It is very rare, so to speak, to see a magistrate who has the courage to criticise the judiciary when it oversteps its bounds, when it runs riot, when it uses investigations as a weapon, when it opens cases based more on theories than on evidence, when it resorts to vague formulations rather than smoking guns, when it uses notices of investigation to add fuel to the fire of trials played out in the studios of talk shows rather than to those held in courtrooms, and when it perhaps utilises the machinery of the media trial to make the suspects serve a sentence that it knows it will never be able to enforce through the strength of the evidence. It is rare to see a magistrate who, faced with the excesses of the ‘Party of the Honest’, honestly states that pursuing the good by doing wrong is not one of those ends that can justify the means.

Everything changes, however, if an honest person ends up at the centre of the smear campaign, at the centre of the mudslinging, at the centre of the wrist-slapping, as they say. And in this specific case, everything changes when a magistrate ends up being tarnished by a justice system gone mad, which uses nothing at all to launch investigations serving only to perpetuate theories. Or rather, two magistrates.

Nello Rossi is a former magistrate with a distinguished career. Today he is editor-in-chief of Questione giustizia, the official journal of Magistratura Democratica, one of the most well-organised and left-leaning factions within the judiciary. He has served as deputy public prosecutor in Rome, as Advocate General at the Court of Cassation, as a member of the High Council of the Judiciary (CSM), as president of Magistratura Democratica, and as secretary of the National Association of Magistrates (ANM). He is one of the leading figures of the progressive judiciary and, two days ago, in the magazine he edits, he published a scathing, hard-hitting and simply perfect article denouncing the cover-up – carried out, as Rossi puts it, by a public prosecutor’s office and a media system that offers little protection of individual rights – against two prominent former magistrates: Gioacchino Natoli and Giuseppe Pignatone. As readers may recall, the two former magistrates were investigated by the Caltanissetta Public Prosecutor’s Office on charges of having covered up a Mafia-linked public procurement scandal in 1992, thereby favouring Cosa Nostra. The case was dismissed in October 2026 due to insufficient evidence.

In a passionate piece, Rossi does not hold back and denounces the reprehensible methods used by the Caltanissetta Public Prosecutor’s Office to prove its theories. Rossi rightly points out that a public prosecutor’s office which chooses to investigate someone whilst knowing that the offence would be time-barred is a public prosecutor’s office that chooses to commit an improper act; for when an investigation has no hope of reaching a conclusion, that investigation cannot be opened. Rossi, however, in his scathing j’accuse against the Caltanissetta Public Prosecutor’s Office, does something more important than merely denouncing the opportunistic manner in which magistrates can, at times, open investigations to engage in something other than a simple judicial inquiry (Natoli and Pignatone, according to Rossi, were “the blameless collateral victims of a legal-political clash over whom silence must not fall”).

Rossi goes much further. Rossi argues that notices of investigation must not be used carelessly because, in journalistic parlance, they transform those under investigation into ‘suspects’, casting a shadow of suspicion over those who receive such a notice – a shadow that never lifts, as Luciano Ligabue might have sung on other matters. He argues that a healthy justice system cannot conduct investigations simply for the sake of it because, drum roll, ‘devoting public energy and resources to criminal proceedings with no possible outcome is precisely what a public prosecutor’s office should not do’. Rossi states, categorically, that “there should be no place for vague and allusive statements in a judicial document” and reiterates how serious it is, in his view, to investigate someone without sufficient grounds to do so, given that the media furore accompanying a notice of investigation “is a source of unjustified moral suffering and serious damage to one’s reputation”.

Rossi, with a good dose of courage, even goes so far as to expose yet another sacred cow of the ‘republic of the honest’ and, drawing on an article published months ago by Professor Giovanni Fiandaca, describes the Anti-Mafia Commission as a dangerous catalyst for the ‘republic of suspicion’ (the investigations, which were never meant to happen, have turned into accusations and suspicions, and every inference has been ‘exaggerated out of all proportion by the media platform provided by the Anti-Mafia Commission’s public hearings’), thereby acknowledging not only that criticising the work of a public prosecutor’s office does not mean seeking to discredit the judiciary, but also that criticising the Anti-Mafia Commission does not mean being a friend of the Mafia.

At the end of his piece, Rossi complains about the defenders of due process who, with the exception of Il Foglio, have been conspicuously absent in recent months, and wonders whether they have remained silent because “the victims of an ill-advised judicial initiative were two magistrates”. In the heat of the moment, however, Rossi may have overlooked one detail. The absence of due process, apart from a few minor, commendable exceptions, in the case of Pignatone and Natoli is a fact. What the magistrates who were sharing Rossi’s article in their chat groups yesterday afternoon ought to realise is that the problem highlighted by the article written by the former president of Md and the former secretary of the ANM is that the Party of the Honest tends to take offence at dishonesty only when it is the self-proclaimed honest ones who are bearing the brunt of the media-judicial circus.

The magistrates at the Caltanissetta Public Prosecutor’s Office, who have built an investigation based on nothing and who have chosen to set the wheels of the media circus in motion in an attempt to cover up their own inability to produce anything other than theoretical constructs, are not aliens from Mars espousing an anomalous vision of justice. They are, unfortunately, the perfect embodiment of a world that the judiciary only takes notice of when it is directly affected.

A world in which flimsy investigations – launched without evidence against those branded by the Party of the Honest as enemies of the people – do not make the news, because the end often justifies the means. A world in which the cover-ups perpetrated by public prosecutors’ offices that have gone beyond all bounds do not make the news because the spirit of professional solidarity prevents us from criticising a magistrate who makes a mistake – for the Party of the Honest has taught us to regard any criticism of a magistrate as an attack on the profession, except on those occasions when it is the magistrates themselves who are being covered up. A world in which investigations that are fabricated to prove a point, to lend credence to a theory, rather than to prosecute crimes, no longer make the news because they have become the norm.

And when the judiciary expresses outrage at the way in which two prominent magistrates have been treated by the judiciary, it should ask itself whether raising its voice solely to protect members of the Party of the Honest is part of the solution or part of the problem, so that we can all work towards a judiciary committed to protecting the rule of law, which continues to be violated when those who suffer what two honest magistrates have endured in recent months are people who do not belong to the Party of the Honest. Even if, quite frankly, it is a little late, it is a wake-up call.

