Court ruling weakens Berlusconi immunity

Prime minister of Italy is fighting tax fraud charges

January 14, 2011|Alessandra Rizzo, Associated Press

ROME — A law shielding Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy from prosecution was weakened by a top court yesterday in a highly awaited and politically charged decision.

The Constitutional Court’s ruling was seen as a compromise between judges who wanted to strike down the law and those who wanted to keep it intact.

Berlusconi is a defendant in two trials in Milan on corruption and tax fraud charges. The trials had been suspended because of the law, which was passed last year by Berlusconi’s conservative supporters in Parliament and immediately drew accusations it was tailor-made for him.

The legislation said trials can be automatically suspended by six months and for up to 18 months if defendants say they have a “legitimate impediment’’ stemming from being prime minister or a member of government.

The Constitutional Court maintains the possibility of seeking a postponement due to “legitimate impediment.’’

But it rejected as unconstitutional the automatic shield from trial provided by the law. The court gave judges trying Berlusconi the power to verify each time the claim to legitimate impediment is made by the defense and decide whether the premier should be exempt from trial.

It was the first time that a law shielding Berlusconi from prosecution has passed the scrutiny of the Constitutional Court, however partially. In 2004 and 2009, broader immunity laws for Berlusconi had been fully rejected by the court, which had cited the principle that all citizens are equal under the law.

Berlusconi’s lawyers, Nicolo Ghedini and Piero Longo, said the general premise of the law had been recognized as “valid and effective, and this is reason for satisfaction.’’

Sandro Bondi, the cultural minister and a close Berlusconi aide, said the ruling subverted democracy by giving the judiciary excessive powers over the executive. But Justice Minister Angelino Alfano said the ruling showed that even courts must take into account the commitments of being prime minister.

Advertisement
Advertisement
|
|
|
|