Life annuity to the corrupt Formigoni, for the commission of the Senate is like whoever takes the citizen’s income. And to give them back the money they (also) appeal to a law from the 1960s
The rich annuity from which former parliamentarians benefit should be compared to the small sum that comes every month to those who benefit from Basic income. The members of the commission support this Litigation of Senate. To restore the check received by the corrupt Roberto Formigoni, in fact, the internal court a Madama Palace appeals to the law that introduced the Basic income. And in the reasons, published by the agency Adnkronos, also cites a sentence of the Consultation 1966. In short: to define the decision of the body chaired by Berlusconi as questionable Giacomo Caliendo it’s a euphemism. And not only because in the case of Formigoni the senators have decided to follow ordinary laws, instead of appealing – as they do in most cases – to the so-called self-declaration, that is, the faculty of self-government enjoyed by the Chambers. It is precisely the regulatory references cited to motivate the decision that arouse some perplexity. But let’s go in order.
Considering the appeal of the former president of the Lombardy, the Litigation Commission (which in addition to Berlusconi’s Caliendo is made up of Northern League senators Alessandra Riccardi e Simone Pillon, by the lawyer Alessandro Mattoni and the former magistrate Cesare Martellino) has practically canceled the so-called resolves Grasso. In 2015, as there were not the necessary votes in the classroom to approve an ordinary law, the then President of the Senate (together with Laura Boldrini, who presided over the Chamber) issued a resolution that took away the annuities for former parliamentarians sentenced to prison terms of more than two years. This is also the case of Formigoni who on 21 February 2019 was definitively sentenced to five years and ten months per corruption. For this reason “Il Celeste” – as they called it in the Roaring Years of the Pirellone – had seen the rich check canceled. He then appealed and two days ago he regained the privilege. A decision that sparked heated controversy, also because it can represent a precedent for all the various former senators sentenced.
“The annuity as the citizenship income”
But why did the litigation cancel the Grasso resolution, which had a very clear content? Simply according to the commission, that provision of 2015, designed and written for convicted parliamentarians, is superseded by the law introducing the Basic income approved in 2019. Possible? What do prejudiced former senators have to do with the unemployed? “It is necessary to recall the current validity of article 18-bis, of the decree-law of January 28, 2019, n. 4, converted into law with amendments by law no. 26 (relating to the so-called Citizenship Income), which provided for the suspension of social security treatments only and solely for the individuals sentenced to imprisonment with final judgment for the serious crimes referred to in article 2, paragraph 58, of law no. 92. This provision refers to the crimes referred to in articles 270-bis, 280, 289-bis, 416-bis, 416-ter and 422 of the criminal code, as well as to crimes committed making use of the conditions of article 416-bis, or in order to facilitate the activities of the associations envisaged by the same article “, reads the motivations of the organ of Palazzo Madama.
“It is a question – the reasons continue – as everyone can see, of very serious crimes such as terrorism, mafia-like association and the like;, completely anodyne with regard to the affair that deals with it. In addition, the 2019 legislation also provides for the suspension of social security treatments to subjects definitively sentenced a prison sentence for any other crime for which a sentence of not less than two years of imprisonment has been definitively paid, but only in the event that they have voluntarily avoided the execution of the sentence. In the present case, however, the the applicant’s situation it is in no way subsumable to the circumstances envisaged by the aforementioned law “. Translated: the law on income and citizenship pension suspends the check only to those who have been convicted of crimes of mafia type or for terrorism. The stop is also provided for those who have convictions related to other crimes, even if they are longer than two years in prison, but only if they are fugitives. Formigoni, as is well known, was convicted of corruption and is serving his sentence in house arrest. Therefore, it is the reasoning of the Senate commission, his case is not included among those cited by the law on citizenship income. It remains to be seen how the case of the allowance received by a former parliamentarian can be compared with that of someone who has a subsidy provided for the less well-off. And here the commission brings out the “nature” of the annuity: for the organ of Palazzo Madama, in fact, the post-mandate treatment of parliamentarians “has social security nature“, All the more so after the introduction of the“ fully contributory calculation ”of the contribution. Madama Palace remember the members “made its system of fully contributory calculation, thereby accentuating the social security nature of post-parliamentary mandate treatments “. According to the internal court of the Senate, among other things, it has already been in other locations “Affirmed the social security nature the life allowance of former parliamentarians “. Which other locations? The commission mentions itself, explaining that what “already highlighted by this Board in decision no. 660 of 2020, essentially the United Sections of the Cassation recognized the legal nature of a certain social security measure, indeed specified in a way, to the life allowance not unlike retirement“. The reference is for another decision of the Litigation commission of the Senate: the one he has canceled the annuity cut for former senators.
Therefore, after having ascertained that from their point of view the annuities are to be considered a pension, the members of the body headed by Caliendo explain that they must consider Grasso’s resolution unconstitutional. “Until the nature of the annuity check had been entirely uncertain, also as a consequence of the not entirely legal contents of the decision of the Constitutional Court n. 289 of 1994, any forewarned vices of constitutionality relating to the Presidency Council resolution no. 57 of 2015 could don’t be totally exempt from doubts about their safety validity“, Reads the reasons for the decision on Formigoni. The equation between annuity and pension is a step that the commission also plays for another reason. Article 28 of Penal Code discipline that the interdiction from public office deprives the condemned “of the salaries, pensions and allowances that are paid by the State or another public body “. This rule does not also apply to Formigoni, that is forbidden in perpetuity? For the Senate commission, of course not. “Once the juridical nature of the parliamentarians’ pension has thus been definitively clarified, it follows – for the purpose of evaluating the concrete case of wed – the necessary consideration of constitutional jurisprudence, which he felt the loss of salaries is not in accordance with the Constitution, pensions and other types of allowances, paid by the State or other public body, as a result of a criminal conviction involving disqualification from public office. First of all, sentence no. 3 of 1966 referring to article 28, second paragraph, n. 5, of the penal code. But it can also be considered sentence no. 78 of 1967 with similar content “.
The reference is to a decision of the ’66 Council that he had declared partially illegitimate article 28 of Penal Code in the part in which it cancels the “rights” that “they derive title from an employment relationship“: If you take the pension it is because you have paid contributions while working, even if you have been convicted you cannot lose it. Since an annuity is a pension, therefore, the die is cast. For this reason the commission has an easy game in the reminder as “following the first ruling, it approved the law of 8 June 1966, n. 424, repealing precisely the rules that provided for the loss, reduction or suspension of pensions to be paid by the State or other public body, as a result of criminal conviction or disciplinary measure “. In summary, therefore, the reasoning of the commission is as follows: that of the former senator Formigoni is one pension and not an annuity. Being a pension it should be compared – it is not clear why – to Basic income, which is suspended only for those convicted of mafia, terrorism or escaped persons: and Formigoni is sentenced “only” for corruption. Of course it is banned from public office in perpetuity and as required by the penal code it should be deprived of “salaries, pensions and checks paid by the State “. The Consulta, however, said that the rights that “derive title from an employment relationship” should be excluded from that list. He decided it 55 years ago: Formigoni was just of age. But he was cleansed.