The ‘Arbitropoli’ investigation was also shelved by Viola as soon as he had read the flimsy evidence. The public prosecutor’s request to compel Glovo to offer its delivery riders permanent contracts – another recent investigation that caused a media stir – was soundly rejected by the investigating judge: it is not the role of a criminal court to turn delivery riders into employees. The investigation into the Milano-Cortina Foundation – which, according to the media, was even supposed to call the Olympics into question – came to nothing last summer, when the Constitutional Court ruled that the Foundation’s private legal status was legitimate, as argued by the government. The list could go on; many investigations in recent years – some of which were little more than a spectacle for the cameras – have sought to portray Milan as a cesspit of all manner of vices and have caused some real harm: the damage to the construction sector and to families left homeless will last for years. Amidst all this, whilst Sagunto is being ‘conquered’, as the ancients would say, Milan’s public prosecutor Marcello Viola has given a lengthy interview to a Turin-based newspaper on the ongoing ‘Hydra’ trial (involving 145 defendants) and the serious role played by the mafia: ‘In the trenches against the mafia in Milan. A multi-headed monster doing business’. A disclaimer for the uninitiated: the role of the mafias, united and active in the metropolis, is well-known and dangerous, as is their transformation into players in the world of finance, whether in the formal or informal sectors. The key quote from the Hydra investigation is a wiretapped conversation between the bosses: “No shots fired – have you seen how everything has changed?” The investigation, led by the Milan Anti-Mafia Directorate (DDA) headed by Alessandra Dolci, is significant, and Viola is right to highlight it.

A few unanswered questions, out of pure curiosity, remain regarding the communications strategy of the public prosecutor, who in recent years has spoken very little about the investigations, only commenting on those certain to attract media attention, such as the one concerning Fondazione Milano - Cortina (though the public prosecutor’s office ultimately bore the brunt of the fallout), or the investigations into Mafia infiltration and criminal activity amongst the Inter and Milan football fan groups, or the case of the ‘Serpico of Rogoredo’. He has, however, remained silent on matters that would have required a balanced commentary – including in relation to certain media campaigns – or some clarification on the rationale behind cases that were opened only to be swiftly closed, as if they were collateral damage, or on the logic behind the prosecution of alleged offences or abuses that were subsequently quickly dismissed by investigating magistrates, the Review Court, or the Constitutional Court. Is it not the prosecutor’s duty to assess and also account for the work of his office?

In short, Milan has been overrun like Sagunto, partly due to certain investigations by the public prosecutor’s office, and yet Viola prefers to be interviewed in Turin about the Mafia? It must be said, however, that even the questions put to him are somewhat surprising. Let us accept—such things do happen in the press—that the interview was conducted beforehand or arranged to focus on the subject of the Mafia. However, to include a question about corruption that was not even raised? About the arrests that were denied after just a few days? That would have been far more interesting to read. Perhaps next time.

There is more than one issue, in fact. Firstly, the time taken by the Public Prosecutor’s Office to request the case be dismissed, despite a precautionary ruling having been reached within an unusually short timeframe. The precautionary orders were enforced in July 2025; the Review Court revoked the majority of them as early as August, filing its reasons in mid-September 2025; the Public Prosecutor’s Office appealed to the Court of Cassation against the Review Court’s decisions; the Supreme Court ruled on 12 November 2025, with a decision that definitively dismantled the logical and legal foundations of the investigation, declaring the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s appeal inadmissible, upholding the remaining appeals by the defence, and, above all, ruling out the very possibility of the alleged corruption offences having been committed. Four months – a record time to bring an investigation to a close – yet the Public Prosecutor’s Office is keeping it alive, without any apparent justification, for a further year.

The second anomalous aspect concerns the use of pre-trial detention against those under investigation. To order, in a judicial inquiry of such blatant inconsistency, the deprivation of personal liberty of individuals, the vast majority of whom have no previous criminal record, speaks volumes about the degree of indifference shown by a large and influential section of the Italian judiciary towards the supreme value of personal liberty for those under investigation. Nor can one seriously believe that house arrest, rather than imprisonment, serves to mitigate the impact – which is in any case devastating for the suspect and their family – of a measure of such gravity.

In short, this case constitutes yet another confirmation of a more than well-founded fear, namely that the adoption of precautionary measures is all too often viewed by public prosecutors and investigating magistrates as a measure of the investigation’s importance and the seriousness of the offences it purports to have uncovered. In short, the exclamation mark is essential; without it, an investigation risks being automatically classified as secondary or marginal, relegating itself to the shadows of media attention, with a resulting social impact that falls short of its ambitions.

This is particularly serious – and this is the third point for consideration – when one considers that the legal principles on which those precautionary measures, and with them the entire investigation, were overturned by the Court of Cassation, form part of a body of case law on the offence of corruption that has been well-established for several years now, which the public prosecutor’s office and the investigating magistrate could not have been unaware of, and with which they are certainly thoroughly familiar. The Court of Cassation has affirmed and reiterated in every possible way that, for that offence to be established, it is not sufficient merely to identify possible conflicts of interest in the interactions between the private individual and the public official; rather, proof is required – and, at the precautionary stage, at least strong indications – of the existence of a corrupt agreement deliberately and knowingly constructed by both parties around that conflict of interest.

The Court has long held that an allegation of a very serious offence such as corruption cannot be based merely on the observation – as in the present case – that certain members of the Town Planning Commission were professionals who, at entirely different times and in entirely separate contexts, had been awarded contracts by the very same companies that had been awarded the public contracts approved by the Commission itself. There must be serious, substantial and recognisable evidence that this potential conflict of interest explicitly and concertedly inspired the unlawful intentions of both the private individual and the public official. This investigation has simply disregarded those principles so firmly and repeatedly affirmed by the Court of Cassation, acting in clear and flagrant violation of them: that is, inferring the corrupt agreement purely by deduction from the mere observation of a possible conflict of interest.

To have conducted an investigation entirely outside the scope of established and well-known legal principles, and moreover by resorting to precautionary measures, with an immediate and significant impact on the structures of legitimate democratic institutions, seems to me to be the most alarming aspect of this affair; yet it is destined – as is invariably the case in such situations – to fade away quietly, much like we switch off the television after watching a bad film.

Tuesday’s news is excellent – for those concerned, for those who, like myself, are staunch defenders of due process, and for those who believe in justice. The fact that the request to dismiss the case comes from the public prosecutor’s office itself is of great significance. Allow me to commend Manfredi Catella’s statement: it conveys a sense of great personal dignity and an equally great respect for the institutions that uphold the democratic order.

That said, as I am neither a blind believer nor a fan, I always try to look at phenomena in all their complexity.

The investigations, which have covered a far wider scope than that addressed by yesterday’s ruling, stem from an underlying malaise whose causes can be attributed to confusing legislation that is open to too many interpretations, an encroachment by the construction industry into the field of town planning – which, as the saying goes, is a discipline of design rather than law – and procedural shortcuts made possible by political indecision, which has led to structural social dissent.

If urban development processes are not managed seriously – all the more so in a city like Milan, which has always been the epicentre of the seismic shocks caused by economic upheaval – voids, anger and frustration are created. Citizens end up seeing legal action as the sole force for justice and morality, ushering in periods that leave bleeding wounds in their wake.

