COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Italy Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2020 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Italy, administrative transparency, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.9.2020  SWD(2020) 311 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report  Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Italy Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  2020 Rule of Law Report       The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2020) 580 final} - {SWD(2020) 300 final} - {SWD(2020) 301 final} - {SWD(2020) 302 final} - {SWD(2020) 303 final} - {SWD(2020) 304 final} - {SWD(2020) 305 final} - {SWD(2020) 306 final} - {SWD(2020) 307 final} - {SWD(2020) 308 final} - {SWD(2020) 309 final} - {SWD(2020) 310 final} - {SWD(2020) 312 final} - {SWD(2020) 313 final} - {SWD(2020) 314 final} - {SWD(2020) 315 final} - {SWD(2020) 316 final} - {SWD(2020) 317 final} - {SWD(2020) 318 final} - {SWD(2020) 319 final} - {SWD(2020) 320 final} - {SWD(2020) 321 final} - {SWD(2020) 322 final} - {SWD(2020) 323 final} - {SWD(2020) 324 final} - {SWD(2020) 325 final} - {SWD(2020) 326 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The  Italian  justice  system  has  a  solid  legislative  framework  to  safeguard  judicial 
independence, including prosecutors’ independence. In August 2020, a reform regarding the 
High Council for the Judiciary and other aspects of the justice system has been proposed by 
the  Government.  It  is  important  that  such  reform  guarantee  judicial  independence,  while 
strengthening transparency and integrity. As regards efficiency, the justice system continues 
to  face  important  challenges.  New  reforms  aiming  at  streamlining  civil  and  criminal 
procedures  are  being  discussed  in  Parliament.  These  reforms,  coupled  with  an  increase  in 
human resources and further digitalisation, aim at addressing backlogs. 

In  2019  Italy  continued  strengthening  its  institutional  and  legislative  anti-corruption 
framework. Following previous efforts, the anti-corruption law adopted in January 2019 has 
further tightened sanctioning for corruption crimes and suspended limitation periods after the 
first instance judgment. In addition, investigative tools for the fight against organised crime 
have  been  extended  to  corruption  offences.  The  National  Anti-corruption  Authority  has 
reinforced  its  role  in  fostering  a  corruption  prevention  culture,  while  continuing  its 
supervising and regulatory role for public contracts. A framework to protect whistleblowers 
has been adopted. Italy has not yet adopted a comprehensive law regulating lobbying and the 
conflict  of  interest  regime  is  fragmented.  The  capacity  to  detect,  investigate  and  prosecute 
corruption is very effective and benefits from the expertise of the law enforcement authorities 
in  the  fight  against  organised  crime.  However,  the  effectiveness  of  repressive  measures  is 
hampered  by  the  excessive  length  of  criminal  proceedings.  A  comprehensive  reform  to 
streamline criminal procedure is being discussed in Parliament. 

The  Italian  Constitution  enshrines  freedom  of  expression  and  information  as  well  as  the 
principle of transparency of media ownership. The Italian regulatory authority for audiovisual 
media  is  deemed  to  be  independent  and  effective.  The  political  independence  of  the  Italian 
media  remains  an  issue  due  to  the  lack  of  effective  provisions  on  preventing  conflicts  of 
interest in particular in the audio-visual media sector. Italy has established a Centre aiming at 
monitoring threats to reporters and developing the necessary protection measures to respond 
to  concerns  with  regard  to  the  safety  of  journalists.  Prison  sentences  for  defamation  have 
been challenged in courts, drawing on the Constitution and the jurisprudence of the European 
Court of Human Rights on freedom of expression. The matter is currently pending before the 
Parliament. 
As regards checks and balances, the Constitutional Court continues to have an important role, 
and has recently encouraged an increased participation of civil society and the general public 
to  its  proceedings.  Regulatory  impact  assessments  and  stakeholders’  consultations  have 
improved,  but  can  be  further  developed.  Reforms  aiming  at  establishing  a  national  human 
rights  institution, which is  still missing, are being debated in  Parliament.  There is  a vibrant 
civil  society,  although  some  NGOs,  particularly  on  certain  issues  such  as  migration,  are 
subject to smear campaigns. 

1 

 
 
 
I.  JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The  justice  system  is  set  out  in  the  Constitution1,  which  enshrines  its  independence  and 
autonomy.2 Ordinary courts have jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters and are organised 
in a system structured in three levels of instances. The first instance is composed of justices 
of  the  peace,  ordinary  courts  and  juvenile  courts.  The  Courts  of  appeal  are  the  second 
instance, and the High Court of Cassation is the highest instance. The administrative justice is 
organised  in  first-instance  courts  (Tribunali  Amministrativi  Regionali)  and  second-instance 
courts (Consiglio di Stato and Consiglio di giustizia amministrativa per la Regione Sicilia). 
Jurisdiction  in  accounting  matters  is  exercised  by  the  Court  of  Auditors  (Corte  dei  Conti, 
Regional and Central  Chambers). Regarding fiscal  matters, the responsible courts are fiscal 
courts  at  first  and  second  instance  (Commissioni  Tributarie  Provinciali  and  Regionali)  and 
the  High  Court  of  Cassation  at  the  highest  level.  The  structure  of  the  prosecution  service 
mirrors  that  of  the  courts.  With  respect  to  organised  crime  and  other  serious  criminal 
offences3,  prosecutorial  functions  are  carried  out  by  District  Anti-Mafia  Directorates.4 
According to  the principle of unity of the judiciary, ordinary judges and  public prosecutors 
are all magistrates, have a common career structure, and are governed by the High Council 
for the Judiciary (Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura).5 Administrative, accounting and 
fiscal  magistrates  have  their  own  self-government  bodies  (respectively,  Consiglio  di 
Presidenza della giustizia amministrativa, Consiglio di Presidenza della Corte dei Conti and 
Consiglio  di  Presidenza  della  giustizia  tributaria).  The  National  Bar  Council  is  an 
independent and self-governing body established by law.6 

Independence 

A  solid  legislative  framework  is  in  place  to  safeguard  judicial  independence  for  both 
judges and prosecutors.7 The judiciary is fully separated from other constitutional powers.8 
The  High  Council  for  the  Judiciary9  is  tasked  with  guaranteeing  the  independence  of  the 
judiciary.  Any  decision  regarding  recruitments, 
transfers,  promotions,  professional 
assessments and disciplinary measures is subject to judicial review. Prosecutors, as members 
of  the  judiciary,  are  independent  and  enjoy  the  same  guarantees  as  judges10.  This  is  in  line 
with a widespread tendency in Europe to allow for a more independent prosecutor’s office, as 

1   Art. 101 - 113, Title IV of the Constitution. 
2   Art. 104 of the Constitution. 
3   Art. 51 (3-bis) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (e.g. mafia type organised crime; organised crime aiming 
at  trafficking  in  slavery  and  illegal  immigration;  drugs  trafficking;  kidnapping  for  extortion  purposes; 
political mafia electoral exchange and other serious crimes). 

4   Under the coordination and supervision of the National Anti-mafia and Counterterrorism Prosecutor at the 
National  Anti-mafia  Directorate,  in  turn  anchored  at  the  General  Prosecutor’s  Office  at  the  Court  of 
Cassation. 

5   Art. 104 of the Constitution.  
6   Current governing legislation: Law n. 247/2012. 
7   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round, Italy, Evaluation Report, para. 6: “The judiciary is governed by a very 

solid legislative framework enshrining its independence, both for judges and prosecutors”. 

8   Art. 104 of the Constitution. The Constitution provides for rules as regards recruitment (Art. 106), security 

of tenure (Art. 107) and disciplinary regime (Art. 105). 

9   Art.  105  of  the  Constitution:  the  Council  for  the  Judiciary  is  responsible  for  recruitments,  transfers, 

promotions, professional assessments and disciplinary measures. 

10   Art.  104  and  107  of  the  Constitution.  See  also  Resolution  of  the  High  Council  for  the  Judiciary  on  the 
organisation  of  the  Prosecutor’s  Office  of  16  November  2017,  amended  on  18  June  2018  and  further 
clarified as to the organisational programmes with resolution 4 December 2019. 

2 

 
                                                 
observed  by  the  Venice  Commission.11  The  Prosecutor  General  at  the  Court  of  Cassation, 
who is appointed by the High Council of the Judiciary, has no hierarchical powers over the 
various prosecution offices.12  

The level of perceived judicial independence in Italy is low. Only 31% among the general 
public  and  36%  among  companies  considering  it  to  be  ‘fairly  or  very  good’  and  these 
percentages have decreased between 2019 and 2020.13 The main reasons among the general 
public  and  companies  for  the  perceived  lack  of  independence  are  interference  or  pressure 
from Government and politicians and from economic or other specific interests.14 

A reform of the High Council for the Judiciary and other aspects of the justice system 
has been proposed by the Government. The Constitution has established the High Council 
for  the  Judiciary  (Consiglio  Superiore  della  Magistratura  -  CSM)  as  an  independent  and 
autonomous body15, two-thirds of whose members are magistrates elected by their peers from 
all levels of the judiciary.16 The remaining members are lay members elected by Parliament 
among  university  professors  in  legal  matters  and  lawyers  with  at  least  fifteen  years  of 
experience. The President of the Republic (who also chairs the CSM), the First President of 
the  Court  of  Cassation,  and  the  Prosecutor  General  at  the  Court  of  Cassation  are  ex  officio 
members.  The  election  of  magistrates-members  of  the  council  takes  place  in  three  national 
colleges.17  In  2019,  the  CSM  was  faced  with  integrity  challenges  in  relation  to  serious 
allegations concerning the appointment of high-level prosecutors, as disclosed by a criminal 
investigation.18 This investigation led to the resignation of five members of the CSM.19 New 
elections were held to replace some of those members.20 Ten disciplinary proceedings were 

11   Venice Commission opinion (CDL-AD(2017)028), para. 42: a more independent prosecutor’s office, rather 
than one subordinated or linked to the executive. See also Venice Commission report (CDL-AD(2010)040-
e). 

