The supreme court has ruled that a judge’s appearance in court is not “judicial activism” under Article 15 of the constitution.
Article 15, which defines the role of the supreme court, says that the judges’ appearance “shall be public, transparent and in the public interest” and that “the court shall be a forum for the exercise of the judicial power.”
In a landmark ruling, the supreme courts of the two western states of Verona and Castiglione, on Friday, ruled that the judge’s “public appearance” is not an act of judicial activism and that the supreme tribunal is not a “court of justice” as the law defines it.
The judges did not mention that their court has a reputation for its judicial activism.
Instead, the court’s chief justice, Silvio Berlusconi, described the judges as “good” judges who are “not acting in a political manner”.
“The court is an institution that upholds the law, it is not partisan, it does not seek to impose its own views on society,” Berluscians chief of staff, Marco Zagaris, said in a televised address.
The decision is likely to further strengthen the judiciary’s reputation and the judiciary has always been seen as a force for democracy.
The case for judges to be seen as judges The ruling was hailed by the country’s most prominent opposition leader, Silvan Shalom, who called the ruling a “victory for the rule of law” and for justice.
“Today we see the end of the first judicial activism, and the end for judicial activism,” Shalom told Italian TV channel RAI.
“Judges have become more and more independent, independent from political influences, and they have no influence over the law.
The judicial role is no longer political, but is independent and fair,” he said.
“The new judicial power is a result of this fact.
The judiciary is the one place in Italy where it is no more politically biased, and it is the only one where judges are able to show themselves as judges, not as political activists.”
Berluscans chief lawyer, Giancarlo Zampini, called the decision “a great step forward for the court”.
The decision “shows the supremely important role of judges in the Italian justice system”, Zampinis said.
In his remarks, Zampinos chief lawyer said the court “has a responsibility to protect the independence of the judiciary” and said the judges “should not be forced to act as political actors.”
The court “should take into account the public, as well as the public interests of the country”.
The court’s ruling could be seen in a light light of the new administration’s decision to allow for more public hearings and an overhaul of the law on the use of judges to investigate and enforce criminal laws, which are seen as the foundation of Italy’s democracy.
A previous case The first trial of a judge in Italy was brought against a judge by the political party Fosun in 2016, but the case was dismissed by the supreme judicial tribunal, which is not bound by the decisions of the court.
Berlusca and Berlusco’s party was then in power, and in 2017, they re-introduced the court as a judicial authority, but with the same rules as in previous trials.
The supreme tribunal ruled in favour of the government and dismissed the case.
Berliscians court of appeal overturned the ruling, and a new trial of the judge is scheduled to be held in December.
The Supreme Court’s decision was hailed as a “milestone” in Italy’s judiciary, the BBC’s James Reynolds in Rome says.
The ruling means that in a number of cases, judges have had to stand trial again and the country has now returned to a system of trial by jury, according to Reuters news agency.
“In the first trial in Italy, the Italian court of appeals found that a magistrate had violated the law when he had refused to hand over a person accused of a crime to a judge,” Reuters reported.
“It said the magistrate had been exercising his judicial powers by refusing to hand the person over to the court without the judge having been present.”
Berlisconi is a strong supporter of the judges and is often pictured wearing a judicial robe at public events.