San Marino. Exception of constitutionality, Livio Bacciocchi: “Irritual attitude that of the Guarantors”
“Exception of constitutionality, irrational attitude of the Guarantors”. Livio Bacciocchi goes back to the question raised which raises the filing of documents if not registered. Deposit the defense briefs. Now the pronunciation is awaited
ANTONIO FABBRI – The briefs by the same have been filed with the Guarantor Board, relating to the objection of constitutionality presented by the lawyer Francesca Maria Bacciocchifather’s lawyer Livio Bacciocchii, in the context of a civil proceeding in dispute with the Banca di San Marino group. The question of constitutionality concerns the possibility of the party to a civil trial to bring evidence, and therefore concerns the right of defense. This is because a singular rule, number 85 of 1981, in article 59 of which it is precisely argued that it is unconstitutional, to file documents that are not registered as a source of evidence, even if these facts unequivocally demonstrate the reality regarding the object of the contend.
The problem is that, especially for deeds related to real estate sales, the registration taxes are very high and exceed one million euros. So it often happens that the deed is drawn up by me, which in any case is official, and then it is registered at a later time only when the known assignment actually ends. The question of constitutionality was declared not manifestly unfounded in the case in question by the civil appeal judge who then sent the documents to the Guarantor Board. On the other hand, the principle upheld concerns all citizens who must prove the truth of the facts in civil court and are prevented from doing so if a decisive act has not been registered. Now, in a note, the direct interested party, Livio Bacciocchi, specifies that “which complex events with the Banca di San Marino group depend almost entirely on the economic incapacity of the undersigned and therefore the impossibility of being able to meet the millionaire costs of registering the framework agreement of 5 April 2011 (stipulated with the framework companies of 5 April 2011 of the BSM group). The aforementioned banking group has obtained all the assets and securities of the undersigned and, despite this, today is trying to support the equity consistency and economic capacity of the undersigned in order to be able to pay the millionaire registration taxes of the aforementioned agreement. The most serious fact is that the Guarantor Board has given importance to this hypothesis which, not only had it already been denied in the main proceedings by my legal anchor with the production of documents and superseded by the declaration of “admissibility, relevance and not manifest groundlessness” of the request by the Most High Judge of Appeal, but it does not even have to do with the assessments regarding the constitutional legitimacy of a provision that the Guarantor Board is required by law to fulfill (art. 16 declaration of rights). What else can we expect from this College? The undersigned kindly emphasizes the question of constitutional legitimacy raised and also the irrational attitude that the Guarantor College has taken, as Supreme Body of guarantee of democratic principles and freedom of the San Marino legal system“.
Basically, in the hearing at the end of June, the Guarantor Board, the president as rapporteur Giuseppe De Vergottini flanked by the judges Kristina Pardalos And Glauco Giostranot only examined the question of constitutionality, but asked the parties on the merits to deposit briefs relating to Bacciocchi’s economic capacity in relation to the registration of the documents.
A circumstance that had aroused perplexity on the part of Livio Bacciocchi who had commented: “Perhaps the law of the strongest, the richest or the most political applies?“
From the defense briefs, which therefore, having regard to the request of the Guarantors, also enters into the merits, it emerges that on the one hand the response that the economic capacity for the registration of the deed, having to pay over 1.5 million registration tax, was not at the time and there is now. Above all, the lawyer insists on the validity of the request for constitutionality which is independent of the specific case and the possibility of proving in court the truth of prudent actions between the parties and which, if he does not consider, would return a procedural truth opposed to the substantive truth or which, in any case , misrepresents it. One wonders if, where it is prevented from demonstrating that they can be right, we can speak of justice.
We will see, however it will be the decision of the Guarantors.
Article taken from the news of San Marino published in full after 11 pm