12   Art. 6 of the Legislative decree n. 106/2006; Art. 14 of the Legislative decree n. 109/2006; Royal decree n. 

12/1941 and further amendments; Art. 51, 54 and 54 bis Criminal Procedure Code. 

13   Figures 44 and 46, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. The level of perceived judicial independence is categorised 
as  follows:  very  low  (below  30%  of  respondents  perceive  judicial  independence  as  fairly  good  and  very 
good); low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 
A survey conducted among judges in 2019 found that around 50 % of judges participating in the survey had 
experienced a lack of respect for their independence by the Government and the media. European Network 
of  Councils  for  the  Judiciary,  Independence  and  Accountability  of  the  Judiciary  –  ENCJ  Survey  on  the 
independence of judges, 2019, Figures 43 and 45. The survey covered 21 EU Member States. 

14   37% of respondents among the general public and 41% among companies indicated interference or pressure 
from Government as the main reason; 36% among the general public and 41% among companies indicated 
interference  or  pressure  from  economic  or  other  specific  interests;  27%  among  the  general  public  and 
companies indicated as main reason that the status and position of judges do not sufficiently guarantee their 
independence.  Figures  45  and  47,  2020  EU  Justice  Scoreboard.  According  to  GRECO,  Fourth  Evaluation 
Round,  Evaluation  report,  para.  6:  “The  undisputed  reputation,  professionalism  and  commitment  of 
individual judges and prosecutors is somewhat tarnished by public doubts about the efficiency of the system 
to effectively punish law breakers when the risk of a corruption prosecution becoming time barred is no rare 
occurrence.” 

15   Art. 104 and 105 of the Constitution. 
16   According to the Law of 24 March 1958 n. 195, amended by Law of 28 March 2002 n. 44, 16 members are 

magistrates elected by their peers, 8 are lay members and 3 are ex officio members. 

17   Art. 23 of the Law of 24 March 1958 n. 195, amended by Art. 5 of the Law of 28 March 2002 n. 44. 
18   An investigation started at the Prosecution Office of Perugia  – which is responsible for prosecuting crimes 
involving magistrates working within the district of Rome  – using technological instruments introduced by 
Law n. 3/2019 to counter corruption, unveiled meetings outside the competent institutions among a former 
member  of  the  CSM,  some  members  of  the  Council  and  members  of  the  Parliament  regarding  the 
appointments of chief prosecutors at some prosecution offices.  

19   The Prosecutor General at the Court of Cassation decided for his the early retirement. 
20   In addition to the election a replacement mechanism was put in place.  

3 

 
                                                 
initiated  and  certain  precautionary  measures  were  adopted.21  In  addition,  the  National 
Magistrates’ Association expelled one of the magistrates from the Association. On 7 August 
2020  the  Government  proposed  a  draft  law22  reforming  the  High  Council  to  tackle  the 
concerns  raised  by  the  abovementioned  criminal  investigation.  Such  reform  includes  an 
increase in the number of the Council’s members23, the provision of 19 territorial colleges of 
magistrates24, and the setting up of a new disciplinary panel. Moreover, new rules to increase 
transparency  in  the  appointment  of  high-level  judges  and  prosecutors  are  part  of  the  draft 
reform. It includes the possibility of drawing by lot for the selection of the candidates for the 
CSM.25 It is important that any reform takes account of Council of Europe recommendations 
relating  to  the  Councils  for  the  judiciary,  including  as  regards  the  selection  of  their 
members.26 In addition, the draft reform aims at tightening the requirements for magistrates 
to  engage  in  political  activity.27  In  this  regard,  asset  disclosure  obligations  were  recently 
strengthened28,  and  targeted  initiatives  were  put  in  place  to  increase  awareness  of  judicial 
ethics  and  judicial  independence29,  although  a  lack  of  proper  regulation  of  the  political 
activity of magistrates had been raised by GRECO.30 

Quality 

Resources have been allocated for additional magistrates and administrative staff. The 
Budget  Law  201931  provided  for  the  recruitment  of  600  new  magistrates  for  the  civil  and 
criminal justice courts32, divided among the Court of Cassation and lower courts, as well as 
the Prosecutor’s Office service.33 New recruitments are envisaged to be completed by the end 
of  2021  and  are  foreseen  to  create  efficiency  gains  in  disposition  time.34  The  Budget  Law 
202035 introduces more flexibility in the allocation of judges and allows judges to volunteer 

21   In  particular,  the  disciplinary  measure  of  the  suspension  from  office  with  the  suspension  from  salary  was 

applied against one magistrate and has been confirmed by the Court of Cassation in January 2020. 

22   Draft  law  approved  by  the  Council  of  Ministers  on  7  August  2020  enabling  the  Government  to  adopt  a 
legislative  decree  for  the  reform  of  the  judiciary  and  for  the  adaptation  of  the  military  judiciary  and 
introducing  new rules on legal, organisational and disciplinary  matters, on the eligibility and relocation of 
magistrates and on the establishment and functioning of the High Council for the judiciary. Once the law is 
approved by the Parliament, the Government will have one year to adopt one or more legislative decrees. 
23   Total number: 30 members, among which 10 are lay members elected by the Parliament between professors 
or lawyers  with 15  years of profession, excluding current  members of the Government  or  members in the 
previous two years or current members of the Regional Councils or members in the previous two years.  
24   A  college  is  an  electoral  area.  The  increase  in  number  of  colleges  appears  to  aim  at  guaranteeing  a  more 

adequate relationship between the elected and the individual territorial realities. 

25   The mechanism of drawing by lot occurs when the candidates do not reach the number of ten in each college 

or when gender equality is not respected. 

26   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of Committee of Ministers of Council of Europe, para. 27. 
27   In particular, a two year ban has been set for the magistrate to be a political candidate in the territory where 
he/she has held judicial office. In addition, magistrates who are elected or act in the Government, must take 
special leave and be out of the role and, at the end of their mandate, cannot return judicial offices, but at the 
Ministry of Justice or other Ministries. 
28   Resolution of the CSM, 13 November 2019. 
29   Resolution of the National Association of Magistrates of May 2018; specific trainings on ethical matters at 
the  High  School  of  Judiciary  since  2016;  specific  section  on  the  website  of  the  High  Council  for  the 
Judiciary on ethical topics; guidelines of the High Council for the Judiciary of 13 May 2020 for local level 
judicial council, including regarding transparency, and powers of enquiry for professional appraisals, well as 
for promotions. 

30   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round - Compliance Report, rec. x. 
31   Law 30 December 2018 n. 145. 
32   From 10.151 to 10.751 units. 
33   50 of them at the Court of Cassation; 18 of them at the General Prosecution Office at the Court of Cassation.  
34  The Ministry of Justice carried out a simulation on efficiency gains showing a reduction of disposition time. 
35   Law no. 160 of 27 December 2019. 

4 

 
                                                 
for  ‘flexible  task  forces’  to  tackle  particular  backlogs.  Recently,  up  to  850  auxiliary  judges 
have been tasked with addressing lengthy proceedings also at criminal appeal courts.36 A high 
number of vacancies for administrative staff are expected to be covered in 2020, while new 
competitions will be held in 2021. In addition, extraordinary measures aiming at speeding up 
pending cases and enhancing digitalisation in criminal proceedings enabled the employment 
of  1000  units  for  a  two-year  period.37  As  to  administrative  justice,  the  Budget  Law  201838 
increased  the  number  of  administrative  magistrates  by  20  and,  in  February  2020,  a  new 
section of the Council of State and two new sections at one of the first instance courts (Tar 
Lazio)39 were established. However, challenges remain as regards the considerable number of 
magistrates’ vacancies, especially at first instance.40 

Ongoing reforms aim at further improving the digitalisation of the justice system.  The 
digitalisation of proceedings at first and second instance civil courts is advanced, while it is 
under  testing  at  the  Court  of  Cassation  (civil  section).  Currently,  any  act  in  the  first  and 
second  instance  proceedings  is  drafted,  signed,  sent,  and  archived,  for  extraction  and 
consultation, in digital format. The draft reform under discussion in Parliament41 concerning 
civil  procedure  would  further  improve  digitalisation  by  providing  for  an  exclusive  online 
filing and a wider range of electronic means coupled with online payment of court fees and 
an  extension  of  the  digitalisation  to  the  justices  of  peace.42  In  criminal  proceedings, 
digitalisation is partial and covers notifications and communications, electronic registers and 
electronic connection with the Bar association granting access to public defenders. The draft 
reform  under  discussion  in  Parliament43  concerning  criminal  procedure  provides  for  the 
possibility of online submission and notifications being put in place through a wider range of 
electronic means. For administrative courts, digitalisation is advanced. A recent amendment44 
has abolished the requirement of the paper copy in addition to the electronic one.  

