Reading the numbers it doesn’t seem like that domestic justicewhich is managed by CSM, is very obedient to the judge. And even if this were the case, the Ministry of Justice did not identify the essential elements for challenging the decision of the disciplinary section of the High Council of Justice. A theme that is not at all eccentric, considering that the constitutional reform law that will be tested in a referendum in a few months, takes away the disciplinary competence of the future CSM who will entrust it. to the High Court as never beforeassuming the alleged permeability of current disciplinary justice to current pressures.
Justice Minister Carlo Nordio has repeatedly underscored the need for intervention, on the one hand taking advantage of the measure’s limited impact. Palamara case which, according to the Minister, will receive much different and broader attention a selection system a disciplinary judge where the elector finds himself judged by the person elected.
The numbers
However, the numbers tell, at least in part, another story and can be used for a more sober evaluation. In fact, the focus on the current board, the first after the one badly affected by the Palamara scandal, is destined to end, barring extension, in January 2027, in the period January 2023-October 2025 disciplinary penalties issued by the special section of the CSM in their entirety 194among others are 41% (80) it’s from punishment47% (91) acquitted, 12% (23) no legal process.
The percentage of convictions is not trivial, approaching the percentage of acquittals. And it shows that the ministry proved a series of confirmed fundamental non-contestations over the entire three-year period. The appeal data submitted by the Minister of Justice actually provides testimony one to one in 2023 (15 from the Attorney General’s Office of Cassation), two in 2024 (22 from the Attorney General’s Office) and two this year (20 from the Attorney General’s Office, four of which were initiated by the minister).
In short, it appears the ministry has little say in the disciplinary department’s decisions. And in any case, more detail and concentration regarding the sanctions imposed: there were 2 warnings, 44 reprimands, 17 losses of seniority, 9 suspensions and 8 dismissals. Among the behaviors punished with the most serious actions, dismissal, the punishment received by the judge in criminal proceedings should be noted. for serious crimes against public administration (among them, influence peddling, corruption and abuse of office).
