The number of magistrates in favor of the separation of careers, the draw for the CSM and the disciplinary High Court is growing. From Di Pietro to Tony, up to the top of the Consulta: this is why the wall of robes is cracking.
Bring the salts to the indomitable whippersnappers. They seemed united as one man. Instead, illustrious and favorable to justice reform they slip away. They raise their heads to say yes to the separation of careers and its derivatives. They support this centre-right government, oibò. Carlo Nordio had smelled the air: in the secret rooms, he revealed, “many confess that they are even open to the draw”. Now let’s break the deadlock. Moreover, adds the Minister of Justice, “every magistrate knows that his career depends on the CSM and is conditioned by the currents”. For those who don’t join, life gets tough.
The pitched battle of the referendum looms. We will vote by the end of March. A new current is born ideal: Reformist judiciary. They are the standard bearers you don’t expect. Those who, perhaps, will convince even the rebellious. «No turkey is a candidate for Christmas lunch» explained the imaginative Keeper of the Seals from Treviso, who had a glorious career as a toga behind him. Instead, many roosters raise their crests. Antonio Di Pietro, for example. A living legend. It seemed that he was now totally dedicated to agriculture in his native Montenero di Bisaccia, in Abruzzo. Instead, he became the standard bearer of the Einaudi Foundation.
The Di Pietro case
What a shame. The Italian prosecutors, who grew up learning about the exploits of the Mani Pulite hero, are agitated: “Tu quoque?”. Just him. “I will vote yes,” he says. «I have always been in favor, since 1989, of the reform of the inquisitorial and accusatory system». They despair, reworking his iconic exclamation: but what’s the point with those center-right scoundrels? “At the time Berlusconi wasn’t there yet and he hadn’t put his hat on it,” he replies. He wants to “evaluate this reform not because the center-right did it.” He also knows his former colleagues well. It reveals that what agitates souls is prosaic fear. «The real reason why the National Association of Magistrates opposes it is one: the reform provides for the establishment of the High Disciplinary Court and the drawing of lots. Two points on which she is fiercely opposed.”
Now the supposed offenses of the magistrates are evaluated by the disciplinary section of the CSM, with disheartening results: 95 percent of proceedings end in nothing. And the remaining sanctions are almost symbolic. For this reason, the reform transfers this function to a High Court. “When a judge makes a mistake tomorrow, he will finally take responsibility for it,” says the prime minister, Giorgia Meloni. While the president of the ANM, Cesare Parodi, assures us that we must diabolically persevere: only a robber can judge a robber.
The new “heretics” of the judiciary
In short, as in the good old days, Tonino seems not to have lost his investigative flair. Another progressive darling, with an even echoing name, is Piero Tony: 45 years in the toga, former chief prosecutor in Prato. He wrote a book against judicial pillory: I cannot remain silent. Subtitle: Confessions of a left-wing judge. And now he too is in favour. It starts from an undoubted assumption, avoided by the supposed criminals with arrogance: “The judge’s credibility and authority are continually declining.” The separation of careers, therefore, would be “the first big unavoidable step that would have been necessary to take in the constituent assembly”.
Tony against anti-reform arguments
Tony also refutes the adverse arguments of his former colleagues. Starting from the most flaunted and ramshackle. They say that prosecutors would become executive-friendly. «Confirming that I have not even read the reformulation of article 104 of the Constitution», which emphasizes the autonomy of magistrates. He adds: “Repeat that these ideas are the offspring of well-known freemasons and prejudiced politicians.” He urges: «With a minimum of objectivity, you might remember that the separation of careers was desired, among many, by the constituent Piero Calamandrei and, more recently, from Giovanni Falcone». And, to be honest, even from Nicola Gratteri: the resolute champion of the no, the champion who makes the leopards throb, the guardian of the ancien régime. «The only way out of the excessive power of the currents is the CSM draw», he informed in 2021, in front of an icy Lilli Gruber, on La7.
For goodness sake, perhaps Voltaire also thought that only idiots never change their minds. And the prosecutor of Naples is not at all. But the urge to refute now becomes unstoppable. Again on live television, to support his theses, he ventures into a non-existent quote from Falcone. While the judge killed by the mafia, per tabula, way back in 1991 said: «Judges and prosecutors must be structurally differentiated for a true accusatory process».
The prosecutors who brawl
Three well-known peers of Gratteri, however, decide to brawl. The chief prosecutor of Parma, Alfonso D’Avinois very favorable. Not just the separation of careers. But also at the draw for the CSM, «the best part of the reform», and the High Court: «If the judiciary still enjoyed the prestige it enjoyed at the time of Tangentopoli, perhaps there would not have been any need. Instead, both have become necessary tools, because current accountancy has generated in people the conviction that any atrocity is always covered up by the Superior Council.”
Another fearless bastiancontrary is Antonio Gustapanechief prosecutor of Varese: the separation of careers is the “logical completion of the accusatory model, introduced by the code of criminal procedure in 1988”. No “subversive” content, therefore. Nor, much less, government control: a risk that does not exist “even vaguely”.
While the Paduan counterpart, Antonello Racanellialready in 2023 he urged colleagues to carry out “an exercise in healthy political realism”. In short, it was necessary to “take note of reality”. Does an overwhelming parliamentary majority want to reform the justice system? The ANM’s war, Racanelli objects, is “suicide”. It would have been much more useful to talk.
AND Giacomo Rocchipresident of the section of the Court of Cassation, explains: «The reform makes the judge truly third in the eyes of the citizens, while the draw purifies the judiciary from the mortgage of the currents». Yes, but what about independence? “It is reiterated unequivocally.”
Some members of the CSM also throw their hearts over the obstacle. Like the Veronese judge Andrea Mirenda: elected extraordinarily in 2022 by drawing lots, he is very much in favor of its perpetual introduction. There is nothing more democratic, he argues, than being chosen “without first having to genuflect to a current.”
He even convinced himself Michele Viettiformer undersecretary of Justice and vice president at Palazzo dei Marescialli: «The power of prosecutors has grown over time. There is a risk that the accusation will expand more and more.”
The “senators” of justice
Then there is a trio of highly venerated masters. Their polite reflections become a fatal blow. The last one to speak out was Augusto Barberaformer president of the Constitutional Court and parliamentarian of the left. Well, he explains: the new law “became inevitable after the so-called Vassalli reform”, which dismantled the authoritarian code and introduced an incomplete accusatory system. It would be the fulfillment: separate prosecutors and judges, with different CSMs, to guarantee greater impartiality. It could also help reduce “the unpleasant nature of pressure and power groups”.
Also for Cesare Mirabellianother former president of the Consulta, the draw «is a direct solution to breaking the domination of the currents over the electoral systems». And there is not even a risk, he adds, that prosecutors will end up under the power of the executive.
We finally arrive at Sabino Casseseformer judge of the Constitutional Court and minister in the Ciampi government. The reform «is an almost obligatory decision, a necessary act, developed over a long time in the Italian legal culture to ensure citizens the maximum guarantee of impartiality of the judge». Just him. The eminent jurist. In 2013 Pierluigi Bersani even wanted him on the Hill. Borrowing the famous metaphor of the then secretary of the Democratic Party, now it’s the old Cassese who wants it remove stains from jaguars. Or rather, the ocelots.