The pre-existing digital solutions and the legal framework allowed for some of the court 
activities to be maintained during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the context of the COVID-
19  pandemic,  the  Government  adopted  organisational  measures,  to  be  implemented  in 
cooperation  with  the  Heads  of  Judicial  Offices  and  the  High  Council  for  the  Judiciary, 
allowing  for  remote  civil  and  criminal  hearings.45  The  crisis  led  to  an  acceleration  of 
digitalisation in criminal trials, where the Prosecution service was granted the possibility to 
hear witnesses and examine suspects through video conference, and appoint experts as well.46 
In  addition,  a  memorandum  of  understanding  has  been  signed  among  the  High  Court  of 

36   Decree law of 19 May 2020 n. 34, Art. 256. 
37   Decree law of 19 May 2020 n. 34, Art. 255. 
38   Law 27 December 2017, n. 205. 
39   Law 28 February 2020, n. 8. 
40   On  31  December  2019,  276  judges  were  employed  at  first  instance  against  410  units  in  the  organisation 

chart, and 106 judges at second instance courts against 125 units in the organisation chart. 

41   Atto  Senato  n.  1662.  “Delega  al  Governo  per  l’efficienza  del  processo  civile  e  per  la  revisione  della 

disciplina degli strumenti di risoluzione alternativa delle controversie”. 

42   Information received in the context of the country visit and of the consultation process for the preparation of 
the report, e.g. written contribution from the Ministry of Justice (a project was already on-going where, in 
June 2020, for 63 offices of the justices of peace digitalisation was in place).  

43   Atto Camera n. 2435: “Delega al Governo per l'efficienza del processo penale e disposizioni per la celere 

definizione dei procedimenti giudiziari pendenti presso le corti d'appello”. 

44   Law 25 June 2020, n. 70. 
45   Art. 83 of the Decree-law of 17 March 2020 n. 18. 
46   Information received in the context of the country visit and of the consultation process for the preparation of 
the report, e.g. Ministry of Justice contribution (an increase of 89% in videoconferences has been registered 
in May 2020 with respect to May 2019).  

5 

 
                                                 
Cassation, the Prosecutor General’s Office at the High Court of Cassation and the National 
Bar  Association  (Consiglio  Nazionale  Forense)  regarding  digitalised  acts.47  Hearings  in 
then  organised  remotely.48  A 
administrative  courts  were 
memorandum  of  understanding  has  also  been  signed  among  the  Council  of  State  and  Bar 
Associations as regards remote hearings.49 

initially  suspended  and 

Online  access  to  judgments  is  being  improved.  Online  access  to  both  civil  and  criminal 
judgments  is  fully  available  for  the  highest  courts’  decisions,  while  for  first  and  second 
instance  courts,  resolutions  on  publishing  judgments  adopted  by  the  High  Council  for  the 
Judiciary are being implemented.50  

Reforms are pending in Parliament to restructure and increase the specialisation of the 
first  and  second  instance  tax  courts.  A  marked  rise  in  incoming  cases  in  the  field  of  tax 
disputes at the highest instance raises concerns about the quality of Italy’s tax justice system 
at  first  and  second  instance.51  The  issue  was  raised  by  GRECO,  which  took  note  of  some 
improvements,  yet  underlined  the  absence  of  regular  trainings  and  systematic  supervision 
also by means of periodic appraisals, as well as of a Code of Professional Conduct.52  

Standards have been introduced to improve the quality of judicial decisions.  Standards 
were  set  through  the  cooperation  between  the  judiciary  and  lawyers,  with  support  from  the 
Ministry of Justice.53 These standards aim at improving the clarity and conciseness of the acts 
in  the  proceedings.  This  also  paved  the  way  for  a  complete  digitalisation  process  up  to  the 
Court of Cassation in civil matters. Checks on quality of the decisions contribute to ensuring 
a high level of quality. 

Proximity offices have been established to enhance the courts’ accessibility.  The project 
is pursued by the Ministry of Justice within the Operational National Programme Governance 
and Institutional Capacity 2014-202054. It aims at improving access to Courts by enhancing a 
service  of  justice  closer  to  the  citizens,  including  the  vulnerable  groups.  Furthermore,  it 
establishes  a  network  of  offices  providing  homogeneous  services  in  the  field  of  voluntary 
jurisdiction.  The  objective  is  to  improve  access  to  Courts  with  the  involvement  of  local 
authorities and the use of the digital civil trial. 

47   Memorandum of 9 April 2020. 
48   Decree Law n. 18/2020 and decree law n. 28/2020. See also Guidelines of the President of the Council of 
State  for  a  uniform  application  of  the  new  rules  for  administrative  courts  of  25  May  2020.  Guidelines  25 
May 2020. 

49   Memorandum of 26 May 2020.  
50   Status of implementation of resolutions relating to collection of decisions to be included in the ItalgiureWeb 
Archive  of  Merit  Decisions  -  Operational  indications  (High  Council  for  the  Judiciary  resolution  June  19, 
2019).  

51   Legislative Decree no. 545/1992, Art. 4 e 5. Also in 2019 the Court of Cassation managed to obtain positive 
results  by  important  investment  in  term  of  staff  and  equipment  in  the  tax  section  (Report  by  the  First 
President of the Court Of Cassation on the state of justice in 2019, Rome, 31 January 2020). 

52   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round - Compliance Report, rec. VII.  
53   In 2016 the Minister of Justice set up a working group (Ministry of Justice, Attorney General, members of 
the judiciary and of the Bar Association Consiglio Nazionale Forense (CNF)) on clarity and conciseness of 
procedural acts (DM 9 February 2016; DM 18 September 2017 and DM 3 January 2018); the High Council 
for  the  Judiciary  (CSM)  with  resolution  5  July  2017  and  20  June  2018  issued  Guidelines  for  drafting  the 
procedural  acts;  a  Memorandum  of  understanding  was  signed  on  19  July  2018  between  the  CSM  and  the 
CNF regarding preliminary examination of appeals, organisation of work, clarity and conciseness of acts in 
appeal proceedings. 

54   For a total amount of EUR 36 764 941; three pilot projects are on-going (Piedmont, Tuscany and Liguria). 

6 

 
                                                 
Efficiency 

The  justice  system  continues  to  experience  serious  challenges  relating  to  the  length  of 
proceedings. Despite a constant clearance rate above 100%55 in the civil sector, the estimated 
time needed to resolve civil and commercial litigious cases remains among the highest in the 
EU.56 In 2019, the disposition time continued to decrease at first and second instances.57 At 
the Court of Cassation, the positive trend observed in 2018 has been reversed due to a marked 
rise in incoming cases in the field of international protection58 and a still considerable number 
of  incoming  cases  regarding  tax  disputes59,  with  high  rates  of  inadmissibility.60  In  2019, 
administrative  courts  have  reversed  a  negative  trend  and  have  started  to  decrease  the 
disposition  time  at  all  instances,  while  remaining  above  average.61  In  addition,  positive 
results  are  observed  in  the  area  of  public  procurement.62  Italy  remains  under  enhanced 
supervision  of  the  Council  of  Europe’s  Committee  of  Ministers  as  regards  length  of 
proceedings  in  administrative  cases63.  In  criminal  proceedings,  disposition  time  above 
average  is  observed64  at  the  appeal  level,  despite  a  further  decrease  over  2018-2019. 
However, positive results in containing trial length continue at first instance courts65 and at 
the Court of Cassation66, notwithstanding a slight increase with respect to the previous year.67 
Italy remains under enhanced supervision of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers 
also  as  regards  length  of  proceedings  in  criminal  cases.68  A  reform  stopping  the  statute  of 
limitation after a first-instance ruling, which is in line with a long-standing country-specific 

55   Figure 10, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard, meaning  that the justice system  is able to deal  effectively overall 

with the number of incoming cases. 

56   Figure  7,  2020  EU  Justice  Scoreboard.  See  also  CEPEJ  (2020),  Study  on  the  functioning  of  the  judicial 
systems in the EU Member States: for the civil sector, 527 days at first instance, 863 at second instance and 
1266 at the court of Cassation. The estimated disposition time measures is the theoretical time necessary for 
a pending case to be solved in court and is obtained by dividing the number of pending cases at the end of 
the observed period by the number of resolved cases within the same period multiplied by 365.  

57   Information received in the context of the country visit and of the consultation process for the preparation of 
the  report,  e.g.  written  contribution  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice;  See  also  CEPEJ  (2020),  Study  on  the 
functioning  of  the  judicial  systems  in  the  EU  Member  States,  that  reported  a  disposition  time  decrease  in 
2018 by 3.7% at first instance, 3.4% at second instance and 2.5% at the Court of Cassation. 

58   2020  Report  of  the  First  President  at  the  High  Court  of  Cassation:  in  2019,  10  341  complaints  have  been 

filed (against 374 complaint in 2016).  

59   2020 Report of the First President at the High Court of Cassation: in 2019, 9 537 complaints have been filed. 
60   For 2019, 18.7% of all civil appeals to the Supreme Court were declared inadmissible, compared to 16.6% in 

2018 (Court of Cassation, Statistical Yearbook 2019 and 2018). 

61   Information received in the context of the country visit and of the consultation process for the preparation of 
the report, e.g. written contribution Council of State (820 days at first instance in 2019 compared to 888 in 
2018; 692 days at highest instance in 2019 compared to 791 days in 2018); Figures 8 and 9, 2020 EU Justice 
Scoreboard.  

62   Information received in the context of the country visit and of the consultation process for the preparation of 
the report, e.g. written contribution Council of State (230 days at first instance in 2019 compared to 237 in 
2018, and 123 at highest instance in 2019 compared to 274 in 2018). 

63   ECtHR Judgment in case Abenavoli v Italy, Application no. 22461/93, 2 September 1997;  Resolution by the 

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, CM/ResDH(2016)358, 6-8 December 2016. 