At Ccl (Consortium of Workers’ Cooperatives), guided by our convictions, prudence and experience, we have chosen not to use procedures that could prove problematic; on the contrary, at the slightest hint of potential difficulty, we have preferred to start projects from scratch (incurring additional costs and operational delays); the resulting damage has been, and continues to be, considerable, even though we are not involved in any investigation.

And since we – I say this with a touch of irony – are indeed ‘property developers’, but staunch advocates of co-operative principles, that is, respectful of Article 45 of the Constitution, such damage affects both the business organisation we have the honour of leading and, above all, our resident members, the vast majority of whom want an affordable home to live in, not to extract parasitic rent from it.

What does this mean in practical terms? The freeze on the issuing of planning permission has also affected our projects. Focusing on just five projects (in some cases in partnership with the Lum co-operative) that, under normal circumstances, would already have been completed or handed over, here are some figures. The aggregate turnover of these projects is approximately 170 million euros. They correspond to around 450 homes across various types of housing: ranging from 2,750 €/m² for subsidised social housing, to €3,300 per square metre for standard housing, right up to a peak of €3,900 per square metre for the private sector – including around 70 rental properties at €110 per square metre per year, or €550 per month for a 60-square-metre two-room flat. A real mini ‘housing plan’, one might say, which could already be ready and occupied today.

These delays have had another effect: an average increase in costs of between 300 and 500 euros per square metre for sales and 10–20 euros per square metre per year for rentals. The rise in tender costs, the redesign of projects (the costs of which have not been passed on to resident members), the IMU – a significant annual expense – and financial charges weigh heavily, and, as the entity is a co-operative, these costs are largely passed on to the residents through the cost-sharing scheme, in addition to the dramatic postponement of essential projects.

Finally: for the first time in 52 years and after having built 16,000 homes, Ccl sees its business continuity – founded on rigour, loyalty to cooperative principles and entrepreneurial initiative – at risk.

There are many parties responsible for this situation: it is wrong to seek scapegoats; we must reflect on the future. We need more politics, clear rules that leave little room for interpretation – and here the version of the PGT under discussion concerns us: based on the simulations carried out, clarity remains a pipe dream and interpretation a certainty – more effective bureaucracy, better process management, greater urban equity and more redistribution.

Only in this way will Milan once again become a city of work, innovation and social justice.

Alessandro Maggioni

Executive Chairman of the Milan Workers’ Co-operative Consortium

An exemplary illustration of this, right from the headline (“Se non è reato, non significa vada bene”), is the interview published yesterday in *Il Fatto Quotidiano*, in which Alberto Vannucci argued that there exists a form of corruption not covered by criminal law, consisting of any decision that deviates from the public interest due to specific influences; a broad concept, incorporated into the National Anti-Corruption Plan, which falls within the scope of administrative prevention. The effects become apparent when that concept shifts from prevention to criminal proceedings and becomes a criterion for interpreting the facts, thereby fostering a dangerous confusion between moral wrongdoing and criminal offence. In the Milan investigation, the Court of Cassation ruled out that the actions of a public official in a conflict of interest constitute, in themselves, evidence of corruption, and that the invocation of a systemic or environmental dimension can substitute for proof of an agreement. Article 318 of the Criminal Code, even after the 2012 reform removed the requirement for a specific act to have been performed, requires that the benefit be received or promised in connection with the exercise of official functions or powers, and thus a quid pro quo must be established in concrete terms. If this link is inferred from the context, the focus of the proceedings shifts from the individual act to the phenomenon as a whole, and the charge amounts to membership of a network of relationships with undefined boundaries, in direct conflict with the principle of individual liability in criminal law.

When shifted from the legal to the ethical sphere, the label of corruption – which persists even after the charges have been dropped – blurs the distinction between lawful and unlawful conduct, leaves the assessment of behaviour to a judgement devoid of predetermined criteria, and risks lending an apparently scientific veneer to the logic of suspicion. Anyone who has remained under investigation for over a year – sometimes subject to precautionary measures that were subsequently quashed – would not see their public image fully restored by any decision to drop the case if their conduct continued to be described as corruption, even if not in a criminal sense. The lack of transparency in town-planning procedures, where it exists, must be addressed with clearer administrative rules, the definition of which is the responsibility of the legislature and the authorities. The function of the criminal offence is different: it is called upon to mark, with the precision required by the Constitution, the point at which the reprehensible nature of an act becomes liability; a task it can fulfil only if that point is not shifted and redefined, from one alarm to the next, in line with the scale of the phenomenon one intends to combat. This is why the opposite of the title of the interview referred to holds true: ‘If something is wrong, it does not mean it is a criminal offence’.

Il Corriere, which ran a full-page headline reading “Shocking investigation in Milan”, deserves credit for the space it has now devoted on its front page to “Urban planning: charges dropped”; it also does not hesitate to interview former public prosecutor Tiziana Siciliano, allowing her to state, “we had very solid evidence”. Even if it isn’t true. More extravagant is the choice made by a newspaper such as Il Domani, which, whilst having remained more cautious regarding the nature of the investigations, was far less so regarding the ideological framework of the ‘Milan case’, relegating the news of the request to dismiss the case to a small article at the bottom of page 10. At this point, one might be tempted to pay (dis)honourable tribute to Il Fatto and to Gianni Barbacetto’s consistency; after running headlines against Catella, ‘the king of property’, he is now forced to defend himself on page 8 with a stubborn ‘Bribes: the evidence is lacking’. At least they’re sticking to their guns.

The right-wing newspapers – those with their on-and-off commitment to due process – have fared much worse, and not by chance. A year ago, La Verità was calling for Beppe Sala’s resignation; now it has tucked the news of the ‘investigation being halted’ away in a small article on page 15. At least Libero – which, under Sechi’s editorship, used to attack ‘the posh grandchildren of the Communist Party’ – has changed its tune under Sallusti’s leadership, who yesterday lashed out at the judiciary for ‘making mistakes and never facing the consequences’. Il Giornale under Montanelli was better: after having banged the drum for the investigations, yesterday it buried the story on the front page. It preferred to focus on the “widespread bribery” in Campania. Upholding due process, as always.

Moretti turned himself in on 26 June following the Supreme Court’s decision, which made the conviction for the charges of negligent railway disaster and arson in connection with the Viareggio station tragedy final. The events date back to 29 June 2009, when a freight wagon loaded with LPG derailed, killing 32 people in the ensuing fire and injuring over 100.

