In the last hearing of the trial, on November 15, the National Association of Magistrates had asked to appear as a civil party
Luca Palamara has asked for the recusal of the judges of the I ^ College of Perugia, before which he must answer for the accusation of corruption for the exercise of his functions. In formulating the request, Palamara’s lawyers point out that “it is solar evidence that the membership” of president Carla Maria Giangamboni and Serena Ciliberto in the ANM “eliminates the requirements of impartiality, independence and impartialitysubstantial as apparent, of the competent College to decide on the admissibility and validity of the compensation claim of the Anm. “In the last hearing of the trial, on November 15, the National Magistrates Association, in fact, had asked for a civil action.
In the request for recusal, “in order to guarantee the principles of due process and the impartiality and impartiality of the judge“, the lawyers of Palamara underline how” they never intended to question the correctness and loyalty of the behavior put in place by the judging panel, whose courage in identifying abstention profiles itself must be emphasized here. ” The lawyers recall, in fact, that, having confirmed the registration of the two judges to the Ann, in the invitation to abstention formulated by the defense of Palamara, “the members of the judging panel, with extreme loyalty and consistency, have themselves formulated a request of abstention to the President of the Court “. Request for abstention that the President of the Court of Perugia rejected. On the request for compensation” also for moral damages, formulated by the Anm “lawyers Buratti and Rampioni highlight how”as well as being an absolute novelty in the judicial landscapefor example, no constitution of a civil party is announced by the ANM itself against Dr. Davigo in the context of the criminal proceedings pending against him in Brescia appears to be based on the same assumptions of criticism of the work of Dr. Palamara in the exercise of his prerogatives as a member of the Anm. “For the defenders of Palamara, moreover, it stands out “the asymmetry of the provision of the President of the Court of Perugia of rejection of the request for abstention with the previous decision on Dr. Narducci “.
In that case “the President of the Court of Perugia“he” recognized the serious reasons of expediency to authorize the abstention of that judge on the basis of the judicial political activity of the latter. Objectively less important circumstance if compared to the present case where the judge is called to rule on the compensation claim of the association to which he belongs in an organic and active way “. The former councilor of the CSM, with Adele Attisani, is accused by the Public Prosecutor of Perugia to have obtained various benefits for himself and for Attisani from the entrepreneur Maurizio Centofanti: “Luca Palamara, first as deputy prosecutor at the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Rome and leading exponent of the National Magistrates Association until 24 September 2014, subsequently as a member of the Superior Council of the Judiciary and out of office magistrate – reads the charge – they received from Fabrizio Centofanti the utilities for the exercise of his functions and powers “. For the prosecution, Attisani would have been the instigator of Palamara’s illicit behavior. Centofanti had negotiated a year and six months in July during the preliminary hearing, acquitted from the accusation of disclosure of official secrecy, the former Attorney General of the Cassation, Riccardo Fuzio.
#Palamara #rejects #judges #Perugia #trial #Anm #judges