From the disciplinary justice of the CSM to the symbolic sanctions, up to the referendum of 22 and 23 March 2026: numbers, emblematic cases and contradictions of a system that absolves itself.
It is the seal of solemn settlements and pompous celebrations: «Non nobis solum nati sumus». That is: the magistrates would not have been created only for themselves. Despite the heroic ambitions, Cicero’s phrase that best identifies the category is another: “Men of the same profession are not used to being severe among themselves.” No one knows this better than judges and prosecutors. Dog don’t eat dog. On the contrary: toga doesn’t eat toga. Carlo Nordio, in a recent interview with Panorama, defined it as “domestic justice”. The alleged offenses are evaluated by the Csm. “If you end up in disciplinary action, your current boss will agree to save you,” assures the Minister of Justice. The reform of discord envisages transferring this function to a High Court: it would be made up of nine extracted magistrates and six lay judges, including the president. Not surprisingly, it is one of the most controversial points. The referendum will be held on 22 and 23 March 2026. And the battle for the new supreme court promises to be epic. Yet, it was already foreseen in the Bicameral Parliament wanted by Massimo D’Alema, almost thirty years ago.
Numbers that speak for themselves
The data is eloquent. The anecdotal is wasted. Magistrates almost never pay for their mistakes. And on the very rare occasions when it happens, the sanctions certainly don’t seem exemplary. In 2024 there were 1,715 reports. The 95 percent it ended in nothing. For the rest, they proceeded with extraordinary caution. Ninety sentences in one year: thirty-eight dismissals, twenty-eight acquittals, twenty-four convictions. And the sporadic punishments are almost always limited to censures, “formal statements of reprimand”, or loss of seniority, usually of a few months.
Slowness, favoritism, bad mistakes
The accusations from the general prosecutor’s office and the ministry are not trivialities, however. The latest provisions published by the CSM demonstrate this. And they are the most symbolic decisions. They should give prestige to the regulations, confirming supposed impartiality. Instead, they end up validating the axiom: toga doesn’t eat togaprecisely. Slowness, favoritism, bad mistakes. Starting from the group of the less diligent. Do the unfortunate poor souls say that justice has biblical times? The Superior Council is keen to demonstrate that nothing will go unpunished. We then start with the judge who issues 126 sentences, three times as slowly as required by law: «In violation of the duties of diligence and industriousness, he carried out the acts relating to his function with repeated, serious and unjustified delay». So? All it takes is a censorship. An amateur, compared to the intrepid labor judge: in just three years, 250 measures with “systematic” referrals, up to the absolute record of 655 days. And he is also an old acquaintance: already punished in 2011 and 2015, for having accumulated hundreds of postponements and omissions. The disciplinary, this time, seems to be frothing: «A professional path repeatedly characterized by similar and significant organizational deficiencies», he wands. That judge damages “the public image and the prestige that the magistrate must enjoy”. Memorable sentence, then? Nope. Usual censure. After all, it is the same punishment reserved for the colleague who does not transmit 350 sentences: “In a time exceeding four times the deadline.”
The catalog of symbolic cases
The catalog of supposed favoritism is also extensive. Sometimes they arise from minor strands of the Palamara scandal, which later became a major accuser: the new book-interview with Alessandro Sallusti is being released in recent days, The System strikes again (Sallusti himself talks about it in his column on page 17). Someone ended up before the internal tribunal, only to be fully acquitted. At most, see the case of a prosecutor, it was a matter of conversations between friends. «Uncommendable association practices», of course. Nothing serious, anyway. Or the former CSM councilor who sponsors the appointments of his colleagues. The opposing current, he explains in a chat, “is making a steal… we can’t lose”. That other one is “the ideal candidate, who has always supported us and who we therefore really support”. He doesn’t hold back: “Sorry for the pressure” he types. The regulations, of course, do not approve. He blames “the serious unfairness towards the other magistrates who competed with the candidates reported for the managerial and semi-managerial positions”. It doesn’t matter. Another very full acquittal: «Little relevance of the fact», states the article 3-bis. It is the most cited.
