Judiciary

Court of Auditors: more powers for Rome, fewer regional presidents

The decree implementing the reform has been approved: the Attorney General will assist local prosecutors in cases involving charges exceeding 10 million against local politicians and in new or supra-regional matters

Al traguardo. Il decreto attuativo della riforma della Corte dei conti è stato bollinato

3' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

3' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

The signature of the Attorney General of the Court of Auditors will be required alongside that of the local public prosecutors on summonses and notices to submit a defence alleging financial losses to the public purse of at least 10 million euros against regional presidents, mayors and councillors of regional capitals, as well as those of provincial capitals or metropolitan cities.

The same will apply when ‘new issues’ are under consideration – that is, matters for which there are no precedents in accounting court rulings – and in cases involving ‘liability of a supra-regional nature’. Furthermore, prior to issuing a request for evidence, the Attorney General may take over investigations which, having been identified as ‘priority’ in the annual policy statement, show no concrete signs of progress after 12 months, or where the Public Prosecutor commits a ‘serious breach’ of the law or of the Attorney General’s annual policy statement.

Loading...

The decree implementing the reform of the Court of Auditors, which was examined on 4 August by the last Council of Ministers meeting before the summer recess, has taken on a final form and has been approved by the State General Accounting Office; it is now awaiting scrutiny by the State-Regions Conference and the parliamentary committees.

The review at the State-Regions Conference

The first step is by no means straightforward, because the agreement with local authorities required by the enabling act necessitates unanimity, which is difficult to achieve – particularly from centre-left regions, as is only to be expected; and the text, whilst confirming in its key points the previews published the day before (in *Il Sole 24 Ore* on 31 July), promises to reignite tensions with the opposition and with a large section of the Court itself.

In the offices of the Court of Auditors, the debate is centring mainly on the reorganisation of the regional branches, which will result in the abolition of 25 per cent of the posts of president.

It will be the public prosecutors (and their deputies) in regions with an ordinary statute who will lose their stars, whilst in regions with a special statute the structure will remain as it is today. However, the streamlining of the top-level organisational structure is merely the most obvious consequence of a far-reaching reorganisation, which essentially abolishes the current jurisdictional and supervisory sections, downgrading them to panels within a single regional section.

The reorganisation alters the balance of power between central government and the regions. This is particularly true in the public prosecutor’s offices, where the relationship between politics and the public prosecutor’s office is more sensitive.

The new structure significantly strengthens the powers of the Court’s Attorney General by acting on three fronts.

Three levers

The first is the introduction of joint signatures by the public prosecutor and the regional public prosecutor on court documents, which will be essential when the alleged damages against local politicians amount to at least 10 million euros and when allegations of ‘supra-regional’ liability or ‘new issues’ are at stake.

It is precisely this last parameter – the boundaries of which are not all that clearly defined – that is set to fuel the unrest amongst magistrates, which has accompanied the hierarchical reorganisation of the public prosecutor’s offices ever since the debate on the enabling act (approved in early 2026).

Loading...

The second measure along the same lines involves granting the Prosecutor General the power to take over cases, which may be exercised if proceedings identified as ‘priority’ in the annual policy document are not progressing quickly enough, or in cases of ‘serious breaches’ of the law or of the policy statement itself: which, from being a guidance document – and this is where the third lever comes into play – takes on an almost quasi-legislative character.

The practical implementation of the separation of functions, however, appears to be less drastic than many magistrates had feared.

The barrier is raised for those who wish to step down from the role of public prosecutor to take up the role of judge, and it is temporary because it requires them to spend at least three years in supervisory roles.

According to the text, however, the ban does not apply to journeys in the opposite direction.

Copyright reserved ©
Loading...

Brand connect

Loading...

Newsletter

Notizie e approfondimenti sugli avvenimenti politici, economici e finanziari.

Iscriviti