Two underlying problems were identified and discussed during a conversation with Minister of Justice Marta Cartabia: citizens’ limited trust in judges (cited as a “moral issue”), and the excessive length of trials. The latter, especially in the prosecution of tax evasion, has a significant detrimental impact on the economy.
The justice system suffers from a general lack of confidence in all segments of the civil society, and even more so on the part of investors, a situation that has some decidedly negative effects on economic life. For many years now, the general framework has been further complicated, especially with regard to justice reforms, by serious political tensions and contrasting positions.
The Draghi government has presented parliament with a proposal for civil trial reform, which is currently under deliberation; a less politically perilous issue compared with the reform of criminal prosecution, yet an equally urgent one that could have a role in stimulating other sectors.
In any case, the National Recovery Plan (PNRR) requires Italy to intervene in the area of justice (in fiscal and administrative matters as well) in order to access European funds, which is going to take some rapid and courageous decision-making, particularly when it comes to the toughest points. Part of the solution will lie in organizational innovations ranging from an increase in personnel to the reform of civil and penal procedures, but no single intervention will be enough to meet the overall systemic challenge.
A collegial effort will be key: the overhaul of the justice system must not be centered on individual judges; indeed, this is the logic behind what is known as the “trials office”. A mechanism that should be used as extensively as possible, the trials office is capable of increasing the uniformity of rulings, leading to greater impartiality and reliability thanks to the integrated use of existing and newly hired personnel.
Civil litigation procedures need streamlining and rationalization. At the same time, alternative (consensual) dispute resolution instruments should be enhanced – even with tax incentives – in order to limit the recourse to trial, which would help lower costs to society.
The excessive duration of criminal procedures runs the risk of creating the phenomenon known as “justice denied” once the statute of limitations lapses; in any case, excessively lengthy trials impinge on the rights of defendants (a comment very often advanced by the European Court of Justice). To be fair, there should be no political conflict between guaranteeing rights and applying the letter of the law, since that only stands in the way of efficacious solutions. Essentially, neither the failure of the state (when a ruling is not reached) nor advance penalty payments deriving from delays in closing a trial are acceptable.
It would also be useful to distinguish between minor – yet still criminal – offences and much more serious ones such as those attributable to organized crime. It was pointed out that efficiency and fairness are certainly not mutually exclusive but, on the contrary, two facets of the same vision in law. The cultural pact between citizens and institutions needs to be renewed with the better protection of fundamental rights in mind.
On the more specific level of the economy, various forecasts point to a tangible increase in productivity, and even in the size of businesses, with the reduction in timeframes for civil proceedings. Tenders surely take center stage, and foreclosures are a specific aspect that has significance for the banking sector. More generally, the predictability of the workings of justice is a crucial factor in a country’s ability to attract investors.
These problems call for structural innovation – a concept that is part of the PNRR. A delegate law, which has been adopted, is the most appropriate for fully involving the parliament in all phases of the reform.