Limits and potential of the revision of judicial districts

Italia Oggi dedicates an in-depth study to the reform of the judicial geography, whose first proposal, dating back to the legislative decree of 7 September 2012 (no. 155), responded to the needs imposed by the severe economic crisis of those years. To date, representatives of all political coalitions are calling for a revision of the original plan, which envisaged the abolition of 31 courts, 31 public prosecutors’ offices, and 220 separate court sections, together with the suppression of 667 offices of justices of the peace, with an expected cost saving of around €51 million. However, the initiative resulted in a cost reduction close to zero.

Reorganisation of offices and right of access to justice

After 10 years, it is now acknowledged that the objective of facilitating access to justice has not been achieved. In fact, the reduction of detached sections has not been followed by an adequate reorganization of tasks, which has led to a heavier load for the already overburdened ‘bigger’ courts. There is a clear need to strike a balance between proximity justice and the reduction of public expenditure to achieve efficiency in the justice system. To do so, it is important to remember how the digitalization of processes can compensate for the geographical distance between offices, which would otherwise jeopardize the equal access to proceedings by citizens, imposed by constitutional and European norms, which incentivize proximity justice.

The positive effects of the centralization of offices must also be considered. Between these are the reduction of acquaintanceships between the parties, the possibility of setting up specialized sections of the Courts, which are difficult to reconcile with small locations, and the efficiency and predictability of decisions. However, this does not translate into speedier justice, which is often hampered by excessive bureaucratization, lack of uniformity in operational practices and interpretative guidelines, and numerous unnecessary procedural postponements. The centralization of the roles at the central offices is an important step. Anyway, it must be accompanied by the adoption of instruments to deflate procedural time and the respect of deadlines for the scheduling of proceedings and the issuance of order data by the judge.

Andersen partner Andrea Frangipane, an expert in legal and judicial assistance related to civil proceedings, comments on the importance of a cultural change, which would lead citizens and professionals to prefer all forms of alternative dispute resolution, considering litigation only as a last resort. It would allow quicker and more efficient disputes resolutions, through magistrates careful consideration. “This would also reduce the time of the appeal process, which, in prospect, could be repealed (maintaining, of course, only the legitimacy trial), with a possible return to collegiality and, therefore, a further improvement in the quality of decisions, in the first instance trial,” said the lawyer. “No reform can be fully effective if we do not do our utmost to avoid trials often based on mere questions of principle. A good settlement agreement is not a defeat but a sign of great civilisation.”