“First of all it will be necessary to see the final text. In summary I can say that it is, like the precedents of this government, the minimum wage to give a signal of good will. It is not much, but it goes in the right direction”. Thus the former deputy prosecutor of Venice, Carlo Nordio, comments on the reform of the CSM and the judiciary at the AdnKronos. “Pros and cons are complementary – he observes -, in the sense that the advantages of the novelties are reduced by the modesty of the same. The separation of functions, the limitation of revolving doors, the ‘magistrates’ report cards’ are well. electoral for the election of the CSM, which will keep intact the weight of the currents “.
“The point – underlines Nordio – is that with this Parliament we could not do more. And I add: with this Constitution. True draw, separation of careers, redefinition of the prosecutor’s powers can only be done by changing the Constitution. Cartabia knows this, and even if he wanted to proceed in this direction he would have his hands tied “. Dwelling more specifically on the evaluation of magistrates, Nordio adds: “In part it already exists. But it is right to evaluate the prosecutors above all on the basis of the investigations they start and the results they obtain. ‘criminal action, they set up long, costly and painful investigations, which lead to nothing. And it is good that they are aware of this, as in any other profession “.
As for the protests of the magistrates regarding the hypothesis that it is a “filing”, Nordio underlines to the Adnkronos: “Fifteen years ago with the reform Castelli screamed in the same way, evoking favors for the mafia and pedophiles, and envisaging a regime authoritarian that gagged the judiciary. Go and reread those delusional proclamations, they are instructive. Then in reality, as we knew, nothing has changed, also because that reform was even milder than this one. do not lose power “. Finally, on the possible strike of robes, Nordio comments: “I hope they do not do it because it would be illegitimate and inappropriate, it would make the judiciary lose even more credibility, credibility already precipitated after the Palamara scandal. And the majority of magistrates do not deserve this epilogue. sad”.