Justice referendum, ballot boxes open: 5 questions

Referendum on justice, Today 12 June 2022 Open polls and Italians are invited to express themselves in 5 questions posed by Lega and extremists In the title. A referendum that weighs on the uncertainty of the demand: in fact, in order to be valid, half of the eligible and one must necessarily go to the seats. From Severino law to pre-trial detention, from the separation of functions between judges and lawyers to the participation of lawyers and academics, in the evaluation of judges, in the collection of signatures to apply to the CSM, Here are 5 questions:

The The first question Related to the repeal of Legislative Order No. 235 of 2012 is the so-called Severno Act, which ensures the disability, disqualification and confiscation of elected offices for government representatives, regional councilors, local administrators and mayors. With one difference: the first sentence is sufficient for some serious offenses for local administrators, while the rules apply to national offices after the final sentence. The success of yes means that the law must be confiscated, and therefore autocracy must be abolished: in private cases, judges will from time to time decide whether to use the ban from the public office.

The The second question Proposes the limits of precautionary measures: Intervention is required under Section 274 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and by eliminating the recurrence of offenses, judges can order precautionary detention, even for non-serious offenses. Prison or residence during the trial. If yes, the potential for suspects to use precautionary measures would be for cases such as escape risk and contamination of evidence, as well as for the risk of recurrence of the same crime, especially for serious offenses.

Eliminate the opportunity for magistrates, during their work, to transfer from the functions of the public prosecutor to the judge and vice versa. This is it The third question Referendum. Today the move is allowed four times, while the judiciary and CSM reform offer only one chance. In fact, the prevalence of yes will determine the separation of careers between the lawyer and the judge, and will allow magistrates to choose between the two from the beginning without being able to change.

The The fourth question It is about the possibility of ‘lay people’, lawyers and university professors expressing their vote in the courts and the Cassation Executive Committee on the judgments of judges. It is proposed to repeal the rules regarding the organization of councils and the capabilities of ordinary members. Currently, the CSM manifests itself in the professional assessments of judges, based on the judgments expressed by the councils, however, only judges can vote. This issue is partly resolved by the Cordobia Reform, although it provides for the vote of attorneys only if there is a report on the specific facts of the Council of Commons.

Finally the Fifth question Proposes to repeal certain rules in the selection of robots for the High Council of the Judiciary. In particular, he calls for the abolition of the obligation to collect 25 to 50 signatures to present one’s candidacy: a way for CSMs to avoid having an electoral system behind the candidates for the purpose. Government reform intervenes at this stage, creating a mixed electoral system, with majority proportional correction, which does not have lists but individual candidates.