The lawyers for the former CEO of FS, the newspaper reports, have confirmed the news, explaining that they had immediately requested house arrest, given his age (79), the nature of the offence and the fact that, in his case, there was neither a risk of him absconding nor of reoffending. “Mr Moretti has been granted house arrest on the condition that his behaviour whilst under house arrest is impeccable. The legal system accords due consideration to the man in his seventies in the absence of any grounds for refusal. He has lost 15 kilos, is in a very frail condition, and the measure recognises the need to protect his health,” the lawyers told Qn. 

The first article is on judicial populism. It is indisputable and significant that the investigations in Milan did not begin because of unlawful evictions or property developers’ usurious practices – in short, not because of the ‘housing crisis’. They began as complaints from middle-class urban residents against alleged planning violations: the building in the courtyard, the one casting a shadow – and from ideologically driven committees. It was then left to the public prosecutor’s office to develop the theme of the ‘whirlwind of corruption’ that collapsed spectacularly yesterday. No one paid any attention to those truly harmed by the investigations and seizures – the ‘suspended families’ left homeless. This judicial populism, in turn, fed on an ideological narrative disconnected from reality, which, instead of identifying solutions (no ‘Fanfani Plan’ ever materialised), blamed everything on the ‘neoliberal’ model, ‘predatory finance’ and corrupt politics.

The second point, however, concerns the unrealistic way in which the construction industry is discussed. Fulvio Irace, a respected architectural historian at the Politecnico, said in a recent interview with Rai that “we mustn’t be naïve; architecture follows the money (just ask Michelangelo, ed.), but a balance is needed – the city’s development is at stake. We need to think about how to harness Milan’s dynamism without missing the boat’. The problems of sustainable construction – in all areas under heavy housing pressure – have deep-rooted causes. Ten years ago, the Fondazione Cariplo was invited to Brussels to present the Italian model of social housing, which was cutting-edge at the time. But no public policy has followed up on this initiative from the third sector. Once the crisis hit, the City of Milan’s ‘Piano Casa’ was launched (the national scheme has only just begun) to make municipal land available for subsidised housing through an agreement with developers on costs and rents. So far, it has not got off the ground, for the simple reason that the proposed parameters are too restrictive for developers in a city like Milan, where the cost of new-build construction ranges from 3,500 to 4,400 euros per square metre.

Ideas are needed. The CEO of Lombardini22, a major player in the construction sector, has put forward the provocative proposal of a ‘€10-a-day home’ for young people: this is only possible provided that long-term (patient) investors are involved. Carlo Cottarelli has estimated that Milan needs 9,300 new homes a year until 2038, but forecasts for the new-build market stand at around 2,600; this, particularly for social housing (ERS), is caused by restrictions and obligations imposed on builders that drive up costs too much. To achieve sustainable goals, there is no need to cry out that ‘the city is driving young people away’; instead, we must, for example, make it possible to live in the metropolitan area: this is a question of transport, not bricks and mortar. Incomes need to be adjusted, but that is not the builders’ responsibility. And we need to have a realistic understanding of construction costs, particularly the fact that there is also the cost of capital: this is a resource just like bricks; it must be acquired and remunerated. And interest rates range from 5 per cent on solidarity funds to 10 or 15 per cent on international financial funds. There are no free halls of residence, no social housing that can be financed at zero cost, nor any Fanfani housing schemes backed by IOUs. The great deception peddled by proposals for social housing to be built ‘for free’ or at the expense of the developers stems from failing to view housing as an economic problem to be managed, but merely as a banner to be waved in the streets.

The investigating magistrate went so far as to regard the fact that the suspects denied the charges as a ‘symptomatic’ element of corruption. The mass resignations from the Landscape Commission were deemed “evocative” of collusion and cronyism. A note found on Tancredi’s desk was interpreted as evidence of an intention to pursue a speculative strategy. In other words, the presumption of guilt was elevated to a method of investigation and preliminary judgement.

In September 2025, the Court of Review dismantled that line of argument. The judges described the view of the relationships between professionals and public officials underlying the investigation as “derogatory” and identified a “reverse approach”: instead of first establishing the existence of a corrupt agreement – how, where and when it had been entered into – the prosecutors had inferred the agreement from an alleged unlawful act. The Review Court quashed all six precautionary measures.

In November, the Court of Cassation ruled. The Supreme Court declared the public prosecutors’ appeal inadmissible and, in its reasoning, stated in black and white that the payments made by Coima to architect Scandurra’s practice “did not constitute unlawful remuneration for a public official”. No evidence was found of any subversion of the public service nor of a causal link between the professional contracts and the alleged sale of public office. In December, in a further ruling, the Court of Cassation reiterated that there was no evidence of corruption between Catella and Scandurra. Now the public prosecutor’s office itself acknowledges that the irregularities and conflicts of interest that have emerged are not sufficient to sustain a charge: there is no demonstrable link between the payments made and the exercise of public office. According to Sala, the prosecutors have taken on board the findings of the investigating judge and the Review Court regarding the absence of sufficient evidence to support the allegation of undue influence.

The image of a city portrayed as the testing ground for a shadowy system, in which every urban development project concealed an illicit deal, has caused immense reputational damage. The result: construction sites at a standstill, investments on hold, operators fleeing, and families facing uncertainty. In June, speaking to Il Foglio, the property developer Carlo Rusconi put the economic damage caused by the investigations at three billion euros: around two hundred projects on hold, each involving an average investment of 15 million. Rusconi was one of the eight defendants acquitted in the Torre Milano trial, another landmark case in the current wave of legal proceedings concerning urban planning. All eight defendants were acquitted.

Then there is the case of former deputy public prosecutor Tiziana Siciliano, who coordinated the investigations into town planning. At the end of May, a few months after retiring, she announced her candidacy for deputy mayor on Massimiliano Lisa’s civic list. This decision raised obvious questions about its appropriateness: having investigated the local council, Siciliano was preparing to enter the political arena. In September, she withdrew her candidacy, explaining that she had been subjected to “attacks based on falsehoods and insinuations” (the nature of which is unknown).

Now comes the request to dismiss the case (on which an investigating magistrate will have to rule). It does not undo the arrests, the resignations, the halted construction sites, the lost investments and the stigma attached to Milan. It remains to be seen who will be held accountable for the cost of an investigation that has shaken an entire city and which, according to the prosecutors themselves, has no basis in fact.

Ermes Antonucci

"The lack of evidence" of a "corrupt agreement sufficient to reasonably foresee a conviction", as well as "the absence of sufficient evidence to support the charge in court" regarding the “allegations of inducing the giving or promising of undue benefits, levelled against the Mayor of Milan, Giuseppe Sala” are some of the reasons that led the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office to request that the case be dismissed for the mayor, for Stefano Boeri, for the former councillor Giancarlo Tancredi, the CEO of Coima and others who came under investigation in the urban planning probe. This is stated in a note from Public Prosecutor Marcello Viola.

