Even this proposal was submitted in the Supreme Court on September 4, 2001 Italian Radicals
Proposal: "Civil liability of judges"
REPORT The goal of this draft law of popular initiative is to enable the citizen to obtain from the magistrate's compensation for the harm they have caused through any willful misconduct or gross negligence, or in case of denial of justice.
From this point of view, it should be noted that in 1987 a referendum was held (the so-called "referendum Dove") which aimed to ensure that the judge had done - with malice or gross negligence - damage to the city, was held liable in the civil: it was, in essence, repeal of Articles 55, 56 and 74 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prevented the civil magistrate to answer in his errors, as was the case (and does) for any other official of the State. Over 80% of people voted "yes", indicating a clear intention to call for example, the judges who gave out arrest warrants blatantly wrong because of homonyms are not controlled, or who ordered a pre-trial detention lightly, or that under a vague suspicion, undermining the most basic rights of citizens.
Soon thereafter, however, Parliament (led by the trio DC-PCI-PSI) robbed the result of the referendum voting for the so-called "law Vassalli" that swept the very principle of personal responsibility of the prosecutor, for saying that, opposite of the responsibility of State. The "law Vassalli, in fact, provides that a citizen who has suffered harm as a result of negligent or culpable act by a judge can not make him directly responsible, but should instead sue the state and ask it damages. Then, if the trial will be good for the city, then sarà lo Stato a chiamare a sua volta in giudizio il magistrato, che, a quel punto, potrà rispondere in prima persona, ma solo - si badi - entro il limite di un terzo di annualità di stipendio. La legge Vassalli ha così raggiunto il suo scopo: ridurre al minimo le domande di risarcimento e ristabilire un regime di irresponsabilità per i magistrati.
Attraverso l’approvazione di questo disegno di legge invece, si avrà la possibilità di chiamare in causa direttamente il magistrato che abbia errato dolosamente o per colpa grave.
ARTICOLI
Art. 1 L’art. 2, comma 1, della legge 13 aprile 1988 n. 117 recante "Risarcimento dei danni cagionati nell'esercizio delle funzioni giudiziarie e responsabilità Civil magistrates "as amended, is hereby repealed and replaced by the following: 1
. Who has suffered harm as a result of a behavior, an act or a court order put in place by the magistrate with fraud or gross negligence in ' exercise of his duties or for denial of justice can act against them for compensation for property damage and even those non-property arising from deprivation of liberty.
The civil action for damages are governed by ordinary .
are repealed Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Law No 117 of April 13, 1988.
Article. 9, paragraph 1 of the Act of 13 April 1988 n. 117 è abrogato e sostituito dal seguente: “Il procuratore generale presso la Corte di cassazione per i magistrati ordinari o il titolare dell’azione disciplinare negli altri casi devono esercitare l’azione disciplinare nei confronti del magistrato per i fatti che hanno dato causa all’azione di risarcimento, salvo che non sia stata già proposta, entro due mesi dalla comunicazione che il richiedente il risarcimento deve obbligatoriamente fare, al procuratore generale o al titolare dell’azione disciplinare, contestualmente alla richiesta di risarcimento. Resta ferma la facoltà del Ministro di grazia e giustizia di cui al secondo comma dell’articolo 107 della Costituzione.”
REPORT The goal of this draft law of popular initiative is to enable the citizen to obtain from the magistrate's compensation for the harm they have caused through any willful misconduct or gross negligence, or in case of denial of justice.
From this point of view, it should be noted that in 1987 a referendum was held (the so-called "referendum Dove") which aimed to ensure that the judge had done - with malice or gross negligence - damage to the city, was held liable in the civil: it was, in essence, repeal of Articles 55, 56 and 74 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prevented the civil magistrate to answer in his errors, as was the case (and does) for any other official of the State. Over 80% of people voted "yes", indicating a clear intention to call for example, the judges who gave out arrest warrants blatantly wrong because of homonyms are not controlled, or who ordered a pre-trial detention lightly, or that under a vague suspicion, undermining the most basic rights of citizens.
Soon thereafter, however, Parliament (led by the trio DC-PCI-PSI) robbed the result of the referendum voting for the so-called "law Vassalli" that swept the very principle of personal responsibility of the prosecutor, for saying that, opposite of the responsibility of State. The "law Vassalli, in fact, provides that a citizen who has suffered harm as a result of negligent or culpable act by a judge can not make him directly responsible, but should instead sue the state and ask it damages. Then, if the trial will be good for the city, then sarà lo Stato a chiamare a sua volta in giudizio il magistrato, che, a quel punto, potrà rispondere in prima persona, ma solo - si badi - entro il limite di un terzo di annualità di stipendio. La legge Vassalli ha così raggiunto il suo scopo: ridurre al minimo le domande di risarcimento e ristabilire un regime di irresponsabilità per i magistrati.
Attraverso l’approvazione di questo disegno di legge invece, si avrà la possibilità di chiamare in causa direttamente il magistrato che abbia errato dolosamente o per colpa grave.
ARTICOLI
Art. 1 L’art. 2, comma 1, della legge 13 aprile 1988 n. 117 recante "Risarcimento dei danni cagionati nell'esercizio delle funzioni giudiziarie e responsabilità Civil magistrates "as amended, is hereby repealed and replaced by the following: 1
. Who has suffered harm as a result of a behavior, an act or a court order put in place by the magistrate with fraud or gross negligence in ' exercise of his duties or for denial of justice can act against them for compensation for property damage and even those non-property arising from deprivation of liberty.
The civil action for damages are governed by ordinary .
are repealed Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Law No 117 of April 13, 1988.
Article. 9, paragraph 1 of the Act of 13 April 1988 n. 117 è abrogato e sostituito dal seguente: “Il procuratore generale presso la Corte di cassazione per i magistrati ordinari o il titolare dell’azione disciplinare negli altri casi devono esercitare l’azione disciplinare nei confronti del magistrato per i fatti che hanno dato causa all’azione di risarcimento, salvo che non sia stata già proposta, entro due mesi dalla comunicazione che il richiedente il risarcimento deve obbligatoriamente fare, al procuratore generale o al titolare dell’azione disciplinare, contestualmente alla richiesta di risarcimento. Resta ferma la facoltà del Ministro di grazia e giustizia di cui al secondo comma dell’articolo 107 della Costituzione.”
*********************************
We can discuss it .......... ....
0 comments:
Post a Comment