October 30, 2024
Yet another chapter in an interminable clash between Matteo Salvini and the robes, which began with the Open Arms trial still underway. “Another anti-Italian ruling by a communist judge”, thunders the leader of the League during a video posted on his X profile, regarding the decision of the Court of Bologna to refer the case of a citizen to the European Court of Justice from Bangladesh who had requested international protection. In essence, what the President of the Court Pasquale Riccardo and his colleagues are asking for is to identify which is the prevailing law – community or national – in light of the latest decree on “safe countries” (nicknamed the Albania decree). A decree whose main aim is to make identification centers operational in Albania.
“Everyone can feel free in a democracy to be a communist, but then you can’t be a judge. At night they dismantle the work we do to defend Italian security and borders, saying that no one can be expelled and that there is the risk of fascism and Nazism.” This is the thrust made by Salvini, who then identifies a discontinuity compared to the rest of the European and world countries: “Unlike all the others we must keep illegal immigrants here without expelling them, without detaining them and without sending them to Albania”. He then launches an appeal to the person responsible for the decision to call European justice into question: “Mr judge, if you have the red flag under your robe, take it off and change jobs, rather apply with Rifondazione Comunista. But you cannot fail to apply the laws that the Government and Parliament make to defend the borders. Luckily you are a minority compared to the other 9,000 magistrates, but a minority that harms Italians.”
The judge’s request, also explains the president of the Court of Bologna, has as its primary objective that of understanding whether to comply with European Union law. Secondly, it is also necessary to understand which are the “safe countries” referred to in the decree. Salvini, however, reiterates: “There are now too many sentences that prevent us from doing what the citizens wanted by democratically electing their representatives.” To then return to that proceeding against him which sees him accused of having chosen, as Minister of the Interior during the Conte I government, to block the disembarkation of the Spanish NGO Open Arms which had 147 migrants on board in August 2019 “In 51 days I will know whether I will be guilty or acquitted for having defended the borders: I am increasingly proud of having done so, as a minister and as an Italian who has the security of his country at heart.”
The Bologna court decides not to apply the law and refers the government’s decree on safe countries to the European Court.
Yet another anti-Italian decision.
If some judges – fortunately only a small minority – feel they are communists, they should take off their robes and run for office… pic.twitter.com/fYWB9fKbO9— Matteo Salvini (@matteosalvinimi) October 30, 2024
#Communist #judge #job #candidates #Tempo
**Interview with Legal Analyst Marco Rossi on the Current Salvini vs. Italian Judiciary Debate**
**Editor:** Thank you for joining us today, Marco. The recent comments from Matteo Salvini regarding the Court of Bologna’s referral of a case on international protection to the European Court of Justice have sparked a heated debate. Can you summarize the main points of this issue for our audience?
**Marco Rossi:** Certainly. The core of the article discusses Salvini’s condemnation of the judiciary’s actions, which he labels as “anti-Italian.” The Court of Bologna is assessing whether national or EU law should prevail in the context of a Bangladeshi citizen seeking asylum. This aligns with the ongoing legal challenges presented by the “Albania decree,” aimed at establishing operational identification centers in Albania for migrants.
**Editor:** Salvini has made some strong statements about the judicial system, suggesting a political bias among judges. What are your thoughts on these allegations?
**Marco Rossi:** Salvini’s rhetoric reflects a broader political strategy to align himself with a base that feels frustrated with legal processes that seem to hinder immigration enforcement. His assertion that judges cannot hold leftist political views while serving is quite controversial and raises important questions about judicial independence. It’s essential to distinguish between legitimate legal interpretation and political rhetoric.
**Editor:** You mentioned the Albania decree. How does this fit into the current legal confusion regarding migrant policies in Italy?
**Marco Rossi:** The Albania decree aims to designate Albania as a “safe” country for processing asylum claims. This is significant because it affects how Italy’s obligations under international law will be handled, particularly in light of EU regulations. The judge’s request to clarify the applicable legal framework highlights the tension between national policies and EU obligations—an issue that is at the heart of many of Italy’s current immigration challenges.
**Editor:** What could be the implications of this court ruling if it steers towards clarifying the application of EU law over national law?
**Marco Rossi:** If the European Court of Justice rules in favor of prioritizing EU law, it could reinforce the legal standards for asylum seekers and possibly limit Italy’s ability to enact more stringent national policies. This could lead to both legal and political ramifications, fueling the ongoing debate between government officials like Salvini and the judiciary.
**Editor:** Thank you, Marco, for shedding light on this complex issue. It’s clear that the interaction between politics and law in Italy continues to evolve and remains a focal point of public discourse.
**Marco Rossi:** Thank you for having me! It’s a critical time for Italy as it navigates these legal and political challenges.