From inertia to excesses
Even in the case of the prosecutor who forgets to open a file on two colleagues. One is an honorary judge. The other is president of the court: he allegedly favored his mother-in-law, accused of falsifying a document on the ownership of a very expensive property. Various crimes are hypothesized: forgery, abuse of office, corruption and extortion. Instead, the magistrate does not even enter them in the register of suspects and delays the transmission of the file to the prosecutor’s office for years. All prescribed or archived. An “undue advantage” is then hypothesized. The error was serious, writes the CSM. But, once again, of “little relevance”. Like that of the deputy prosecutor who leaves a man in prison forty-three days beyond the expiry of pre-trial detention. Article 3-bis for him too. And for the colleague who decides on the forced indictment of 25 bank managers, not yet investigated. «Occasional conduct» is declassified.
Jokes, violence and censorship
There are also those who are too diligent, however. You see the magistrate worried about his wife, colleague and suspect. He writes thus to the prosecutor, in charge of the investigation. He asks to move the interrogation of his wife and to “accompany her and possibly be present at the proceedings, if I am allowed to”. It anticipates, in the same email, the non-existence of the crime they are accused of, complete with detailed regulatory references. The disciplinarians, faced with so much affection, end up capitulating. Casual conduct, insignificant damage and no fuss. Clothes are washed at home. The intervention risked seeming like interference, perhaps. But it was too harmless to turn into a crime, they say. Instead he is punished with the loss of two months seniority the deputy attorney general of the cassation who punches his wife during a domestic dispute. The media coverage, in that case, is considered “detrimental to the magistrate’s image”. An inconvenient conclusion which, however, does not concern the irrepressible joker. He decides to slip an anonymous tip into the desk neighbor’s file, with the slogans of the anarchists demonstrating in front of the court for the Cospito case. A non-causal choice. The victim of the prank just took over the case. Therefore, he takes fake threats very seriously. Call the prosecutor, alert Digos. Until the guilty party admits: «It was me. It was a joke! For the joker, however, there are no consequences: “He acted in good faith” writes the CSM.
Only one toga can judge another toga
«How can you fully evaluate the pathological moment if you don’t know in detail the physiology of the system and its functioning on a daily basis?» asks rhetorically the president of the ANM, Cesare Parodi. In a hearing in the Senate, he therefore expressed the category’s strenuous conviction: only a professional can judge another professional. Too bad about the possible corollaries. Does a prosecutor bury under “sixteen years of total investigative inertia” accusations of sexual abuse and mistreatment of some children? He gets off with six months’ suspension and transfer to civil court. And the magistrate who delays arresting a man for six months? He remains a bird of the woods until he ends up in jail for a double murder. But the CSM does not rage: mild censorship. Or what leaves a person in prison for 578 daysdespite the expiry of pre-trial detention? Again, this does not go beyond censorship.
Rehabilitation and system amnesia
Even in the sporadic eventuality of a mild sanction, however, one should not despair. After a providential rehabilitation, your career can restart with momentum. To cancel a censure it is enough to wait five years and have a positive evaluation, which the CSM grants with usual generosity. The ninety-nine percent obtains splendid professionalism ratings from superiors and CSMs. «The magistrates of Italy are considered very excellent. There is no organization in the world, I believe, in which its members are always considered very good” Nordio quips. Thus, even when the toga unfortunately gets stained by a small stain, it can always be removed. The old sanction disappears. It no longer counts for participating in competitions or aiming for positions. As if nothing had happened. The government reform would like to change this too: rehabilitation would no longer become automatic or discretionary. While waiting, it is not denied to anyone. Once again, the latest published sentences seem illustrative. The prosecutor revokes the house arrest of a suspect with well 111 days late? Censorship appropriately revoked after five years, given “the good productivity and industriousness, the difficulty and importance of the business handled”. For her too, the washing comes. All clinging to the Neapolitan law of petty fatalism: “Whoever had, had, who gave, gave, let’s forget about the past.” Nothing but Ciceronian nobility of soul…
