After the five referendum questions on Justice have failed, now is the time for the Cartabia reform which arrives in the Senate. Mr Vittorio Ferraresi (M5S), what do you think of the text that should be approved this week?
“The referendum was a blow to the League and the Radicals who falsely wanted to reform Justice with questions that, in reality, went against it and against the freedom of the judiciary. That said, the Cartabia reform does not fully satisfy the 5 Star Movement. This is because it started from an excellent base, the one put in place by our government with the minister Alfonso Bonafede and of which I was undersecretary, but over time it has been watered down and – unfortunately – has been watered down with the quality that has dropped drastically over the course of the discussions that have taken place in the Chamber “.
What are, in your opinion, the greatest critical issues and where more should have been done?
“There are several. One is certainly the passage of functions which is further reduced and ends up limiting an added value, that of being able to gain experience both as a judge and as a prosecutor and therefore of the entire judicial sector. It also severely limits the independence and autonomy of the judiciary. I say it clearly: I do not like this solution because the steps are already limited and because it is an evident compromise that was necessary given that several parties wanted to bring the steps to zero. Then there are the nodes of disciplinary offenses, the magistrate’s file and the assessments of lawyers and professors on the judges. Not to mention the electoral law of the CSM which will not lead to the much requested qualitative leap capable of overcoming the problems of current accountancy “.
Despite the invitations of the Minister of Justice to seek an agreement, in the Lega Commission and Italia Viva they fought by trying to bring the concepts of the questions together through some amendments. The assault, however, was repulsed. What game are the two Matteo playing?
“It is a question of style. I explain. Although the reform does not satisfy the Movement, we decided to close it because it still maintained some important points of the Bonafede including the stop at the revolving doors. It also improves in terms of transparency and meritocracy. On the other hand there is this propaganda game of Lega and Italia Viva, a game that failed miserably with the referendum where they wanted to get the citizens who understood it and refused this scam to approve crap. Not happy now they are trying to get those contents through Parliament but as usual without getting anything. The problem is that justice should really be reformed but not as they want, laying a mat for criminals and giving a voice to politicians who only want to attack the judiciary ”.
Precisely the maneuvers of Salvini and Renzi have led more than someone to fear a trip, with the associated risk for the estate of the executive. How do you judge this eventuality?
“I do not think. Look in my opinion it’s all a great caciara to make electoral propaganda. In any case, if they have to make a similar choice, then they will have to take their responsibilities ”.
From Gratteri to Ardita, from Albamonte to Sabella, there does not seem to be a magistrate satisfied with this reform. How do you explain it?
“I think that the vast majority of magistrates, that is, servants of the state who want to carry out a justice that can be just, independent and impartial, are the first to not want the extremism of the currents. At the same time they do not want political interference on the judiciary. So it is false to say that they are opposed to reforming Justice and the CSM but they want this done in a serious way and not as an opportunity to consume a political revenge on the judiciary ”.
One of the thorniest knots is that of the current account which conditions the CSM. Judge Sabella said he was in favor of this because it is a “necessary chemotherapy against current cancer”. Agree?
“I think that the Bonafede reform was more balanced and effective in unhinging the currents. Having said that, some of that text has remained and for this reason we support the text of the Cartabia. In relation to the draw, what do you want me to tell you? We had supported it but from many sides, including by the Ministry of Justice, we were asked to renounce it because it would have been unconstitutional. I take note of this decision but in my opinion it was a viable option and in any case some other form could be found to resolve any critical issues. But there was no availability and it was decided to reform the electoral law that will not change anything “.
#downward #compromises #Cartabia #reform