“It is difficult for those who do not experience these situations first-hand to imagine the bitterness they leave behind, especially when one is aware that one has merely done one’s duty. But those who dedicate themselves to the public interest must, unfortunately, be prepared to pay this price,” commented the Mayor of Milan, “commented Mayor Sala.”

In the statement, the prosecutor explained that the request to dismiss the case “was made in line with the judicial measures taken”, namely the Review and Cassation proceedings, “following a comprehensive assessment of the case files and developments in the pre-trial proceedings”. These proceedings had led, in the summer of last year, to the imposition of house arrest on Tancredi, the former president and former member of the landscape commission; Marinoni; Scandurra, CEO of Coima; Manfredi Catella; the manager Federico Pella; and the entrepreneur Andrea Bezziccheri, the only one to be imprisoned. 

The application, which must now be assessed by the investigating judge, was put forward, the prosecutor emphasises, “by applying the criterion set out” in the Code of Criminal Procedure, “on the grounds that the evidence gathered does not allow for a reasonable expectation of conviction”. The statement then lists the reasons why the decision was taken to seek the dismissal of the case. “With regard to the offences of forgery in connection with corrupt conduct”, according to the assessments made in court, their existence has been ruled out. With regard to the offences of corruption, the guidance provided by the court was followed, namely that there is no evidence of a corrupt quid pro quo sufficient to support a reasonable prospect of conviction. The existence of conflicts of interest – the statement continues – failures to comply with recusal obligations, and professional and financial relationships between members of the Commission and operators involved in building projects, and the critical issues in the town-planning procedures examined are elements which, whilst highlighting significant anomalies, are not sufficient to demonstrate – according to the standard required to sustain the charge in court – the existence of a link (...) between the benefits paid and the exercise of public office. With regard to the allegations of inducing the mayor of Milan, Giuseppe Sala, to give or promise undue benefits – the statement concludes – the instructions of the investigating judge and the Review Court were followed concerning the absence of sufficient evidence to support the charge in court.”

Among these cases, one in particular is of special interest and, at the same time, gives cause for concern as it is symptomatic of abnormalities and abuses that are not confined solely to the judicial sphere. I am referring to the new investigations carried out, in close and unique collaboration, by the parliamentary Anti-Mafia Commission and the Caltanissetta Public Prosecutor’s Office to shed further light on the motives behind the Via D’Amelio massacre targeting Judge Paolo Borsellino. The press has reported extensively on the sharp disagreements and heated controversies raised by these investigations, which have even gone so far as to cast doubt on the legitimacy and transparency of the actions of certain well-known former public prosecutors from Palermo some thirty years ago. However, it has perhaps failed to highlight the most significant problematic aspects, which go beyond the debatable reconstruction of the facts and actually have a more general systemic impact: at stake, in fact, are the fundamental principles and operating rules of a constitutional democracy worthy of the name.

I shall begin with a summary of the abnormal or, at the very least, anomalous profiles.

1. The Anti-Mafia Commission, run by Chair Colosimo and the majority commissioners, is being used as a tool for political warfare, even against some of its own members belonging to the opposition (a case in point is the campaign waged against the former Attorney General of Palermo, Roberto Scarpinato, who currently sits on the commission as a Five Star Movement senator).

2. The Caltanissetta Public Prosecutor’s Office, in the context of renewed investigations into possible instigators of Borsellino’s murder, has gone so far as to charge the two well-known and respected retired magistrates, Gioacchino Natoli and Giuseppe Pignatone, with a hypothetical, implausible and defamatory offence of aiding and abetting the Mafia – an offence which, moreover, has long since become time-barred and is therefore not subject to investigation. As was to be expected, the Public Prosecutor’s Office ultimately requested that the case be dismissed (a decision subsequently granted by the investigating judge) both in respect of the main proceedings – due to a failure to uncover new evidence capable of identifying the sought-after instigators by name – and – as was even more predictable – in respect of the case brought against the two magistrates alleged to have aided and abetted the Mafia: whose reputations were, however, inevitably damaged both by the widespread media coverage of the opening of an investigation against them and, above all, by the unwarranted and discrediting remarks made about them by the magistrates from Nisseni, and even against other public prosecutors from the Palermo Public Prosecutor’s Office at the time, such as Scarpinato and Guido Lo Forte (who were not under investigation).

3. The extremely close collaborative interaction between the Anti-Mafia Commission and the Caltanissetta Public Prosecutor’s Office, which resulted in the validation and emphasis of the ‘Mafia-tenders’ line of inquiry as a definite contributing factor to Borsellino’s assassination, and the tendency, by contrast, to dismiss as ‘zero tagliato’ (as the Caltanissetta public prosecutor Salvatore De Luca put it, with obvious derision) judicial investigations conducted previously – and not only in Palermo – concerning the so-called ‘black trail’ linked to subversive right-wing circles. Is it a stretch to assume that Chairwoman Colosimo and the political bloc currently in the majority harbour a pre-existing political interest in neutralising evidence and dispelling suspicions relating to figures from the far right of several decades ago? In any case, the fact remains that the Nisseno public prosecutor, having been heard on several occasions by the Anti-Mafia Committee, not only emphasised the central role of the public procurement issue in motivating Cosa Nostra’s terrorist attack; but he has also, in open court, raised and reiterated suspicions of guilt and made harsh judgements regarding the two former public prosecutors who were unsuccessfully investigated on suspicion of aiding the Mafia, as well as their colleagues in the public prosecutor’s office headed by Pietro Giammanco: thereby delivering, in a parallel political-media tribunal, wide-ranging moral indictments instead of formulating legally impossible requests for conviction. All this was done not only without cross-examination and in the absence of any defence safeguards, but also by disregarding the fact that judgements of moral disapproval do not fall within the remit of a magistrate, whether as prosecutor or judge.

The aforementioned campaign against opposition member Roberto Scarpinato serves as confirmation that the commission has unduly acted as an instrument of political struggle. Beyond the individual targeted, the issue has broader implications. Scarpinato is likely being targeted because, as a former anti-Mafia public prosecutor and expert, he is a staunch and outspoken advocate of the need to consider possible motives for the Via D’Amelio massacre (as well as that of Capaci) that are broader and more complex than simply the Mafia’s desire to prevent Borsellino from investigating the public procurement system. Now, without a thorough investigation and without first seeking clarification from him, he is facing the discrediting accusation that, during telephone conversations with his former colleague Natoli – conversations which were intercepted, immediately forwarded by the Public Prosecutor of Caltanissetta to President Colosimo without taking into account the parliamentary status of one of the two interlocutors, and soon arbitrarily disclosed by the press – the content of false statements that Natoli himself was supposed to make at a subsequent hearing before the Anti-Mafia Committee. But there is more. Taking their cue from the aforementioned affair, the Chair and other members of the majority went so far as to draft a bill (Bill No. 1277) introducing an obligation for commissioners to recuse themselves in the event of a ‘conflict of interest’ that could ironically be described as cognitive: that is to say, commissioners who are presumed to be incapable of objective judgement simply because they possess prior knowledge and convictions regarding facts under parliamentary investigation, acquired in the course of their previous professional activities. In doing so, they not only improperly equate the members of the Anti-Mafia Commission with judges, despite the fact that the former are entrusted with fact-finding functions serving political purposes rather than the establishment of criminal facts within the context of criminal proceedings. It also leads to this paradox: if expertise on certain subjects were truly an obstacle to objective judgment, then, for the sake of consistency, doctors should be barred from participating in the work of the Health Committee, engineers from that of Public Works, lawyers from that of Justice, and so on.

