A fresh salvo from Repubblica Futura on the case of magistrate Massimiliano Simoncini. The party has returned to the matter following the recent decision by the Judicial Council (Consiglio Giudiziario), pointing the finger at the approach taken by the government and the leadership of the judicial sector, and tying the affair to the ruling handed down by the European Court of Human Rights.
The tone of the statement is unmistakable from the very title: “To err is human. To persist is diabolical.” According to Repubblica Futura, “the Judicial Council’s very recent decision confirms the line taken by the government and the leadership of the judicial sector on the case of magistrate Massimiliano Simoncini.” From there comes the jab: “Allow us to recall that to err is human, but to persist is diabolical.”
In reconstructing the affair, RF goes back to the 2020 justice reform, enacted when Massimo Andrea Ugolini held the relevant Secretariat of State, and to the subsequent appointment of Giovanni Canzio to head the Court.
“The reform pushed through by then-Secretary of Justice Massimo Andrea Ugolini in 2020 placed Dr. Giovanni Canzio at the top of our Court, who was later reconfirmed through an ‘ad personam’ law that the current government had approved by its majority at the start of this legislature, in order to get around the term limit set out in the previous constitutional law,” Repubblica Futura states in its release.
The party then links that season of reforms to the Simoncini affair and the subsequent ruling from the Strasbourg court. “It is obvious that accepting and fully implementing the key ruling by the European Court of Human Rights concerning magistrate Simoncini would have discredited the political cornerstone underpinning the pacts on justice,” the statement reads.
RF also notes that Simoncini is a Sammarinese professional who pursued a career in the judiciary, and argues that he was demoted as a result of the reform. “In this instance we are talking about a Sammarinese professional who legitimately chose to pursue a career in the judiciary and who was demoted under a reform that, once touted by the majority of the time and in subsequent years as the cure for all ills, has now been harshly and unequivocally condemned by the ECHR,” the party states.
The Judicial Council’s decision itself comes under fire, with Repubblica Futura offering a sharply critical assessment. “The Judicial Council reached its decision through a committee chaired by the Head of the Court and appears to have blithely disregarded the ECHR’s findings, with the likely consequence of exposing the Republic of San Marino to further reputational damage on the international stage,” RF states.
According to the party, the matter could now spill over into the political arena and into relations with Strasbourg: “Once again it will be the political authorities who pay the price, since it will fall to the Government of the Republic to tell Strasbourg that it does not intend to fully carry out the ruling with regard to reinstating magistrate Massimiliano Simoncini to the role of Commissario della Legge.”
Repubblica Futura also stresses the costs borne by the State over the affair. “It should also not be overlooked that a huge amount of public money — money taken from the pockets of Sammarinese citizens — has already been spent, both on compensation owed to magistrate Simoncini for the harm he suffered and on legal fees. To begin with, the Government will have to pay magistrate Simoncini alone 170,000 euros in back pay,” the statement continues.
This is followed by a series of questions directed straight at the executive, also in light of the country’s path toward closer ties with Europe. “Repubblica Futura asks the government whether it believes this is the calling card it wants to present for the justice sector, on the eve of the signing of the agreement that will bring San Marino into association with the European Union,” the statement reads.
The party also raises the issue of who sits on the bodies tasked with ruling on the magistrate’s professional future: “Repubblica Futura also asks whether it is ethically legitimate for the professional fate of a Sammarinese magistrate to be decided by individuals directly involved in the affair, who contributed to the censure handed down by the European Court of Human Rights, and who are closely tied to the Ugolini justice reform so resoundingly rejected by the ECHR.”
The final question concerns directly the relationship between San Marino and the European Court of Human Rights. RF asks the government “whether San Marino intends to fully comply with the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, as it has always done until now, or whether it is on the verge of stepping outside the ranks of countries that respect the rules laid down by the European Convention on Human Rights.”
The statement closes with one final political jab: “The ‘land of chickpeas’ continues to produce its poisonous and disastrous effects.”
