"It was not up to the Regional Electoral Guarantee Board to impose the removal of the President of the Region, based on circumstances not attributable to those indicated in Article 15, paragraphs 8 and 9, of Law No. 515 of 1993, which as such did not even justify the communication of the measure to the President of the Regional Council."
The Constitutional Court has ruled: Alessandra Todde remains president of the Region. The order of dismissal could not be issued "because the act exceeded the powers assigned to the state supervisory body and impaired the constitutionally guaranteed powers of the Autonomous Region of Sardinia."
The ruling filed today continues: "The question regarding the possibility of reclassifying the facts remains unanswered , and is referred to the civil court, which has jurisdiction to challenge the injunction." The fine imposed on the governor, however, remains in effect.
The Constitutional Court, according to its ruling on the appeal for conflict of powers, has established that "it was not up to the State , and, on its behalf, the Regional Electoral Guarantee Board established at the Court of Appeal of Cagliari, to state, in the grounds for the injunction order of December 20, 2024, that 'the elected candidate's removal from office is required' and, consequently, to order 'the transmission of this order/injunction to the President of the Regional Council for the purposes of his jurisdiction regarding the adoption of the measure removing Alessandra Todde from the office of President of the Region'."
It happened like this: finding irregularities in the reporting of the president's campaign expenses, the Regional Guarantee Board established at the Court of Appeal of the Court of Cagliari issued an order last December ordering the Regional Council (and therefore the Election Committee, the assembly's internal body) to remove the president from office. With her, the entire Regional Council would have fallen. And for this reason, the appeal was filed with the Constitutional Court: the Region argued that a state power would have affected a legislative assembly protected by the Statute.
Paradoxically, the verdict rejects this reconstruction—and declares the appeal inadmissible—but saves the regional president. In other words, the Court of Guarantee could have ruled, but it erred.
The Constitutional Court writes that "the injunction decree deemed it appropriate to identify a case of forfeiture, imposing it as a constraint on the Regional Council, in the following cases—allegedly committed by the president-elect—of violations of the provisions of Law No. 515 of 1993 (the national law to which the regional law refers): failure to appoint an "electoral agent" responsible for raising campaign funds (Article 7, paragraph 3, of Law No. 515 of 1993); failure to open a single current account dedicated to all financial transactions relating to the election campaign (Article 7, paragraph 4, of Law No. 515 of 1993); failure to submit a declaration of expenses incurred, with related financial statement, characterized by several non-conformities."
However, the ruling continues, "none of the serious violations found are specifically identified (...) as grounds for forfeiture. The explicit grounds for forfeiture are different and are found in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the aforementioned Article 15, which refer to the failure to file the expense declaration within the required timeframe "despite the formal notice to comply" (paragraph 8) and to the "exceeding of the maximum permitted spending limits [...] by an amount equal to or greater than double" (paragraph 9)." And "ineligibility and the resulting forfeiture effect are limited to the "cases expressly provided for in this Article." And there is no escape from these circumstances.
And, according to the Court, the argument that the Guarantee Panel "actually intended to challenge the more serious case of 'failure to file the declaration within the required timeframe,' which paragraph 8, as we have seen, raises to an explicit ground for forfeiture. This reconstructive hypothesis," and here lies the crux, "is precluded by the unequivocal wording of the reasoning for the decision, in which the supervisory body clarified (page 5 of the order) 'that it was not at all contested […] the failure to file the declaration of expenditure and financial statement,' but rather that it had contested 'the anomaly resulting from the non-compliance of the declaration of expenditure and financial statement submitted by you,' given that the Panel had the opportunity to examine 'the declaration of expenditure and financial statement filed with the relevant documentation.'"
Late in the morning, the person directly involved commented: "They tried to delegitimize us," she wrote, "now let's move forward with our heads held high for Sardinia."
www.unionesarda.it/politica/decadenza-annullata-todde-ci-hanno-provato-ora-avanti-a-testa-alta-xascz7ns
Enrico Fresu
