[ad_1]
Piercamillo davigoA magistrate in service for 42 years, he will retire on October 20, but does not want to leave the Superior Council of the Judiciary. This choice, as reported by the Print, could create various problems. The question that arises is: “Can a magistrate elected to the CSM remain even when he is no longer a magistrate?” However, the answer is far from simple.
Article 104 of Constitutionin fact, it establishes that the CSM is made up of two thirds of judges and one third of professors or lawyers elected by Parliament in joint session. But it does not contemplate the hypothesis of a retired magistrate during the mandate. It’s not even possible to look back, because it has never happened before. Second Democratic judiciary, the left-wing current of the National Association of Magistrates, Davigo’s stay would be “legally untenable and in stark contrast to the law, as well as erroneous and incomprehensible because it would create a third type of member of the CSM, he no longer magistrate“.
Davigo, interviewed by Giovanni floris on May 19 he said: “Article 104 of the Constitution says that members of the CSM remain in office for 4 years. And age has nothing to do with it. In my opinion, they should not leave office.” Thus two factions were created: i pro Davigo, according to which it is mandatory to be a magistrate only at the time of election; he anti Davigo, according to which the member of the CSM must continue to be a magistrate throughout the term to represent their peers.
This situation could have repercussions in the case Palamara, the magistrate and former member of the CSM now accused of corruption. If Davigo finds them guilty, in fact, Palamara and others involved in the investigation could invoke the “Illegitimate constitution of the judge”, source of nullity of the sentence.
[ad_2]
