obvious violations to the constitutional canons of the independence of the magistracy.
The importance of the matters means that when faced with the positive evaluation relating to the compatibility of the measure under consideration with the Constitution already being voted on in Parliament about questions of prejudice, on the occasion of the examination of this measure in the Senate, from the Government there is the detailed reassurance, of the presentation of government amendments that correct the distortions indicated, able to supply the necessary clarifications on the effective orientation of the government and of the majority on the thorniest problems that can be seen in a coherent way with the orientation already taken on by the Council of Ministers as a collegial body.
There are three matters under examination.
The first relates to the introduction of new and unexpected constrictions to the passage of the functions (from prosecutor to judge and vice versa) for the magistrates well beyond what has been defined in the Council of Ministers, thus in reality going against the intention of introducing the turning point of unacceptable separation of the career.
As confirmation of the hardening in this way inserted what is pointed out is the new provision that even restricts the number of times in which in the whole career, it is allowed to change functions. Even this time, this is an expression simply of a wish for the accentuation of the division that comes before the separation.
It is similarly not acceptable that the organisation of the offices of the prosecutor is removed from the preventative and objective evaluation that is guaranteed by the special programme, that also allows the self-governing bodies the possibility to have a knowledgeable and in-depth examination of any problem areas that may emerge.
What is completely unacceptable is the arrangement that allows the lawyers making up the Judicial Council to give an opinion even on the matters relating to the career progression of the magistrates. In this case, it is far too obvious that there is the risk of a conflict of interests with this matter, without functional necessity for the outcome.
Without taking into account the consequent risk of a paralysis of the judicial activity, in the face of the evident need for abstention by a magistrate who has already been evaluated (positively or negatively) by a lawyer who is then in the following trials assigned to him, or simply when faced with an evaluation that will be carried out by that lawyer.
For these reasons, certainly not doubting the value of the composition of the Judicial Councils enriched with such participation it is necessary that the role of the representatives from the world of lawyers is limited to other matters within the ambit of the Judicial Councils, relating to the functions of the Judicial offices of the territory, without entering the field of evaluating the magistrates’ career progression.
As was said earlier, the reasons given make it necessary to have an immediate and strong commitment from the government that is able to offer reassurance in the only direction described, to guarantee the inviolability of fundamental civic values and insuppressible principles in the constitutional matrix.
On this basis, I am convinced that you will share in my worries and that we will find the adequate solution that is needed by the delicate matter.”
Antonio Di Pietro