How can one explain that the Nissena Public Prosecutor’s Office, rather than immediately dismissing the case – in accordance with the Constitutional Court’s guidelines – regarding a hypothetical offence of aiding and abetting that had long since become time-barred, chose instead to investigate it? The justification provided by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, subsequently endorsed by the investigating magistrate who dismissed the case, can be summarised as follows. The bar on investigating during the preliminary investigation stage due to the expiry of the limitation period would be lifted if the investigative activity were found to be instrumental in shedding further light on extremely serious criminal acts not subject to a limitation period, such as mass killings: this is because a strong and widespread ethical and social need for the truth would make a judicial inquiry unavoidable. At first glance, this justification appears unassailable. Indeed, the need to shed light on points that remain obscure and to deepen our understanding of the causes, objectives and perpetrators of Mafia-perpetrated massacres is still very much alive and widely felt. On closer reflection, however, one realises that it is not a given that criminal proceedings are always, and in every case, the appropriate means of guaranteeing the so-called ‘right to the truth’, as interpreted by international courts. Indeed, a well-intentioned invocation of this right is not sufficient to legitimise breaches of domestic procedural law, since no judge is at liberty to determine, as they see fit, in which cases and to what extent the need for truth should take precedence over the protection of other fundamental rights also safeguarded by the legal system. Our legal system does not grant judges unlimited discretionary power. Criminal and procedural law cannot disregard the objective written rules and the binding principles established by the Constitutional Court, in this case in Judgment No. 41 of 2024. In this ruling, the Court not only makes no provision for any exception to the prohibition on conducting preliminary investigations into alleged offences for which the statute of limitations has already expired, but also precludes judges from doing precisely what the magistrates in Nisseni did in their requests and orders to dismiss the case and, as if that were not enough, during the hearing before the Anti-Mafia Commission: namely, to imply judgments of guilt or, in any event, to make disparaging assessments of the persons under investigation. During the preliminary investigation phase, in fact, the law does not allow the person concerned to waive the statute of limitations, nor does it provide them with adequate means of defence to prove their innocence; furthermore, there is a real danger – accentuated in this case by the high profile of the former magistrates involved – that doubts regarding guilt and negative assessments may become public knowledge due to media coverage, causing serious reputational damage. It should also be noted that all the investigations deemed necessary could very well have been carried out in Caltanissetta, without there being any need to keep a separate set of proceedings open for two years concerning an alleged offence for which the statute of limitations had expired.

However, beyond this important legal issue, what is most striking is how difficult it is – particularly for the public – to make sense of this bewildering, if not downright shocking, judicial drama which has, paradoxically, ‘convicted by dismissal’ two valiant and highly regarded former magistrates, whilst discrediting others (who are not under investigation) who are equally well-known for their long-standing and proven commitment to the fight against the Mafia: Unfortunately, one might even get the impression of a sort of ‘palace of poisons’ resurrected on the initiative of Caltanissetta, a posthumous settling of scores by today’s Caltanissetta Public Prosecutor’s Office against the Palermo Public Prosecutor’s Office of many years ago. Whilst trusting that this is not the case, the disconcerting spectacle we have witnessed certainly does nothing to foster confidence in the judicial system.

Equally negative is the image presented by the Anti-Mafia Commission, which operates – rather than as a credible body for political inquiry – as a tool for launching attacks even against internal members perceived as adversaries. This is a degenerative trend, which is also evident today in relation to other parliamentary commissions of inquiry and which has raised the question of whether such commissions still have a valid raison d’être (see the article by F. Bei in La Repubblica on 21 October).

What has transpired as a result of the pathological interaction between the political and judicial spheres gives cause for concern regarding the very real risk of a further loss of trust in public institutions – both political and judicial – stemming not least from the lack of clarity surrounding the findings of the renewed investigations into the Via D’Amelio massacre. It has long been assumed that Borsellino’s intention to delve deeper into the investigations into mafia involvement in public procurement may have been a contributing factor to his assassination, and the claim – or rather the presumption – by the Caltanissetta Public Prosecutor’s Office that it has proven the ‘certainty’ of this contributing factor adds little to this.

It would be desirable for the President of the Republic, in his role as the supreme guardian of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy, to continue to advocate – in the ways and forms most appropriate to him – for the need for not only judicial proceedings, but more generally the activities of other institutional bodies, to be understood by the public.

The Constitutional Court, whilst making no exception to the prohibition on conducting preliminary investigations into alleged offences for which the statute of limitations has already expired, prevents judges from doing precisely what the magistrates in Nissa did – including during hearings before the Anti-Mafia Commission – namely, implying that the persons under investigation are guilty.

What has happened as a result of the unhealthy interaction between the political and judicial spheres gives cause for concern regarding the very real risk of a further loss of trust in public institutions, stemming not least from the lack of clarity surrounding the findings of the renewed investigations into the Via D’Amelio massacre.

Second point. I grew up (professionally) amongst police stations and police headquarters, but that does not mean I believe that the judicial police’s reports always tell the verifiable truth as it stood at that time and in that place. On the contrary, precisely for this reason – because I have come to know it and seen it at work – I am aware that within the mountains of reports reaching the public prosecutors’ offices there are more or less deliberate oversights, prejudices, tears and blood, anger, helplessness, pain, sacrifice, deeply personal convictions, brilliant insights, and sometimes bad faith. Any crime reporter—cynical and a little blasé—who has worn out their shoes, sacrificed sleep, and spent time recounting the horrors of the human soul, thinks the same. 

To recount that eclipse of reason and decline of will which, as Dostoevsky wrote, precedes the crime and instils in the murderer the conviction that he will go unpunished, to the extent that he leaves behind a multitude of traces and clues. Traces and clues that cannot all be contained within the confines of a reassuring but insufficient genetic test.