64   Information received in the context of the country visit and of the consultation process for the preparation of 

the report, e.g. written contribution Minister of Justice: 2019: 835 days.  

65   See previous note - 392 days. 
66   See previous note - 166 days. 
67   Information received in the context of the country visit and of the consultation process for the preparation of 
the  report,  e.g.  written  contribution  Minister  of  Justice:  2018:  first  instance  382  days;  Court  of  Cassation: 
156 days. 

68   ECtHR  Judgment  in  case  Ledonne  v  Italy,  Application  no.  35742/97,  12  May  1999;  Resolution  by  the 

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, CM/ResDH(2018)353, 18-20 September 2018. 

7 

 
                                                 
recommendation69  in  the  context  of  the  European  Semester,  entered  into  force  in  January 
2020.70 As a result, there is a strong need for measures to increase efficiency, especially at the 
appeal level.  

Reforms to address the efficiency challenges of civil and criminal proceedings are under 
discussion in Parliament.  A comprehensive draft reform to  streamline  the civil  procedure, 
recommended  since  2013  in  the  context  of  the  European  Semester71,  is  currently  being 
discussed  in  Parliament.72  It  aims  at  efficiency  gains  through  simplified  procedures, 
speediness and enhanced digitalisation. The proposal extends the use of simplified procedures 
and  the  range  of  cases  where  a  single  judge  is  competent  to  adjudicate.  It  also  reduces  the 
timeframes  for  procedures  and  obliges  the  judge  to  set  up  a  calendar  for  the  gathering  of 
evidence, and for the parties to file electronically any relevant act and document. It reviews 
the  appeal  procedure  and  the  rules  on  alternative  dispute  resolution,  and  introduces 
exclusively  filed  electronic  written  pleadings.  Moreover,  it  speeds  up  the  enforcement  of 
proceedings by reforming the procedure for forced execution. A comprehensive reform of the 
criminal procedure aiming at strengthening the efficiency of criminal trials and speeding up 
proceedings at  courts of appeal is  also currently being discussed in Parliament.  The  reform 
includes  a  revision  of  the  following  elements:  the  notification  system,  a  broader  use  of 
simplified  procedures,  the  introduction  of  a  single  judge  in  second  instance  for  direct 
summons, a broader use of electronic filing of documents, simplified rules on evidence, the 
definition of time limits for the duration of preliminary investigation and measures to avoid 
stagnation in the investigative phase. The reform foresees that the suspension of the statute of 
limitations  from  the  date  of  delivery  of  the  first-instance  judgment  (as  result  from  a  recent 
reform)  is  applicable  only  to  convictions  and  not  to  acquittals.  The  swift  adoption  of  these 
reforms  could  contribute  to  increased  efficiency.  However,  certain  provisions  aim  at 
introducing  new  disciplinary  offences  for  magistrates  in  case  of  excessive  length  of 
proceedings. In that respect, it is important that any such envisaged provision take account of 
Council of Europe recommendations and safeguard judicial independence.73 

II.  ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK 

The  legal  and  institutional  anti-corruption  framework  is  broadly  in  place.  New  legislation 
increasing penalties for corruption offences has entered into force. The prevention and fight 
against  corruption  is  shared  between  several  authorities.  The  National  Anticorruption 
Authority (ANAC) is the authority in charge mainly with the prevention of corruption within 
the public administration, well as with defining the Anti-corruption strategy and supervising 
the  adoption  of  the  three-year  plans.  The  Anti-corruption  Unit  of  the  Financial  police 
(Guardia  di  Finanza)  is  responsible  for  the  investigation  and  prevention  of  corruption  as  a 

69   Council Recommendation of  9 July 2013 on the legal  framework  for corruption and in particular over the 

statute of limitation. 

70   8% of crimes at first instance, 24% at second instance and 17% at the High Court of Cassation, fall under the 

statute of limitation. 

71   Council Recommendations of 2013-2020 on the efficiency of the Italian justice system, in particular over the 

length of civil proceedings.  

72   Atto  Senato  n.  1662.  “Delega  al  Governo  per  l’efficienza  del  processo  civile  e  per  la  revisione  della 
disciplina  degli  strumenti  di  risoluzione  alternativa  delle  controversie”.  The  act  under  discussion  is  an 
enabling law setting the criteria that the Government would follow while issuing a legislative decree within 
one year from the entering into force of the enabling law. 

73   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 69. See 
also  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2000)19  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe,  para.  5 
lett.  e).  See  also  Venice  Commission,  (CDL-AD(2016)009),  para.  34;  (CDL-AD(2015)042),  para.  113; 
(CDL-AD(2014)006), para. 19; (CDL-AD(2011)012), para. 60. 

8 

 
                                                 
specialised law enforcement body. Furthermore, specialised police and prosecution services 
increase  their  efforts  in  order  to  tackle  the  infiltration  of  organised  crime  into  public 
administration. The Financial Intelligence Unit for Italy (Unita’ di informazione finanziaria 
per  l’Italia),  independent  authority  at  the  Bank  of  Italy,  provides  support  to  the  competent 
prosecutor’s  office  and  cooperates  with  Guardia  di  Finanza  as  the  competent  authority  for 
receiving reports of suspicious transactions.  

Italy  scores  53/100  on  the  latest  Transparency  International  Corruption  Perception 
Index  and  ranks  15th  in  the  EU  and  51th  globally.74  According  to  2020  Special 
Eurobarometer  survey,  88%  of  respondents  consider  corruption  widespread  (EU  average 
71%) and 35% of respondents feel personally affected by corruption in their daily lives (EU 
average  26%).75  As  regards  businesses,  91%  of  companies  consider  corruption  to  be 
widespread  (EU  average  63%),  while  54%  of  companies  consider  that  corruption  is  a 
problem  when  doing  business  (EU  average  37%).  42%  of  respondents  find  that  there  are 
enough  successful  prosecutions  to  deter  people  from  corrupt  practices  (EU  average  36%) 
while  25%  of  companies  consider  that  people  and  businesses  caught  for  bribing  a  senior 
official are appropriately punished (EU average 31%).76 

A revision of the level of sanctions for corruption related offences has been carried out 
recently.  Increased  levels  of  penalties  have  been  provided  for  in  legislation  for  almost  all 
corruption  offences  with  the  aim  of  increasing  their  effectiveness  and  dissuasiveness. 
Penalties have been substantially increased in cases of active and passive corruption of both 
domestic and foreign officials. In the beginning of 2019, the sanctioning regime for improper 
bribery was further tightened. The law has also reinforced the regime of accessory penalties 
by extending the scope of the life-long disqualification and prohibition from holding public 
office  for  a  wide  range  of  corruption  offences.  In  May  2019,  relevant  provisions77  on  the 
subject of political-mafia exchange voting were amended, with the aim of targeting possible 
networks of criminal organisations, politicians, entrepreneurs, and administrations. Italy has 
an effective asset recovery system, which is  key  for complementing the sanctioning regime 
for  corruption.  The  Italian  asset  recovery  regime,  which  includes  both  conviction  and  non-
conviction based confiscation, is largely recognised as a good practice at international level.78 

The  powers  and  capacity  of  the  National  Anti-corruption  Authority  have  been 
strengthened  as  regards  its  preventive  role  to  fight  corruption.  As  regards  corruption 
prevention,  Italy’s  approach  changed  with  the  creation  of  the  National  Anti-corruption 
Authority  (ANAC)  in  2012,  whose  role  and  powers,  mainly  on  prevention  of  corruption 
within  the  public  administration,  have  been  strengthened  in  recent  years.  ANAC  is  an 
independent  authority.  The  board  is  composed  of  five  members  appointed  for  a  non-
renewable  mandate  of  six  years.  The  nominations,  proposed  by  the  Minister  for  Public 
Administration  and  Simplification,  in  agreement  with  the  Minister  for  Justice  and  the 
Minister  for  the  Interior,  are  approved  by  the  Council  of  Ministers  and  the  candidates  are 
appointed by the President of the Republic. ANAC has a staff of 350 employees. It has also 

74   Transparency International, Country data. https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/italy. 
75   Special  Eurobarometer  502  (2020).  Since  the  high-level  workshop  on  corruption  measurement  held  on 
October 2017 under the Italian G7 Presidency, Italy is promoting a new approach at the international level 
(G20,  UNCAC  and  OECD)  to  find  a  more  comprehensive  approach  to  measure  effective  levels  of 
corruption, beyond the mere perception, based on objective and evidence-based indicators. See also UNCAC 
8th CoSP resolution n.10. https://www.unodc.org/UNCAC/COSP/session8/Advance_unedited_resolutions. 

76   Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019), Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU.  
77   Art. 416-ter Criminal Code. 
78   UNCAC II Review Cycle Country Report on Italy, p. 14. 

