Naples – Can a magistrate simultaneously serve as a judge in a trial on the merits and as Deputy Prosecutor General at the Supreme Court? This is the question that is inflaming the Naples court, stirring up a political and judicial controversy surrounding Michele Ciambellini.
The magistrate, currently engaged in the complex process against the alleged clan Moccia, in fact, also holds the position of Attorney General at the Supreme Court. This overlapping role, which the Neapolitan Criminal Chamber has not hesitated to define as yet another "indicator of a systemic pathology."
Criminal lawyers attack: "Incompatible roles"
For Maurizio Capozzo, secretary of the Naples Criminal Chamber, the issue is not the value of the individual professional, but the validity of the accusatorial model. While reiterating his respect for Ciambellini's professionalism, Capozzo emphasizes that such a "mixture" is incompatible with the core principles of the Italian legal system.
According to criminal lawyers, this is a short circuit that fuels the need for structural reforms, also citing the referendum issue on career separation as a possible solution to these procedural ambiguities.
The ANM's defense: "Let's avoid starting from scratch."
Giuseppe Santalucia, former president of the National Association of Magistrates, disagrees, calling the lawyers' reconstruction "misleading." Santalucia clarifies a key technical point: the Attorney General's Office at the Supreme Court of Cassation is not an investigative body that conducts investigations or brings charges like local prosecutors' offices, but rather a body that cooperates with the Court to review the legitimacy of its decisions.
The CSM's choice between efficiency and form
The Superior Council of the Judiciary's decision to retain Ciambellini on the Neapolitan panel through the application procedure appears to have a pragmatic rationale: to save the trial. The Moccia clan trial has dragged on for years; replacing a judge would risk having to start from scratch with a new trial.
"An infinite waste of time and energy," warns Santalucia, defending the wisdom of the CSM's choice against what he calls a "distorted representation of reality" due to a lack of knowledge of judicial functions.
I understand the doubt but we must not forget that the Attorney General's Office does not investigate like the territorial prosecutors' offices. However, the confusion generates perplexity and perhaps a clarification or a gradual reform would be useful to avoid disputes and waste of time.
The question seems complex, I understand both positions. However, perhaps overlapping roles should be avoided to avoid creating doubts about impartiality, and the CSM is trying to save the process, but this could give rise to suspicions and the rules need to be rethought.