Case Study #2: Election Law - Politician Conflict of Interest
Case
In June 2006, the committee for the election of a candidate to the Rome Consiglio Comunale (council of advisors to
the mayor) contacted the law offices of Alessandro Canali. The candidate was first on the list of the non-elected
candidates from the Forza Italia party in the Rome city elections for council of city advisors. Suspecting foul play in
the general election, but without a way to formally appeal the outcome, the committee was interested in undertaking
legal action to place their candidate on the city council of advisors.
Strategy
The first of the non-elected candidates of a particular party is entitled to take the place of an elected candidate,
should the elected candidate be unable to serve or found unqualified to serve. Upon in-depth inspection of the
administrative and electoral laws, it was found that Article 70 L. 267/2000, designed to avoid conflict of interest in
the public administration, cited the same policy.
At this point the strategy was undertaken to investigate whether any of the elected candidates was in conflict of
interest with regards to the public administration laws of the City of Rome. This examination revealed that one of
the elected candidates was director of a company that operated in the building of a financial assistance firm (Caaf)
that, among its paid services, issued the ISEE accounting certificates necessary for obtaining fiscal benefits from the
City of Rome.
A lawsuit was filed against this particular elected advisor, sustaining that this advisor was in fact the owner of the
financial assistance firm, and that the services offered by this firm were clearly in conflict of interest with the role of
“consigliere comunale” (city advisor).
Since this was a case without any precedents in the Italian legal system, the basis of the action was formed through
a series of logical, deductive and law-based arguments, utilizing a strict interpretation of the laws designed to
protect citizens from elected politicians with conflict of interest issues (whether direct, indirect, or potential).
Solution
With a November 2006 judgement, the Court of Rome rejected the case brought by Mr. Canali on behalf of the
electoral committee. The Court ruled that this particular case wasn’t a conflict of interest case, since the service of
issuing the accounting certificates was performed by Caaf and not by the company owned by the advisor. The
election committee then gave Mr. Canali’s office the mandate to proceed with an appeal.
In January 2007, the Rome Court of Appeals annulled the previous sentence and ruled in favor of Mr. Canali's client,
issuing a judgement that the advisor was in conflict of interest and therefore was to be removed from his position,
and the candidate, Mr. Canali’s client, would take his place. The Court of Appeals accepted in full the arguments
presented by Mr. Canali’s law firm, judging that there was a potential conflict of interest in that the advisor in
question was director of the company that indirectly worked with Caaf.
At that point the advisor’s legal team filed an appeal with the Italian Supreme Court. In May 2007, the Supreme
Court rejected the appeal and confirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, which definitively gave to the candidate
Mr Quarzo the position on the council of advisors and the title Onorevole (Honorable).
|
|