9 

 
                                                 
been identified as the responsible entity for the supervision and regulation of public contracts. 
This  competence  is  complemented  by  the  collection  of  data  on  tenders  and  on  companies 
operating in the public sector. For this purpose, ANAC manages the Observatory for public 
contracts.  ANAC  is  also  a  recipient  of  whistleblowing  reports  from  public  administrations 
pursuant  to  Legislative  Decree  90/2014.79  Furthermore,  ANAC  is  tasked  with  defining  the 
Anti-corruption  strategy  and  supervising  the  adoption  of  the  three-year  plans.  The  Anti-
corruption  strategy  builds  on  a  national  Anti-corruption  plan  (PNA)  and  three-year  anti-
corruption plans and codes of conduct to be adopted by the public administration and state-
controlled  enterprises.  Whilst  ANAC  can  impose  sanctions  in  case  of  failure  to  adopt  the 
three-year plans and/or the codes of conduct, the authority has largely invested in fostering a 
preventive culture by providing advice and guidance to the public administration, as well as 
establishing  guidelines  and  standards  for  codes  of  conduct  in  specific  administrative  areas. 
The  autonomy  and  independence  of  ANAC  is  further  guaranteed  by  its  own  financial 
resources system. Own resources account for approximately 87 % of the authority’s budget.80 

Anti-corruption institutions cooperate to counter the infiltration of organised crime in 
public  administration.  The  district  anti-mafia  directorate  (DDA),  the  component  of 
magistrates  who  make  up  the  specialised  ‘district  anti-mafia  prosecutor’,  is  responsible  for 
mafia and other serious crimes.  It  is  the only specialised prosecutorial  office in  Italian law. 
As  far  as  criminal  offenses  against  the  public  administration  are  concerned,  including 
corruption, the national prosecutor’s offices, especially those of medium and large size, rely 
on  specialised  working  groups  to  investigate  crimes  against  the  public  administration, 
including  competence  over  economic  crimes  that  can  be  linked  to  corruption.  The  use  of 
investigative  schemes  and  protocols  deriving  from  the  fight  against  organised  crime  are 
particularly important  to counter  corruption  offences, notably the  establishment  of an inter-
group  of  judicial  police  forces  (State  Police,  Carabinieri,  Financial  Police  and  sections  of 
General  Prosecutor’s  Office),  and  the  establishment  of  judicial  police  groups  specifically 
dedicated  to  these  crimes.  In  November  2017,  the  National  Anti-Mafia  and  Counter-
Terrorism  Directorate  (DNA)  and  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Authority  signed  an 
agreement to allow DNA to access the information available from the Companies’ Register 
and the National Public Contracts Database, managed by ANAC. 

Criminal  organisations  are  increasingly  resorting  to  corruptive  practices  to  achieve 
their  goals.  ANAC  and  the  Prosecution  service  uncovered  that  mafia-type  organised  crime 
groups  systematically  use  corruption  and  collusive  methods 
the  public 
administration,  especially  in  the  context  of  public  procurement.  As  ANAC  stressed  in  its 
2020 annual report to the Parliament81, the trend is constantly increasing. In 2019, 633 anti-
Mafia interdiction measures were taken, compared to 573 in 2018 (a 10% annual increase), 
and 2,600 since 2015 altogether.  

towards 

The Specialised police, Guardia di Finanza, is specifically tasked to counter corruption. 
The  Guardia  di  Finanza  (GdF)  is  a  military  police  body  which  provides  support  to  the 
competent  prosecutor’s  office  and  cooperates  with  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Authority. 
The  GdF  is  the  competent  authority  for  receiving  reports  of  suspicious  transactions  and 

79   By  adopting  the  law  n.  179/2017,  Italy  has  adopted  provisions  that  strengthen  the  protection  of 
whistleblowers  and  extend  it  to  the  private  sector.  For  whistleblowers  are  now  available  three  different 
reporting channels (RPCT, ANAC or Court of Auditors). 

80   The  Authority operates through a  mixed financing system, characterised by contributions from the entities 
operating  in  the  sectors  of  competence,  i.e.  economic  operators,  contracting  stations  and  SOAs  (equal  to 
87.28% of revenue) and by a contribution from the state budget (equal to 6.35% of revenue). 

81   Annual report on the activity carried out by the National Anti-Corruption Authority in 2019 (2020). 

10 

 
                                                 
together with the anti-mafia Directorate, conducts the ensuing investigations, and can access 
banking  information.  According  to  the  GdF,  between  August  2016  and  August  2019,  339 
legal  actions  concerning  corruption  were  launched  with  117  pre-trial  detention  orders  for 
corruption issued by the judicial authorities and related only to the procurement sector. 74% 
of the events (113 cases) concerned the awarding of public contracts. Municipalities represent 
the  entities  most  at  risk  of  infiltration  by  organised  crime  and  use  of  corrupt  and  collusive 
methods  to  direct  public  procurement.  The  GdF  can  support  ANAC  in  the  exercise  of  its 
competences  both  in  the  area  of  public  contracts  and  in  the  broad  sector  of  corruption 
prevention measures. The GdF also cooperates with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), 
with  which  it  has  recently  launched  a  monitoring  action  to  identify  online  sales  of  medical 
and health devices.  

Whistleblowing  legislation  in  the  private  sector  is  based  on  voluntary  compliance 
programmes.  Following  the  revision  of  the  legal  framework  in  201782  on  whistleblowers, 
there has been a rise in reporting in the public sector. However, protection of whistle-blowers 
in  the  private  sector  remains  less  effective  due  to  the  voluntary  nature  of  the  compliance 
programme.  According  to  the  most  recent  ANAC  annual  report,  the  use  of  the 
whistleblowing  instrument  saw  an  exponential  rise  in  recent  years,  increasing  from  125 
reports in 2015 to 873 in 2019, with a total of 2,330 reports in the period 2015-2019.83 

The  conflict  of  interest  regime  is  fragmented.  Italy  regulates  conflicts  of  interest  in  the 
public  administration  and  in  the  Government  by  establishing  cases  of  ineligibility  and 
incompatibility  by  law.84  ANAC  is  tasked  with  interpreting  the  legal  framework  on  “the 
ineligibility  and  incompatibility  of  positions  in  the  public  administration”,  as  well  as 
supervising the correct  enforcement  of the legislation. A provision on conflict  of interest  is 
included in the central Code of conduct.85 For some public officers, there are restrictions on 
activities  or  external  assignments  carried  out  after  their  public  service  has  finished.  The 
Authority for Competition and Market is responsible for checking incompatibilities following 
the appointment of a political position in the Government, as well as during and after the end 
of  the  mandate.  Conflict  of  interest  prevention  rules  are  also  included  in  the  Presidential 
Decree 2013.  In 2019,  ANAC  issued  guidelines to  regulate  conflict  of interest. However,  a 
fragmented ineligibility and incompatibility regime applies to elected public officials, with no 
complete  system  of  enforcement  of  the  regime.  As  regards  asset  disclosure,  Government 
members and senior civil servants are required by law to fill in forms indicating their sources 
of income, assets and external positions, along with a copy of the tax return. Members of the 
Chamber  of  Deputies  and  the  Senate  are  required  to  submit  a  report  relating  to  their 
properties,  assets  registered  in  public  registers,  social  actions,  shareholdings  in  companies 
and  a  copy  of  their  most  recent  tax  return.  Some  of  this  information  is  available  on 
Parliament’s  website  and  on  the  profile  page  of  each  Member.  Magistrates  are  required  to 
submit  to  the  High  Council  for  the  Judiciary  statements  containing  the  same  type  of 
information as members of Parliament. 

Lobbying and ‘revolving doors’ need attention. The Decision No. 208/2017 on Lobbying 
in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  establishes  a  mandatory  public  register  of  lobbyists  for  any 
individual  or  legal  entity  representing  collective  interests.  That  applies  also  to  former 
members  of  Parliament  or  members  of  Government,  who  intend  to  carry  out  lobbying 

82   Law n. 179/2017. 
83   ANAC Annual Report 2020.  
84   Legislative Decree 39/2013; Legislative Decree 235/2012. 
85   Presidential Decree no. 62/2013. 

11 

 
                                                 
activities.86  A  similar  obligation  to  report  meetings  with  third  parties  does  not  apply  to  the 
members  of  Government.  As  regards  ‘revolving  doors’,  specific  provisions  are  in  place.  In 
October  2019,  the  National  Council  appointed  the  Italian  Anticorruption  Authority  as  both 
the  supervisory  and  sanctioning  authority  on  ‘revolving  doors’.87  The  authority  has  been 
entrusted  with  the  powers  of  assessing  infringements,  voiding  contracts,  and  establishing 
sanctions.88  The  provisions  on  ‘revolving  doors’  are  curently  provided  only  for  public 
officials, and not to the holders of political offices. The Anti-corruption Authority has called 
for the Government to improve the legislation on ‘revolving doors’.89 

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM 

Freedom  of expression  and press  freedom  are  enshrined in  Article 21 of  the Constitution.90 
Secondary legislation establishes a robust framework geared at ensuring media pluralism in 
the  country.  An  independent  regulator,  the  Authority  for  guaranteeing  the  Communications 
(AGCOM),  is  established  by  law91  and  entrusted  with  regulatory,  monitoring,  enforcement 
and sanctioning powers in the media sector. The criminal penalty for defamation, which is of 
up  to  one  year  of  imprisonment,  is  currently  under  review  by  the  Constitutional  Court.92 
Journalists  must  be  registered  in  the  Order  of  Journalists93,  which  provides  for  self-
government  by  the  profession.  Furthermore,  they  are  bound  by  ethical  rules  governing  the 
sector,  namely  the  consolidated  text  on  journalist’s  duties.94  AGCOM  plays  a  supervisory 
role  in  the  media  sector  and  conducts  monitoring  activity  on  the  profession  via  its 
Observatory on Journalism, which dedicates a specific report to threats against journalists.  

