“I think that there is no conflict between politics and the judiciary,” but “that does not mean not pointing out that there are problems in every area, and the problem in a small part of the judiciary is to believe that the “Actions by some governments that are not in line with a particular worldview must be combated, as was the case with immigration,” Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni told journalists on the sidelines of COP28 in Dubai.
“I honestly found it disproportionate to say that the constitutional reform had an anti-democratic tendency. To me these seem to be statements that are good for politics,” he added, “that should not be overlooked.” But it doesn’t mean opening a conflict between one world and another world, it means pointing it out , where there are things that are objectively a little out of line. Since the beginning of the government, we have worked to strengthen the role of the judiciary to achieve the common goal of fighting crime, not our opponents, but crime. I’ve always been on the same page about this.
“I don’t think we can’t criticize the constitutional reform, I think it’s completely legitimate. The problem is when the National Association of Magistrates makes an attack as a public statement.”
Democratic Justice: “An unjustified aggression by the government. We reject the accusation of pursuing conspiratorial intentions.”
“The democratic judiciary has been the subject of serious attacks from leading government and media representatives in recent days. She was accused of having ‘conspiratorial intentions’ and of wanting to play a role of ‘judicial opposition.'” Md firmly rejects these allegations.” This is what the National Council of Democratic Judiciary said in a statement. “The political-media aggression that has hit us therefore has no justification, but seeks to force us to account for the freedom provided for in the Constitution, the freedom of association and assembly.”we read in the note.
“We are an association of judges, with no allegiance to a party and no ambition to influence in any way the free discussion of political representatives,” the statement continued. “The object of our considerations,” says the judges’ association, “is the protection of the fundamental rights of the person; Rights whose ‘masters’ are people as such and not the eventual political majorities. In relation to them, the authority of the law also has its limits, since these are rights recognized by the Constitution, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and other EU sources, as well as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights as fundamental and inviolable be acknowledged.
The association “commits itself in the field of legal reflection and legal associationism to achieve a single result: to ensure that the fundamental rights affirmed in the Constitution and by supranational sources are not theoretical and illusory rights, but concrete and effective rights. With this spirit, we work towards these goals in the judicial offices and keep our association alive. We do this publicly and completely transparently, according to the methods set out in the Statutes, which are freely accessible on our website, as well as the results and, in many cases, the records of our meetings, including the most recent Congress held from 10 to 12. November 2023 took place in Naples.”
“The publicity of our actions,” emphasizes MD, “is the best refutation of the conspiracy allegations.” We have no intention of responding to this provocation. We claim our independence from political powerour freedom of thought and our legal obligation, not only as a right but above all as a constitutional obligation: the interpretation of the exercise of jurisdiction, subject only to the law and having the obligation to respect the hierarchy between supranational sources and national sources, increasingly in the Meaning of a real and better implementation of the human rights and universal rights of every person.”