Forfeiture, here is the appeal: the objections of Todde's lawyers, the legal battle begins
Suspension of sanctions also requested: the legislature at risk. Yesterday, meanwhile, a small summit between the president and the PD
Per restare aggiornato entra nel nostro canale Whatsapp
The first response from the ordinary court should not be long in coming. Attached to the appeal filed yesterday afternoon by Alessandra Todde's lawyers, there is also the request for suspension of the effects of the injunction order that determines a fine of 40 thousand euros against the President of the Region and asks the Regional Council to adopt the measure of forfeiture of the governor herself for irregularities in the reporting of electoral expenses.
The opposition to the order of the Electoral Guarantee Board at the Court of Appeal of Cagliari, chaired by Gemma Cucca, is signed by Stefano and Benedetto Ballero, Giuseppe Macciotta and Priamo Siotto. Todde's Sardinian lawyers had until February 3 to file, and yesterday they did so electronically, but in the next six days they could also ask to integrate the over thirty pages written at the end of a heated debate, lasting almost a month, also with the Roman lawyers of the M5S and with the political leaders of Campo largo themselves.
What's new
The appellants' reasons were only partly known. On the one hand, the underlying thesis that the lawyers had already revealed in recent days is explained. That is, that "both of the cases strictly provided for by law cannot be configured as a possible cause for forfeiture". In fact, they argue, "the same Panel expressly excluded the first hypothesis of forfeiture, recognizing that there had been no failure to submit the financial statement".
Secondly, the Court also stated that "the distinct hypothesis of exceeding the maximum expenditure limit, deemed inapplicable to the President of the Region, could not be considered to exist".
Nor, «can paragraph 7 of article 15 of law 515/93 configure a further generic and non-exhaustive cause for forfeiture, as, with an inadmissible interpretation, the panel has hypothesized by adding marginal formal violations, none of which entails forfeiture».
Beyond this, the appeal would contain another element. The injunction order, the lawyers argue, also includes disputes on which the Panel has never previously requested clarifications.
Roberto Murgia/Francesco Pinna
