The issue of the reform of the judiciary should not be a divisive issue. To be able to allow a peaceful debate aimed at admitting the best possible law, which reconciles the responses of multilateral organizations with our state reality. Repubblica Futura immediately gave ample willingness to compare. One of our delegations met the competent Secretariat of State twice, illustrating all the changes we believe necessary to make the text presented at first reading acceptable. In fact, we believe the adoption of the text as presented would be even worse than the current situation. While the time has now come to imagine a self-governing body of the judiciary in which no longer sit politicians in office, and in the same way to provide for intermediate sanctions for the judges (between nothing and the union), from other, many aspects present in the law cannot be shared. Meanwhile, the exorbitant role of the Managing Magistrate, designed as a real dominus of the Court, even becoming an “organ” of the judiciary, thus going beyond the current setting that calls him to much more limited and circumscribed tasks. Furthermore, the difference between Serie A and Serie B magistrates, with different rights, active and passive voting, in the preparatory decisions for the formation of the Plenary Judicial Council. Again, the elimination of the Ordinary Judicial Council, a body made up today only of magistrates which, in our opinion, must remain the institutional seat in which the magistrates – all – can discuss freely. The subjection of the Tax Prosecutor to the Executive of the Court (an intolerable principle, given the tasks of both), together with his total lack of authority from the choices of judicial policy. The role of the Commission for Justice Affairs, which essentially becomes a pleonastic tinsel devoid of any use; not to mention that of the Secretary of State for Justice who, if the reform as written, enters into force, could lapse and no longer be appointed, given the total irrelevance of his powers. Furthermore, the composition of the new Plenary Judicial Council, which, with the method of majority designations, will only spasmodically increase the current logic, inducing the Court of the Republic to the mechanisms of neighboring Italy, which seem to have demonstrated all their danger. The hypertrophic role given to the Law Commissioners, a chapter of all the other Magistrates. Ultimately a reform that, if maintained in its structure, would not contribute to strengthening the independence of the judiciary, but its self-referentiality, creating a power without counterweights and without balances, risking, moreover, a food struggle between factions. From the only confrontation with the majority in which our political force participated (the second which was held, unfortunately, was set at a date on which already communicated well in advance of not being able to be present, due to binding commitments) it seemed to us to grasp a willingness to confront. Also some ideas and principles proposed by various majority Councilors (for example to provide that the magistrates in the Plenary Justicial Council are not magistrates serving at the Court, but their delegates; as well as a qualified quorum necessary for the election of these delegates , like those of the political side …) We are therefore convinced that a truly ameliorative reform can be born from a serious and constructive confrontation, capable of accepting the recommendations of multilateral bodies – not just GRECO – and combining them with social needs , cultural, historical of our Republic. We do not know which that the majority of the law. for approval We are waiting to see the revision proposals, which the competent Secretariat of State has undertaken to submit to us, trusting that from this first comparison some of the ideas have been taken into consideration. We are well aware of the urgency required by the next revision of the Greek (March-April), so don’t ask to waste time. We are also convinced, however, that a reform as conceived would not improve at all, on the contrary. For this reason, we hope that all the political forces continue the discussion, sharing as of now the deadline for the approval of the discussion of the law in second reading, in the January-February session (if the comparison is completed sooner, so much the better!). Repubblica Futura from this availability in a convinced and responsible way, if it is accepted it will be an opportunity for everyone and particularly for the country, if instead once again it is the wishes of a prevalent few we will have lost a new opportunity and all San Marino citizens will pay the price. .

Future Republic