"The idea of \u200b\u200bsuch objection shall constitute exceptional rules, with the result that cases settled, the formalities and the terms of the same proposition in the nature of obligatory nature, and there can also include other serious reasons of convenience provided for in terms of abstention. "
Not so says the Gazzetta dello Sport, but the Supreme Court (citing a ruling in the case: Supreme Court criminal sect. III, 01 October 2003, n. 42193).
Which, translated from giuridichese, it means that you can not object to a judge why he looks at you wrong, because it has a Neapolitan accent, why not fans of Inter and for no other reason beyond those strictly provided by art. 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reasons
then, less than those for private interests involved and the existence of a family relationship or serious enmity with the parties, are reduced to one. This
: "If in the performance and before sentence is pronounced, he (the judge) has expressed its belief unduly on the facts in its charging."
Now, it is clear to all those who have Following the criminal trial of Naples against the supposed 'moggiana dome', which never Casoria the President has in any way improperly expressed his thoughts on the facts of the case, nor has he ever expressed any belief that somehow he could anticipate the content of the sentence.
is because there are valid reasons for an answer. Yet
PM governing the charge we have already tried a first time, claiming perhaps colorful expressions (such as forgetting the now mythological phrase "accelerated the progress we have more important jobs to do ...") but that in no way related to the subject of the proceedings.
And indeed they did a spectacular hole in the water, because the loro istanza é stata ritenuta, dalla competente settima sezione della Corte di Appello di Napoli, inammissibile in quanto tardiva e comunque infondata nel merito (tiè!).
Adesso, a quanto dicono le fonti bene informate su tutte le mosse della Pubblica Accusa - indovinate di chi stiamo parlando? -, la premiata ditta Narducci & Capuano ci starebbe riprovando ed avrebbe presentato (usiamo il condizionale) una seconda istanza di ricusazione giustificata dal fatto che la Presidente Casoria “Non sarebbe 'serena' in quanto sotto procedimento disciplinare a Roma, davanti al Csm, proprio per Calciopoli.”.
Fuffa, insomma.
Il fatto é che la serenità individuale del Giudice non é indicated in the exhaustive list of causes that justify an application for recusal, and in any case, any disciplinary proceedings in which the magistrate has to do is put in the proceedings on the merits and in the event of objection, such as cabbage ( or badges to certain boards, if you prefer).
The second instance then, pretentious and even fanciful if we give heed to rumors, was about 0% chance of being accepted. I'm ready to eat my hat.
We know that we know the lawyers of the accused, he knows the Board of Judges and they know even the PM.
So why do it, my desperate Narducci?
hypothesis seems to be popular è quella che la Pubblica Accusa, vista la mala parata e la mala figura, voglia solo ritardare il processo per perdere tempo, aspettando forse la prescrizione o forse la fine del mondo (prevista nel 2012).
Ed in effetti è vero che il citato art.37 c.p.p. prevede che “Il giudice ricusato non può pronunciare né concorrere a pronunciare sentenza fino a che non sia intervenuta l'ordinanza che dichiara inammissibile o rigetta la ricusazione” ; il che, applicato al nostro processo, finirebbe per paralizzarlo in quanto la Presidente Casoria, in pendenza di ricusazione, non si potrebbe pronunciare.
E quindi addio alla tanto sperata 'sentenza prima dell'estate'.
Però anche questa ipotesi non quaglia.
Why? Simple: the Constitutional Court (not the Corriere dello Sport, but anyway ...) with no decision. 10 of 1997, declared the constitutional illegitimacy of the previous standard 'in that, if it is again the statement of objection, based on the same grounds, forbids the court to order or contribute to make the award until it has taken the order declaring inadmissible or reject the objection. "
Which, translated from the Italian giuridichese, translates more or less as follows: "Ok, if you make an application for recusal the judge may issue decision until it is decided, but if you do you get 50 rejections all based on the same 'bullshit' (cited above) the judge considers the same and you can attack the tram because the process does not stop. "
So, going to conclude, given that this new instance of objection may be rejected as unfounded (I'll eat my hat), nor have the effect of delaying the process, what is?
Why would the PM decided in the end to attach the same tram in this blessed?
But this is a question that is difficult to answer.
Also because, if we just tried, and the good time that the criminal trial do to us.
(Credits: Giulemanidallajuve.com , Dario Juve 1897-2006)
ca-pub-0267983189367969 
0 comments:
Post a Comment