This is why I have always been convinced of Alberto Stasi’s innocence, even though I was aware of the court rulings but not all the details of the investigation (I have never written about it). The few pieces of evidence found proved to be misleading, and no one has ever explained the motive behind that crime—the origins and circumstances of which were never recounted—an incident that unfolded so rapidly and suddenly that it could only be justified by a sudden fit of madness. For me, rightly or wrongly, it has always been this way, and I would never have given it another thought had that incident – dating back almost twenty years – not become a legal case which, in its technical implications, concerns all Italians and which risks profoundly undermining the extremely delicate relationship between the judicial police, the public prosecutor’s offices, the courts, and even the Court of Cassation. This has a knock-on effect stemming from a loss of trust in those who produced the evidence.q

The judicial police must work to establish the truth; as a public authority, their actions are presumed to be true until proven otherwise, and any errors must (or should) be corrected as the investigation progresses. Should reports of the shocking failings of the RIS in Parma in 2007 – a centre of excellence within the Carabinieri and a benchmark for forensic investigations – be confirmed, the entire structure of criminal investigations would be thrown into disarray. Not just in the Garlasco case. If it were proven that everything known so far about the DNA analyses, the blood tests, the missing alibi, the undetected fingerprints and so on is true, it would be legitimate to wonder how many other times this may have occurred and whether, under the same circumstances and without having done anything wrong, someone might come knocking on our door tonight as well.

The controversial investigations into the murder of Chiara Poggi involved not only specialists from the RIS but also local police units, with the quality of the investigations carried out at the time being extremely poor. From their testimonies, broadcast on talk shows on several occasions, it is clear that they relied on confirmation bias – a ‘tunnel vision’ that effectively ruled out any possible alternative leads to Alberto Stasi. But even in this case: how many other times were searches carried out with negligent delay? How many alibis were not checked? How many wiretaps were transcribed ‘by the book’? How many guilty parties have gone unpunished because they were not within the investigators’ sphere of interest? How many pieces of evidence have been lost? One need only spend time in courtrooms to know that this was the case then and remains so today. But not everyone has the means to defend themselves by paying for high-quality lawyers, experts and consultants. Not every trial has deserved or deserves the attention of the press and television.

As for the talk shows: setting aside the differences of opinion and style amongst the commentators, it must be acknowledged that had they not covered the case (with a sometimes excessive, even unbearable, barrage of coverage, and a pornographic and obsessive focus on every conceivable detail), the path to a retrial for Alberto Stasi would never have opened up, and the truth about Chiara Poggi’s death would have remained the fabricated version presented in the final judgements. Giada Bocellari, one of Stasi’s defence lawyers, was asked why, during the initial investigations and right up until the final conviction, they had not sought greater media attention, and why they had shied away from interviews and public debates. Her answer was both painful and stark: out of principle and out of respect for the judicial system, they had initially opted for a low profile and focused on the defence during the trial; later, they realised that without media attention, the case would have been dismissed as yet another instance of routine injustice. They chose the opposite course of action and were right to do so. Yet, how sad.

First and foremost, a significant point must be noted: the Constitutional Court has clearly stated that the Ministers’ Tribunal has caused “an infringement of the Chamber’s prerogatives” (represented in court by Prof. Vittorio Manes). The Court noted, in fact, that following the investigations carried out by the Court of Ministers into Minister Nordio, the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office had expressly urged the Court to classify Bartolozzi’s conduct as aiding and abetting the offences attributed to Minister Nordio or, alternatively, to charge her with the offence of making false statements during the investigations. “By virtue of the principle of loyal cooperation between the branches of government,” the Court states, “in response to this request, the Court should have explicitly set out the reasons why it did not consider Dr Bartolozzi to be liable for complicity in the offences attributed to the Minister. Had it established such complicity, in fact, the Court of Ministers would have had to seek authorisation from the Chamber to proceed against Dr Bartolozzi herself, as well as against the minister.” The Court of Ministers, however, did none of this in its final report.

Another breach of Parliament’s constitutional prerogatives was committed by the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office, which, on this point, should have communicated the Court’s findings to the Chamber of Deputies, “so as to enable it to bring a conflict of jurisdiction case against the judicial authority, should it have considered that the Court’s decision had infringed its constitutional prerogatives”.

It is against this backdrop that the case concerning the false statements made by Bartolozzi arises. Regarding this allegation, the Constitutional Court ruled that there was no obligation on the judiciary to seek authorisation to proceed. However, all this took place after the violation of Parliament’s prerogatives. The alleged false statements would not have been made by Bartolozzi had she been interviewed from the outset as a person under investigation as an accomplice in the offences then alleged against the Minister of Justice. “In that case, in fact, the Panel would have had to precede the hearing with the warnings due to persons under investigation, and in particular the warning regarding the right to remain silent. In any event, the alleged offence under Article 371-bis of the Criminal Code (false information, ed.) could not, in principle, have been attributed to her, given that a co-defendant in the same offence is incompatible with giving evidence.”

For these reasons, the Court emphasises that “the question of whether the consequences in question actually amount to violations of the Chamber’s constitutional prerogatives remains open. Similarly, it remains open whether they may be assessed as violations of the defendant’s rights of defence, to be invoked as such in any criminal proceedings that may be brought against her”.

In other words, the Court of Ministers ‘had – and still has’ – the responsibility to set out its assessment regarding Bartolozzi’s position and to communicate it, via the public prosecutor’s office, to the Chamber of Deputies. When this happens, the Chamber of Deputies, should it deem the Court’s assessments to be incorrect, may raise a new conflict of jurisdiction before the Constitutional Court. Furthermore, it remains to be seen whether the Constitutional Court’s criticisms regarding violations of the right to a defence will have direct implications for the trial against Bartolozzi (whose husband, the former vice-president of the Sicilian Region, Gaetano Armao, has in the meantime been placed under house arrest on charges of corruption).

The deputy prosecutor at the Bologna Anti-Mafia Directorate (DDA), Morena Plazzi, has ruled out the aggravating circumstance of terrorism in the case of Salim El Koudri, who ploughed his car into a crowd: one person was killed and seven were injured. The act remains a massacre, but the aggravating circumstance of terrorism has been ruled out. This decision is not likely to be lamented, as *Rep.* did over Bondì’s reclassifications; nevertheless, the question of whether the actions of an attacker who, moreover, exits the vehicle armed with a knife can be classified as terrorism remains valid. It is a matter of perspective: a young man firing rubber bullets is far more alarming than a young man charging into a crowd with a knife. Or perhaps than many young people – though these are merely somewhat boisterous – who provoke clashes with the police at demonstrations.

