Referendum on Justice, here are the questions

There are five referendum questions on justice, promoted by the Radicals and the League, which will be voted on Sunday 12 June.

They range from the separation of functions for magistrates to the Severino law, up to the limits of pre-trial detention;

two questions more strictly concern the functioning of the CSM: the rules for candidacies and judges' evaluations.

Here is a summary of what they ask for.

-

: The referendum number 1, marked with the red card, concerns the repeal of the Consolidated Law of the provisions on the subject of non-compliance and the prohibition on holding elected and government offices resulting from definitive sentences for non-culpable crimes.

In essence, he asks the voters if they intend to eliminate the provisions introduced in 2012, with the law promoted by the then Minister of Justice Paola Severino, which provide for the incandiability, ineligibility and automatic forfeiture for those who have been definitively convicted for some types of crime, from the mafia to terrorism to those against the public administration.

These rules apply to electoral competitions of all kinds, from parliament to local administrations.

With yes, the automation is canceled:

it must be up to the judge, from time to time, to decide whether, in the event of a conviction, it is also necessary to inflict the accessory penalty of disqualification from public office.

Those who oppose it believe that a text that represents the largest intervention in the fight against corruption in recent years should not be repealed.

-

: Question number 2 (orange card) intervenes on the limitation of precautionary measures, with the repeal of the last sentence of art.

274, paragraph 1, letter c), code of criminal procedure, in the matter of precautionary measures and precautionary needs, in a criminal trial.

Currently, preventive detention can be ordered in cases where a possible risk of contamination of evidence in an investigation, of escape of those under investigation and the "concrete and current danger" of repetition of the crime is identified.

The referendum question proposed intervenes on the latter aspect, asking to limit the cases in which the precautionary measure can be ordered due to the risk of recurrence.

Those who support the reasons for the 'Yes' intend to repeal the

hypothesis of reiteration for some crimes involving lesser penalties and for the crime of illegal party financing.

Who is for the no stresses that the code already provides for limits, since prison as a precautionary measure is possible for crimes involving imprisonment of not less than five years.

-

: With the yellow card (referendum number 3) the voters are called to express their opinion on the separation of the functions of the magistrates.

The question calls for the repeal of the rules on the judiciary which allow a magistrate to pass from the functions of public prosecutor to those of judge, and vice versa.

    At the moment there are four possible changes of function during the career span.

The reform of the Minister of Justice Marta Cartabia under consideration by Parliament also intervenes on the matter, reducing it to only one, within 10 years from the first assignment.

The referendum aims to make the choice definitive: if the Yes passes, the magistrate will have to choose the judge or prosecutor function at the beginning of his career, and then keep that role for the whole career, with the aim of clearly distinguishing who judges from whom accusation.

A complex issue, which politics has discussed at length.

Who is for the No argues that this would effectively introduce the separation of careers (for which it would take a separate competition for access to the judiciary for judges and prosecutors and a double CSM) without changing the Constitution.

- JUDICIARY EVALUATION

: With the gray card (referendum no. 4) they are called to express their opinion on the judicial evaluation system, a prerogative reserved to the CSM, which also decides on the basis of evaluations expressed by the judicial councils at the territorial level.

The question concerns the "participation of lay members in all resolutions of the Governing Council of the Court of Cassation and of the judicial councils. Abrogation of rules on the composition of the Governing Council of the Court of Cassation and of the judicial councils and of the competences of lay members who they are part of it ".

In essence, the Yes aims to allow the vote of the laity - lawyers and professors - who sit on the judicial councils also on these deliberations, to obtain more objective judgments on the work of the magistrates.

On the contrary, those who are for the No argue that the judgment of the lawyers on who represents their counterpart in the trial is inappropriate.

The Cartabia reform, which is being examined by Parliament, also intervenes on the same matter.

- SIGNATURES FOR THE CSM

: The referendum number 5 (green card) intervenes on the mechanism for selecting the candidate magistrates in the elections of the CSM.

The question concerns the "repeal of rules on the elections of the professional members of the High Council of the Judiciary".

He proposes to cancel the rule which establishes that each candidacy for the election of the professional members of the Superior Council of the Judiciary is supported by a minimum of 25 and a maximum of 50 presenters.

The same mechanism is also provided for by the CSM reform proposed by the Minister of Justice.

The goal of the referendums is to arrive at individual candidacies of the judges, without the preventive support of other colleagues, in an attempt to limit the weight of the currents, after the storm on the appointment to the CSM that was unleashed in the spring of 2019.