The  regulator  for  audiovisual  media  services  is  independent.  According  to  the  law, 
AGCOM “operates in full autonomy and is independent in its judgment  and assessment”.95 
Since  the  Italian  Budget  Law  of  2006,  AGCOM  manages  its  budget  autonomously  and  is 
entirely  financed  by  firms  operating  in  sectors  under  its  remit,  which  contribute  with  a 
percentage of their annual revenues and based on strict accounting rules. The procedures for 
the nomination and appointment of AGCOM’s President and Board members are set by law 
and strict rules to prevent conflicts of interests are established.96 Board members’ mandates 
are  intentionally  and  expressly  decoupled  from  electoral  cycles,  while  the  dismissal  of 
AGCOM’s Chairman and Board members is not envisaged.97 AGCOM applies strict rules in 
terms of human resources recruitment, while providing for a 2-year cooling-off period during 

86   EUPACK 2019: the implementation of the regulation appears to be not very effective, due to the fact that the 

information reported in the register remains rather vague and generic. 

87   National Council (2019), Verdict 7411, 29 October 2019.  
88   Italian Anti-Corruption Authority (2019), ‘National Council’s verdict concerning ANAC’s authority on the 

matter of revolving doors’.  

89   Italian Anti-Corruption Authority (2020), Reporting act No. 6, 27 May 2020 on revolving doors.  
90   Art.  21,  para.  1,  of  the  Constitution:  “Anyone  has  the  right  to  freely  express  their  thoughts  by  means  of 
words,  writings  and  any  other  means  of  diffusion.  The  press  cannot  be  subject  to  authorisation  or 
censorship”. 

91   Law 31 July 1997 n. 249. 
92   Ordonnance n. 132/2020.  
93   Order of Journalists. 
94   Observatory on Journalism which dedicates a specific report to threats against journalists.  
95   Art. 1 of the Law 249 of 31 July 1997. 
96   Law 249/1997 and Law 481/1995. 
97   Termination of their mandate is only possible if incompatibility as specifically listed in Law 481/1995 arises. 

12 

 
                                                 
which former managers may not have any direct or indirect relationship with any undertaking 
operating in the regulated sectors. The independence of AGCOM is therefore guaranteed.98  

Italy’s Ordine dei giornalisti99 is a non-profit body of public law founded in 1963100 and 
represents  the  journalistic  profession.  It  manages  the  Albo  dei  giornalisti  (Registry  of 
journalists) – where registration is  mandatory  for exercise of the profession  – and monitors 
and  protects  the  work  of  its  members.  The  Ordine’s  National  Council  can  issue  warnings, 
censor,  suspend  and  expel  its  members.  The  Ordine  operates  in  line  with  the  integrated 
“Testo unico dei doveri del giornalista” (Consolidated Code of Conduct) which was adopted 
in  2016.  The  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  (MPM)  2020  refers  to  the  fact  that  this  system, 
particular  to  Italy,  means  that  access  to  the  profession  is  not  totally  open  “even  if  this 
requirement is progressively less respected in practice”.101 

The  principle  of  transparency  of  media  ownership  is  enshrined  in  the  Constitution.102 
The  following  anti-concentration  thresholds  are  set  by  law:  the  limited  number  of  licences 
that a single content provider can possess, limits to the total revenues a single operator can 
make,  scrutiny  by  AGCOM  of  any  mergers  and  acquisitions  in  the  sector,  restrictions  on 
cross-media ownership and prohibitions of dominant positions in any of the relevant markets. 
A Register of Communication Operators (ROC) was established103 in 1997 and the operators 
in the Italian communications sector are obliged to register filling out a number of forms on 
their ownership structure and persons with editorial responsibility over the media outlet. The 
ROC can semi-automatically acquire the ownership chains of the subjects registered from the 
national Chamber of Commerce. The information on the ownership of the media companies 
registered in the ROC is accessible on the Chamber of Commerce website or by sending to 
AGCOM a motivated request to access that information. However, the MPM 2020 points to 
certain limitations in the effective application of the system and to the fact that not all of the 
afore-mentioned information is directly accessible to the public, in particular with regard to 
ultimate ownership. Consequently, the MPM assesses this indicator as demonstrating medium 
risk.104  

Robust rules on state advertising are in place. Public authorities that purchase advertising 
space  in  the  mass  media  must  inform  AGCOM  about  the  advertising  expenditures  of  the 
previous financial year via an electronic tool adopted by AGCOM105 and spending criteria are 
set106,  while  hefty  fines  are  provided  for  in  case  of  breach.  In  addition,  all  relevant  data 
relating  to  the  expenses  for  institutional  communication  are  published  in  the  section  of  the 
Government's  website  dedicated  to  transparency.  In  this  context,  the  MPM  2020  considers 
this area to be at low risk. 

98   The  2020  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  (Report  on  Italy  p.  12)  considers  risks  associated  with  AGCOM’s 

independence to be low. Information confirmed during the country visit.  

99   Ordine dei giornalisti. https://www.odg.it/.  
100  By means of Law 69/1963. 
101  2020 Media Pluralism Monitor, Report on Italy, p. 12. 
102  Art. 21 para. 5 of the Constitution, which stipulates that: “The law can request the disclosure of the financial 

sources of newspapers and printed publications”. 

103  Art. 1 of Law 249 of 31 July 1997. 
104  2020 Media Pluralism Monitor, Report on Italy, p. 13. 
105  Art.  41  of  Legislative  Decree  177  of  July  31,  2005  (the  “Testo  unico  dei  servizi  di  media  audiovisivi  e 

radiofonici”). 

106  At least 50% of the advertising expenditures must be spent on advertisements published by newspapers and 
periodic  press  while  at  least  15%  must  be  spent  on  advertisements  broadcast  by  local  radio  and/or  TV 
stations. 

13 

 
                                                 
The political independence of the Italian media remains an issue. This remains the case 
15  years  after  the  regulatory  framework  was  raised  as  an  issue  of  concern  by  the  Venice 
Commission107  as  regards  political  independence  of  the  media,  due  to  the  lack  of  effective 
provisions on preventing conflicts of interest.  The MPM 2020 rates Italy  at medium risk in 
this  regard  and  concludes  that  political  influence  continues  to  be  felt  significantly  in  the 
audiovisual sector.108 To a lesser extent, this assessment also applies to the newspaper sector, 
due to the indirect relationships between publishers’ interests and the Government, at national 
as well as at local level.  

The laws on defamation are currently under scrutiny. Article 595 of the Criminal Code 
which  punishes  defamation  with  up  to  one  year  imprisonment  was  the  subject  of  recent 
landmark  rulings.  In  2019,  the  Court  of  Cassation,  quoting  ECHR  judgments  against  Italy, 
ruled that deprivation of liberty in the case of speech offences should only be contemplated in 
exceptional  cases  such  as  incitement  to  hatred  and  that,  therefore,  prison  penalties  for 
defamation  runs  counter  to  the  right  to  freedom  of  expression.109  In  June  2020,  the 
Constitutional  Court  ruled  that  it  is  for  Parliament  to  decide  on  the  precise  balance  to  be 
struck between freedom of speech and the existing criminal law on defamation. It postponed 
the  hearing  to  21  June  2021  to  allow  Parliament  to  reflect  on  compliance  with  the 
constitutional principle as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).110  

Rules on administrative transparency and access to public information are in force. The 
legal  framework111  ensures  administrative  transparency  and  access  to  public  information, 
both on-demand and by way of obligations of publication concerning administrative activity. 
The  Freedom  of  Information  Act  (FOIA)112  recognises  the  freedom  to  access  information 
held  by  the  public  administration  as  a  fundamental  right  and  establishes  the  principle  that 
administrations  must  give  precedence  to  the  right  of  anyone  to  know  and  to  access 
information  owned  by  the  public  administration  without  having  to  prove  any  qualified 
interest in the matter. However, according to independent reports113, the public administration 
does not always fulfill its duty to reply to FOIA requests. 

Physical  attacks  and death threats against journalists are an issue of concern.  In 2019 
and  2020,  the  Council  of  Europe’s  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and 
safety  of  journalists  published  12  alerts114  from  Italy  (7  in  2019  and  5  in  2020),  including 
several cases of physical attacks, death threats by mafia groups and verbal attacks originating 
from  Government  officials  and  members  of  staff.115  This  leads  MPM  2020  to  score  this 

107  Venice Commission opinion (CDL-AD(2005)017-e). 
108  2020 Media Pluralism Monitor, Report on Italy, p. 16. 
109  Judgment 38721 of 19 September 2019. 
110  Order 132/2020 of 26 June 2020. According to the ECtHR the use of prison sentences can only be  justified 
in exceptional cases, when other fundamental rights are seriously offended, such as in the case of the spread 
of hate speech or instigation to violence. 

111  Legislative Decree 33/2013 (as amended by Legislative Decree 97/2016). 
112  Introduced by Legislative Decree 97/2016. 
113  Openpolis 2019; FOIA, 2019. 
114  Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists.  The  Italian 

state systematically replies to all alerts in a detailed manner. 

115  Information received in the context of the country visit and of the consultation process for the preparation of 
the  report,  e.g.  Federazione  nazionale  stampa  italiana,  Ordine  dei  giornalisti,  Sindacato  europeo  dei 
giornalisti, Ossigeno per l’informazione e  Articolo21 that referred to high-profile cases  of journalists  who 
have received systematic threats and death threats for their work. 