For example, in Turin, during the general strike marches on Friday 30 October, there were scuffles of varying severity, attempts to break through police cordons and more; in the end, officers identified 256 people and charged 12 protesters. However, according to La Stampa, the events of 30 October were described as “the peaceful general strike rally”, as reported yesterday in an article that also commendably gave a voice to two officers who denounced the climate of “dehumanisation” directed at the police, stating that “this makes it easier to target us”. In this instance, however, the individuals involved are young people; the level of civil tolerance must therefore be more understanding and lenient, even when they are young adults.

Among the eighteen sentences sought on appeal a few days ago for the leaders of Askatasuna (relating to violence in Val di Susa and other specific incidents – though the aggravating circumstance of criminal association had already been dropped), the 64-year-old leader Giorgio Rossetto is at the forefront, now eligible for a Fornero pension due to arduous work. With regard to the clashes on 31 January, it has emerged that Massimiliano Monai is also under investigation – better known as ‘the man with the beam’ – who, in 2001 at the G8 summit in Genoa, attempted to break through the Carabinieri’s Defender armoured vehicle, from which Mario Placanica subsequently fired the shot that killed Carlo Loiuliani. The case was time-barred on appeal. The passion, however, remains; he is now 55 years old, yet he is still the same young man who never wanted to hurt anyone. If we were in the mood for controversy, we might say that in this country there continues to be a double standard when it comes to judging political violence – there are always comrades who go too far out of excessive zeal. Instead, we shall simply say that it is merely a matter of perspective.

Alternative routes to constitutional reform are all still very much up in the air. “It will certainly be discussed in the next parliamentary term by now,” warns the criminal lawyer, who is meanwhile preparing a manifesto setting out the ‘fundamental principles of due process’ to be put forward to the parties during the election campaign (“And let’s see who signs it”). One might well ask why these alternatives were not pursued from the outset, without going through a constitutional reform (and a referendum). “Measures of this kind have a structure and weight that cannot be compared to a constitutional reform, which is the main route: enshrining the principle in the Constitution gives it definitive force,” explains Caiazza. According to him, however, it was a part of the very same reform put to the referendum that scuppered the separation of careers at the ballot box: “Including the issue of random selection – that is, the constitutional amendment regarding the election of members of the High Council of the Judiciary – was a fatal mistake. And it has nothing to do with the separation.” The responsibility for this lies with the political sphere. “It was a decision taken by the government, not by the criminal chambers, and it sparked the judiciary’s uncontrollable opposition, allowing the rumour to spread that the Constitution was being ‘attacked’.” What needed to be done, Caiazza adds, "was, if anything, a dual Higher Council. Had there been no pure random selection, the opposition would probably have been less fierce and less contrived, and it has caused difficulties for part of the ‘Yes’ camp". 

With a reform that has been scrapped, and alternative paths yet to be forged, the next CSM could well turn red. At the election of the judicial members in October, the left-wing factions Magistratura Democratica and Area triumphed, securing 11 out of 20 councillors between them. “This victory will certainly influence the choice of the non-judicial vice-president, who is unlikely to represent a majority party,” observes Caiazza. Meanwhile, the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate have been convened for a joint session on Wednesday 11 November to vote on ten members of the CSM. This issue has sparked internal controversy within the majority, with Forza Italia opposing the candidacy of Antonio Di Pietro – a former public prosecutor and symbol of the ‘Mani Pulite’ operation – whilst Justice Minister Carlo Nordio is backing him: “He was a great magistrate, a true public prosecutor, a true investigator, and he fought hard,” said the Justice Minister. "During the referendum campaign, Mr Di Pietro was truly a tenacious fighter, committed to the ‘Yes’ vote with every fibre of his being," commented Caiazza. "I prefer this side of Antonio Di Pietro, and I believe he prefers it too." Would he be a good fit for the CSM? "It could be an interesting twist." 

However, the Justice Minister’s endorsement clashes with the clear opposition expressed by Forza Italia’s government allies. “Had it been a personal matter, I would have kept quiet,” Stefania Craxi, Forza Italia’s Senate group leader, told Il Foglio, explaining her “no” to Di Pietro’s candidacy: “It conflicts with the notion of justice that Silvio Berlusconi held and which this party still upholds. I speak as group leader and in the name of a political culture and a notion of justice rooted in the rule of law, in the concept of a fair trial before an impartial and independent judge, and in the presumption of innocence.” For Craxi, “Di Pietro is the symbol of an era of terror, in which the very idea of an impartial and independent judge was undermined, and he is partly responsible for the descent into the maelstrom of punitive populism. Through his history and actions – she added – he is the symbol of an era in which the balance of powers was shattered and in which justice became so politicised that it determined who should remain in the political arena and who should disappear. An entire ruling class was swept away”. With this wound, the senator said, the country “has not yet fully come to terms with it”, and “being elected as a member of the CSM means taking on a role in which seriousness, selfless action, legal expertise and the ability to represent even those who think differently must prevail”.

A brief recap: the case dates back to January 2025. Almasri was arrested in Turin on 19 January and repatriated to Libya two days later, despite an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for war crimes. A state flight was used to return him to Libya. The Court of Ministers – the body responsible for investigating offences committed by ministers and the Prime Minister in the course of their duties – subsequently requested authorisation to bring proceedings against the Minister of Justice, Carlo Nordio, the Minister of the Interior, Matteo Piantedosi, and the Under-Secretary of State, Alfredo Mantovano. In October 2025, the Chamber of Deputies refused to grant authorisation by a majority of more than 250 votes, and the case was dismissed. The case against Bartolozzi, who was not a member of the government, remained open. The Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office accused her of providing false information to the Court of Ministers, before which she had been heard on 31 March 2025. The majority argued that the offence was linked to those attributed to members of the government, and that a parliamentary vote was therefore also required in her case. In April this year, the Chamber of Deputies approved, by a margin of 47 votes, the referral to the Court, raising a conflict of jurisdiction: the mechanism by which one state body challenges another for having encroached upon or compromised its prerogatives. In July, the trial – the first hearing of which was scheduled for 17 September – was suspended pending the decision.

What the Constitutional Court says

The Court rejected the Chamber’s main argument: the obligation to seek authorisation applies to offences attributed to ministers and does not extend to those committed by other persons merely linked to the former, such as any false statements made to cover up a minister’s liability. As this is a special provision, the judges held that it cannot be interpreted broadly. If the person being questioned needs to protect confidential information, they may invoke state secrecy, provided the conditions are met.

On another point, however, the Chamber was upheld. At the conclusion of the investigations, the Public Prosecutor’s Office had urged the court to consider Bartolozzi as an accomplice in the offences attributed to Nordio or, alternatively, to consider the possibility of false statements. According to the Court, the court should have explained why it had ruled out complicity, which would have made it necessary to seek authorisation for her as well. The Public Prosecutor’s Office should then have communicated that assessment to the Chamber, to enable it to lodge an appeal if necessary.