The parliamentary majority approved the reform of the Court of Auditors, receiving the green light from the Senate at the end of a process that lasted approximately two years. The government expressed satisfaction with the result, firmly rejecting the opposition’s accusations, which speak of an intervention aimed at limiting the control capacity of the accounting judiciary. The undersecretary to the Presidency of the Council, Alfredo Mantovano, underlined how the provision is the result of a long parliamentary discussion and numerous hearings held in the Senate, where the text arrived last March. A dialogue which, according to the executive representative, led to the modification of various rules compared to the original approach.
The criticisms of the opposition and the case of the Strait Bridge
During the debate in the Chamber, the Democratic Party, the 5 Star Movement and the Green and Left Alliance harshly attacked the reform, defining it as a limitation of the supervisory role of the Court of Auditors. Some opposition figures described it as “the executive’s revenge against the judges” who had declared the procedure for the construction of the Bridge over the Strait of Messina illegitimate. An interpretation that Mantovano defined as a “force”, recalling how the ruling of the accounting judiciary on the Bridge only occurred just over a month ago, while the reform had been under discussion for much longer. “There is no revenge,” he assured, reiterating the linearity of the parliamentary process.
Revenue liability: the most contested issues
Among the points most criticized by the opposition are the rules which, according to the dem group leader Francesco Boccia, «drastically reduce liability for gross negligence, introduce real preventive safe conducts and even limit compensation for damage». The government responds by arguing that there is no coverage for malicious behavior. “Whoever commits acts with intent that have accounting significance is 100% liable,” Mantovano clarified. The case of negligence is different, for which the reform provides for a sentence of up to two years of remuneration for the public employee. “Remaining without pay for two years is not a light thing,” he added, speaking of a “reasonable” choice compared to theoretically high sanctions but often destined to never come to fruition.
The 5 Star Movement and the issue of impunity
For the 5 Star Movement, the reform is part of a broader plan. “Impunity is the common thread that links the majority’s provisions”, is the accusation leveled at the executive, held responsible for a progressive weakening of the control measures over the management of public resources. The government, however, reiterates its willingness to discuss, even in the phase following the approval of the law, which provides for a delegation to reorganize and rationalize the functions of the Court of Auditors.
Delegation to the government and openness to dialogue
The approved reform in fact contains a delegation to the executive for the overall reorganization of the accounting judiciary. Mantovano assured that we will proceed in a “reasonable” manner, confirming “the maximum availability for discussion” with the magistrates, as already occurred during the parliamentary process. The declared objective is to arrive at an overall structure that is “certainly more effective”.
The tough stance of the accounting magistrates
The reaction of the Magistrates’ Association of the Court of Auditors is completely different, speaking of “a dark page for all citizens”. According to the magistrates, the reform marks “a step backwards in the protection of public budgets” and significantly weakens the principle of responsibility in the management of taxpayers’ money. In particular, the association highlights that, in the event of serious negligence, the damage to public finances will only be compensable up to 30% of the ascertained damage, leaving the remainder to be borne by the community.
Fears about legality and good performance of public administration
Further concerns concern the introduction of automatic exemption mechanisms from liability, linked to the silence of the Court of Auditors during the audit or opinion. According to the magistrates, the absence of an explicit ruling risks turning into an automatic justification, distorting the guarantee role of the accounting judiciary. The reform, concludes the Association, negatively affects the constitutional principles of legality, responsibility and good performance of the administration. «Greater efficiency is not achieved by reducing the role of the accounting judiciary, but by enhancing independent and impartial oversight to protect the correct use of public resources», is the final warning.
The contents of the reform:
IMPERIAL DAMAGES: can be requested not only for acts committed maliciously by the public official, but also in the case of gross negligence, which however is defined restrictively: there must be “the manifest violation of the applicable rules of law”, or “the misrepresentation of the fact”, or “the affirmation or denial of a fact whose existence is incontrovertibly excluded from the documents”. Gross negligence no longer includes acts carried out with grave negligence.
DISCOUNT: In the event of a conviction for compensation for tax damages, the amount will not exceed 30% of the ascertained prejudice and, in any case, not more than double the gross annual salary of the convicted public official.
SUSPENSION: “in the most serious cases” of establishing administrative responsibility, the accounting judge can order the suspended official from the management of public resources for a period between six months and three years.
INSURANCE: obligation of insurance coverage for anyone who takes on a role that involves the management of public resources.
GOOD FAITH: For acts falling within the competence of the technical offices, responsibility does not extend to political bodies (mayor, councillors), whose “good faith” is presumed, unless the contrary is demonstrated.
SILENT AGREEMENT: all “above threshold” contracts (amount exceeding the EU relevance threshold) are subjected to preventive legitimacy checks; for contracts related to the implementation of the PNRR, the control also concerns the provisional award. If the Court does not respond within 30 days (extendable to 90), the deed is considered registered for all purposes, excluding tax liability.
CONSULTATIVE POWERS: The central and peripheral administrations can also ask the Court for an opinion on legal issues concerning concrete cases connected to the PNRR, of a value of not less than one million euros; once the opinion has been received, serious negligence is excluded.
REORGANIZATION OF THE COURT OF AUDITORS: the Government is delegated to adopt within 12 months one or more legislative decrees for the reorganization and reorganization of the functions of the Court of Auditors.