14 

 
                                                 
indicator  on  journalistic  profession,  standards  and  protection  as  medium  risk.  Stakeholders 
confirmed this phenomenon and reported additional cases of threats.116 

A Coordination Centre dealing with acts against journalists has been set up.117 In 2017, 
the  Ministry  of  the  Interior  established  the  Centre  aiming  at  monitoring  threats  to  reporters 
and developing the necessary protection measures. The Centre represents the first initiative to 
set up such a safety mechanism in Europe. An ad-hoc Parliamentary Committees dedicated to 
“Mafia,  Journalists  and  Information”  was  entrusted  with  the  task  of  understanding, 
monitoring  and  evaluating 
information. 
Stakeholders118  have  praised  the  Centre  while  raising  concerns  that  less  serious  threats  are 
often not followed up.  

relationship  between 

the  mafia  and 

the 

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Italy  is  a  unitary  parliamentary  republic  with  an  indirectly  elected  President.119  The 
Parliament is bicameral: it comprises the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, both having 
the same powers. The right of legislative initiative is vested in the Government, the members 
of  Parliament,  50.000  citizens,  National  Council  for  Economics  and  Labour120,  and  the 
Regional Council. The Constitutional Court carries out constitutional review of laws. Several 
regional ombudsmen are responsible for safeguarding the freedoms and rights of persons.121 
The  Inter-ministerial  Committee  for  Human  Rights  (CIDU)  interacts  with  civil  society, 
academia  and  all  relevant  stakeholders  to  promote  and  protect  human  rights.  The  National 
Guarantor  for  the  rights  of  persons  detained  is  an  independent  body  tasked  to  monitor  the 
places for people deprived of personal liberty. 

The Government declared the state of health emergency and made use of decree-laws to 
tackle the COVID-19 pandemic. Measures to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic were adopted 
under  a  state  of  health  emergency  which  was  declared  by  the  Government  on  31  January 
2020.  In  this  context,  decree-laws  were  adopted,  providing  the  basis  for  a  number  of 
administrative measures. Decree-laws are Government acts with the value of laws adopted in 
case  of  urgency,  which  need  to  be  converted  into  law  by  Parliament  within  60  days  or 
otherwise lose effect.122 All decree-laws regarding the pandemic were converted into law and 
could  be  challenged  before  the  Constitutional  Court.123  Since  the  beginning  of  the  current 
legislative  period  in  2018,  121  laws  were  adopted  and  45  decree-laws  were  approved  by 

116  Information received in the context of the country visit and of the consultation process for the preparation of 

the report, e.g. written contribution Ossigeno per l’informazione, Spampinato, 2020. 

117 Coordination Centre for monitoring, analysis and permanent exchange of information on the phenomenon of 

intimidating acts against journalist. 

118  Information received in the context of the country visit and of the consultation process for the preparation of 

the report, e.g. written contribution Ossigeno per l’informazione, Spampinato, 2020. 

119  The President is elected by Parliament, meeting in joint session, together with 58 regional electors. 
120  The National Council for Economics and Labour is also vested with the right to propose legislation in the 

economic and social field.  

121  For more information, see http://www.difensorecivicotoscana.it. 
122  Art. 77 Constitution of the Italian Republic. 
123  A case, still pending, has been brought in front of the Constitutional Court regarding the obligation for civil 

judges to participate to virtual hearings from Tribunals.  

15 

 
                                                 
Parliament and converted in law while eight lost effect.124 On 29 July 2020, the Government 
extended the emergency situation until 15 October 2020.125 

Regulatory  impact  assessments  and  stakeholders’  consultations  have  improved,  but 
they need to be more systematic. In September 2017, the Italian Government introduced a 
new  set  of  procedures  for  regulatory  impact  assessment  (RIA)126,  ex-post  evaluation, 
stakeholder  engagement  and  regulatory  planning.  However,  citizen  and  stakeholder 
participation is still not completely embedded in policy definition processes. The analysis of 
the  impact  of  actual  and  alternative  laws  is  increasing  but  is  still  infrequent  and  mostly 
focused on economic rather than social and environmental aspects.127 Ex-post evaluations and 
consultations are still not used systematically and consistently across different ministries.128  

Establishment of an independent human rights institution is under consideration.  Two 
draft  laws  proposing  the  creation  of  an  Independent  National  Human  Rights  Authority 
(NHRI)  were  submitted  to  Parliament  in  2018  and  are  currently  being  examined  by  the 
Chamber  of  Deputies.129  Both  draft  laws  foresee  the  autonomy  of  the  NHRI.  The  swift 
establishment of a NHRI in line with the Paris Principles would respond to recommendations 
from  the  United  Nations.130  It  was  also  recommended  that  the  Authority  for  Children  and 
Adolescents be fully independent and autonomous and that its resources be increased.131  

The  Constitutional  Court  has  adopted  internal  rules  to  encourage  an  increased 
participation of civil society and the general public in its proceedings. The deliberation of 
January 2020132 introduced the institute of amicus curiae, the possibility to hear experts, and 
codified the case law on the intervention of third parties in proceedings. Measures were also 
adopted  to  ensure  the  continued  functioning  of  the  Court  during  the  Covid-19  pandemic, 
while  limiting  physical  presence.  The  appointment  procedure  of  Constitutional  Court 
members aims at  ensuring a diverse composition,  including members nominated by judges, 
Parliament, and the President of the Republic in equal proportions.  

Italy has a vibrant and diverse civil society. However, concerns were raised as regards the 
complexity of the registration process  for NGOs133 and delays in the implementation of the 
law  harmonising  rules  on  the  non-profit  sector.134  A  negative  narrative  also  affects  the 
environment in which NGOs active in the migration and asylum field operate135 and the civic 
space is  considered as  narrowed.136  The Council of Europe137 recommended repealing laws 

124  Senato  della  Repubblica,  Statistiche  sull'attività  legislativa,  XVIII  Legislatura;  and  Camera  dei  Deputati, 

Attività dell'Assemblea - Progetti di legge deliberati dall’Assemblea. 
125  Decree law n. 83 of 30 July 2020 extended the emergency measures. 
126  Guidelines on public consultation – http://open.gov.it/linee-guida-sulla-consultazione-pubblica/. 
127  Public Administration Characteristics in Italy, 2019, p. 532  
128  OECD, Indicators of Regulatory policy and governance. 
129  Draft Proposal C. 855 of 3 July 2018 and Draft Proposal C. 1323 of 30 October 2018. 
130  United Nations Committee on the  Rights  of the Child  Concluding observations on the  combined  fifth and 

sixth periodic reports of Italy (2019).  

131  See previous note. 
132  Norme integrative per i giudizi davanti alla Corte costituzionale, 8 January 2020.  
133  Conference  of  INGOs  of  the  Council  of  Europe,  Civil  participation  in  the  decision-making  process,  Fact 

Finding Mission to Italy, May 2019. 

134  See previous note. 
135  UN OHCHR, Mission report Italy 2019. 
136  See  the  rating  given  by  CIVICUS.  Ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed, 

obstructed, repressed and closed. 

137  Conference  of  INGOs  of  the  Council  of  Europe,  Civil  participation  in  the  decision-making  process,  Fact 

Finding Mission to Italy, May 2019.  

16 

 
                                                 
and  policies  impeding  NGOs  from  carrying  out  their  legitimate  work,  while  the  UN 
recommended  to  guarantee  the  rights  and  freedom  of  action  of  civil  society,  and  raised 
concerns on smear campaigns against NGOs active in the migration and asylum field.138  

138  United Nations Committee on the  Rights of the Child  Concluding observations on the  combined  fifth and 

sixth periodic reports of Italy (2019). 

17 

 
 
 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

 * The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2020 Rule of Law report 

can be found at (COM website). 

Anti-Corruption Authority (2019), ‘National Council’s verdict concerning ANAC’s authority on the 
matter  of  revolving  doors’  (<<Sentenza  del  Consiglio  di  Stato  sulle  competenze  dell’ANAC  in 
materia 
pantouflage>>). 
http://www.anticorruzione.it/portal/public/classic/Comunicazione/News/_news?id=1cf74b9f0a778
04237e6dc1369ece3ce. 

di 

Anti-Corruption  Authority  (2020),  Reporting  act  No.  6,  27  May  2020  on  revolving  doors  (Atto  di 
segnalazione  n.  6  del  27  maggio  2020  concernente  proposte  di  modifica  alla  disciplina  del 
pantouflage  di  cui  all'art.  53,  comma  16-ter,  del  decreto  legislativo  30  marzo  2001,  n.  165. 
https://www.anticorruzione.it/portal/rest/jcr/repository/collaboration/Digital%20Assets/anacdocs/
Attivita/Atti/attiDiSegnalazione/2020/AttoSegnalazione.n.6.2020.del.448.2020.pdf. 

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2020),  2020  Media  pluralism  monitor. 

https://cmpf.eui.eu/media-pluralism-monitor/mpm-2020.  

Chamber of Deputies, Activities of the Assembly: Bills approved by the Assembly.  

CIVICUS, Monitor tracking civic space: Italy. https://monitor.civicus.org/country/italy/.  

Constitutional Court (2020), Supplementary rules for judgments before the Constitutional Court. 

Constitutional Court, Ordonnance no.132/2020. 

Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists: Italy. 

https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom/italy.  

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2010),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2016),  Resolution  CM/ResDH(2016)358  of  the 

Committee of Ministers on length of proceedings in administrative cases. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2018),  Resolution  CM/ResDH(2018)353  of  the 

Committee of Ministers on length of proceedings in criminal cases. 

Council of Europe: Conference of the INGOs of the Council of Europe (2019), Civil participation in 

the decision-making process: fact finding visit to Italy.  

CEPEJ (2020), Study on the functioning of the judicial systems in the EU Member States: Italy.  

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2005), Opinion on the compatibility of the Laws “Gasparri” 
and “Frattini” of Italy with the Council of Europe standards in the field of freedom of expression 
and pluralism of the media adopted by the Venice Commission at its 63rd Plenary Session. 

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2010),  Report  on  European  Standards  as  regards  the 
Independence  of  the Judicial  System:  Part  II  -  the  Prosecution  Service  -  Adopted  by  the  Venice 
Commission - at its 85th plenary session. 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2017), Opinion on the act on the public prosecutor’s office 

[of Poland] as amended, Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 113th Plenary Session.  

Council  of  State  and  Bar  Associations  (2020),  Memorandum  of  understanding  on  remote  hearings. 
https://www.giustizia-amministrativa.it/documents/20142/1869446/PROTOCOLLO+INTESA+-
+UDIENZA+DA+REMOTO+EX+ART.+4+D.L.+28_2020_signed.pdf/d9a07203-3281-3b24-
49ed-54fecc6b64f7.   

Council  of  the  European  Union  (2013),  Council  Recommendation  of  9  July  2013  on  the  National 
Reform Programme 2013 of Italy and delivering a Council opinion on the Stability Programme of 
Italy.  

18 

 
Council  of  the  European  Union  (2014),  Council  Recommendation  of  8  July  2014  on  the  National 
Reform Programme 2014 of Italy and delivering a Council opinion on the Stability Programme of 
Italy.  

Council  of  the  European  Union  (2015),  Council  Recommendation  of  14  July  2015  on  the  2015 
National  Reform  Programme  of  Italy  and  delivering  a  Council  opinion  on  the  2015  Stability 
Programme of Italy. 

Council  of  the  European  Union  (2016),  Council  Recommendation  of  12  July  2016  on  the  2016 
National  Reform  Programme  of  Italy  and  delivering  a  Council  opinion  on  the  2016  Stability 
Programme of Italy. 

Council  of  the  European  Union  (2017),  Council  Recommendation  of  11  July  2017  on  the  2017 
National  Reform  Programme  of  Italy  and  delivering  a  Council  opinion  on  the  2017  Stability 
Programme of Italy. 

Council  of  the  European  Union  (2018),  Council  Recommendation  of  13  July  2018  on  the  2018 
National  Reform  Programme  of  Italy  and  delivering  a  Council  opinion  on  the  2018  Stability 
Programme of Italy.  

Council  of  the  European  Union  (2019),  Council  Recommendation  of  9  July  2019  on  the  2019 
National  Reform  Programme  of  Italy  and  delivering  a  Council  opinion  on  the  2019  Stability 
Programme of Italy. 

Court of Cassation (2019), Statistical yearbook of 2019.  

Court of Cassation (2020), Statistical yearbook of 2020.  

Court of Cassation, judgment of 19 September 2019, no. 38721.  

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2019),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  businesses’  attitudes 

towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. 

Directorate-General for  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion (2019),  Report on  measuring  the 

performance of public administrations (EUPACK).  

European Commission (2020), The EU justice scoreboard. 

European  Court  of  Human  Rights,  judgment  of  2  September  1997,  Abenavoli,  application  no. 

22461/93. 

European Court of Human rights, judgment of 12 May 1999, Ledonne, application no. 35742/97. 

European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 11 July 2002, application no. 28957/95. 

European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) (2019): Independence and Accountability of 
judges,  2019.  https://pgwrk-

the  Judiciary  –  ENCJ  Survey  on 
websitemedia.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/production/pwk-web-encj2017-
p/Reports/Data%20ENCJ%202019%20Survey%20on%20the%20Independence%20of%20judges.
pdf.  

independence  of 

the 

First President of the Court of Cassation (2020), Report on the state of justice in the year of 2019.  

Freedom of information Act (FOIA), 2019. 

GRECO  (2017),  Fourth  evaluation  round  –  evaluation  report  on  Italy  on  corruption  prevention  in 

respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors. 

GRECO  (2018),  Fourth  evaluation  round  –  compliance  report  on  Italy  on  corruption  prevention  in 

respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors. 

High Council for the Judiciary (2017, 2018), Guidelines for drafting procedural acts.  

19 

 
High  Council  for  the  Judiciary  (2019),  Resolution  on  asset  disclosure  obligations  for  ordinary 

magistrates. 
https://www.csm.it/documents/21768/87331/circolare+anagrafe+patrimoniale+%28delibera+13+n
ovembre+2019%29/546a7348-e1d2-3c87-c13e-4db105cae7a1.  

High Council for the Judiciary and National Forensic Council (2018), Memorandum of understanding 
regarding  preliminary  examination  of  appeals,  organisation  of  works,  clarity  and  conciseness  of 
acts in appeal proceedings.  

High  Court  of  Cassation,  General  Prosecutor’s  Office,  General’s  Office  at  the  High  Court  of 
Cassation  and  National  Bar  Association  (2020),  Memorandum  of  understanding  regarding 
digitalisation 
Cassation. 
http://www.cortedicassazione.it/cassazione-
resources/resources/cms/documents/protocollo_Cassazione_CNF_Procura_Generale-
con_firma_digitale.pdf.   

procedural 

Court 

acts 

the 

of 

of 

at 

Resolution  of  High  Council  for  the  Judiciary  (2020)  on  ItalgiureWeb  Archive  of  Merit  Decisions  - 

Operational indications of 19 June, 2019.  

National 

Anti-Corruption 

2019. 
(2020), 
http://www.anticorruzione.it/portal/public/classic/Attivitadocumentazione/Pubblicazioni/Relazione
Parlamento/_relazioni?id=ebd7f2f20a7780421a927869bf5987c8.  

Authority 

activity 

Annual 

report 

National  Council 

https://www.giustizia-
amministrativa.it/portale/pages/istituzionale/visualizza/?nodeRef=&schema=cds&nrg=201900038
&nomeFile=201907411_11.html&subDir=Provvedimenti.  

(2019),  Verdict 

29  October 

7411, 

2019. 

Observatory on Journalism. 

OECD,  Indicators  of  Regulatory  policy  and  governance.  http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-

policy/indicators-of-regulatory-policy-and-governance-2019-italy.pdf.  

Open Government Forum (2017), Guidelines for public consultation in Italy. http://open.gov.it/linee-

guida-sulla-consultazione-pubblica/.  

Openpolis 2019.  

Public  Administration  Characteristics  in  Italy,  2019,  The  Public  Administration  in  the  EU  27:  An 

insight in the characteristics, capacity and performance of EU Public Administrations, 2019. 

Regional  Ombudsman  for  Tuscany,  website  of 

the  Regional  Ombudsman  for  Tuscany. 

http://www.difensorecivicotoscana.it/default?nome=chi-e&idc=67.  

Resolution of the High Council for the Judiciary on the organisation of the Prosecutor’s Office of 16 
November  2017,  amended  on  18  June  2018  and  further  clarified  as  to  the  organisational 
programmes with resolution 4 December 2019.  

Resolution  of  the  High  Council  for  the  Judiciary  on  the  property  register  of  the  magistrates  of  13 

November 2019. 

 Resolution of the National Association of Magistrates of May 2018. 

Guidelines  of  the  High  Council  for  the  Judiciary  of  13  May  2020  for  local  level  judicial  council, 
including regarding transparency, and powers of enquiry related to professional appraisals, well as 
for promotions. 

Senate Act no. 1662. http://www.senato.it/leg/18/BGT/Schede/Ddliter/52664.html.  

Senate of the Republic (2018), Statistics of legislative activity.  

Spampinato (2020), Oxygen for information.  

Transparency International, Country profile: Italy. https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/italy.   

20 

 
UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2019), Concluding observations on the combined fifth and 

sixth periodic reports of Italy.  

UN  Convention  Against  Corruption 

Italy. 
https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/CountryVisitFinalReports/2019_11_22_Italy_
FinalCountry_Report.pdf.  

II  Review  Cycle  Country  Report  on 

UN 

Convention 

Against 

Corruption 

8th 

CoSP 

resolution 

n.10. 

https://www.unodc.org/UNCAC/COSP/session8/Advance_unedited_resolutions.  

UN Office on Drugs and Crime (2019), Country review report of Italy: Review by the United States 
of  America  and  Sierra  Leone  of  the  implementation  by  Italy  of  Chapter  II  (articles  5-14)  and 
Chapter  V  (articles  51-59)  of  the  United  Nations  Convention  against  Corruption  for  the  review 
cycle 2016-2021.  

UN  Office  of 

the  High  Commissioner  for  Human  Rights,  Mission  report  Italy  2019. 

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IT/ItalyMissionReport.pdf. 

Virtual country visit to Italy in the context of the 2020 Rule of Law Report. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Italy  

The Commission services held virtual meetings in June 2020 with: 

  Anti-Corruption Unit of the Financial Police  
  Association Article 21 
  Association Oxygen for the information 
  Association of European Journalist  
  Communications Regulatory Authority  
  Council of State 
  High Council for the Judiciary  
  High Court of Cassation 
  Ministry of Justice 
  National Anti-Corruption Authority  
  National Antimafia and Counter-Terrorism Directorate 
  National Association of journalists 
  National Federation of the Italian press 
  Office of the Prosecutor General at the High Court of Cassation 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

  Amnesty International 
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe 
  Conference of European Churches  
  EuroCommerce 
  European Center for Not-for-Profit Law  
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom 
  European Civic Forum  
  Free Press Unlimited 
  Front Line Defenders 
 
ILGA-Europe 
 
International Commission of Jurists 
 
International Federation for Human Rights  
 
International Press Institute  
  Lifelong learning Platform  
  Open Society Justice Initiative/Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Reporters without Borders  
  Transparency International EU  

22