New tile on the San Marino court which is contested by steps that are not exactly linear and a questionable management of internal administrative appeals, amidst heavy doubts of lack of impartiality due to missed abstentions, undetected friendships that would have undermined a fair trial and violated fundamental rights
From San Marino information (by Antonio Fabbri) – Three separate appeals taken over by Strasbourg were published on Monday on the website of the European Court of Human Rights. They are three weighty appeals because they bring to light, just by having been taken over by the Court, the need to bring to light a supposed questionable management of the court, of careers within it, tainted by conflicts of interest, lack of abstentions, superficial decisions. Situations brought to the attention of the ECHR which give rise to serious doubts about an internal administration of the court which, if the applications were to find confirmation in as many decisions of the Court, would be aimed more at maintaining a chain of command than at seeking fair, impartial justice, without conflicts of interest, disconnected from judicial and legal currents, truly independent from political power.
In truth, the demonstration that more than one thing has not worked and is not working, especially with regard to respect for fundamental rights, has already been attested, for example, by Simoncini ruling in Februarywhich condemned the State to compensation for damages of 160 thousand euros.
The three new cases, in a nutshell, bring to light a series of problems that are causing justice to spiral out of control: concentration of powers, opaque management of incompatibilities and a judicial policy that struggles to separate controllers and controlled ones.
The appeals concern three Commissioner auditors who were bypassed in the appointments as Law Commissioner by those who arrived later and who, for this reason, filed an administrative appeal.
The conduct and judgment on such cases is therefore sub judice before the European Court of Human Rights.
Impartiality questioned and evidence rejected
The first appeal published by the ECHR on 4 May is the one presented by the Commissioner Auditor Aurora Filippi and starts from the 2023 recruitment procedure in which two other Auditors (Simoncini and Albani) also participated without a positive outcome. The Court reconstructs by recalling the appeal: “the winning candidate, following the recommendation of the Court Director and the consequent decision of the Judicial Council in charge of the procedure, was the then auditor (and now Law Commissioner, ed.), Elia Zaghini”. Towards this recruitment procedure, which among other things had seen auditors with more seniority in service bypassed, the appellant had activated the administrative tribunal, but her requests were rejected at first instance by the Law Commissioner Francesco Santoni and on appeal by Judge Valeria Pierfelici, in October 2025. And it is in the administrative proceedings that the appellant raised the critical issues. “During the first instance proceedings – reconstructs the ECHR – the appellant had unsuccessfully asked Commissioner Santoni to abstain (by virtue of his friendship with Zaghini). She raised the issue again on appeal, pointing out that a request for recusal for the same reason, presented by another candidate, had already been rejected before the Judge for Extraordinary Remedies. The Judge of Appeal rejected her request, noting that the Judge for Extraordinary Remedies had already deemed it unfounded in merit and, at the same time, noting that the appellant could not raise the issue on appeal, having not raised it before the judge for extraordinary remedies. During the appeal proceedings, the appellant also unsuccessfully requested the recusal of Judge Pierfelici, for favoritism towards Zaghini (who had been Pierfelici’s assistant for several years; who had been publicly praised by Pierfelici for a contribution to the publication of a book of which Pierfelici was the author; and with whom she had close relationships both in the office and outside of it), as well as for his enmity towards the appellant (deriving from a situation in 2018 following which the appellant believed she had been subjected to unfavorable treatment). However, with a ruling of 23 July 2025, the Judge for Extraordinary Remedies considered that the points cited did not prove friendship or enmity”. However, he did not even want to receive the evidence requested by the appellant and “the appellant’s request to present certain evidence and to hear witnesses was deemed irrelevant”.
The ECHR article referred to
From the reconstruction we understand, in addition to the already questionable methods of overriding in recruitment, how the problem to be resolved regarding the possible violation of fundamental principles is twofold.
The first: the lack of impartiality of the judges involved in the administrative procedure, with the personal and professional ties between the judging magistrates and the successful candidate of the recruitment. For the ECHR, it is not enough to be impartial, you must also appear to be impartial, and here both dimensions would seem to be compromised. The alleged links have never really been explored in depth on an evidentiary level.
And this is the second issue, before the Judge for extraordinary remedies: the refusal to listen to witnesses and acquire evidence appears as a defensive closure of a path that is not exactly linear.
In essence, therefore, the article of the European Convention on Human Rights referred to for potential violations is Article 6 where it refers to the impartiality of the trial on the one hand and the right to a fair trial on the other, which also takes the form of the possibility of producing evidence and having relevant witnesses examined.
Impartiality in doubt
and rejected trials
The first appeal published by the ECHR on 4 May is the one presented by the Commissioner Auditor Aurora Filippi and starts from the 2023 recruitment procedure in which two other Auditors (Simoncini and Albani) also participated without a positive outcome. The Court reconstructs by recalling the appeal: “the winning candidate, following the recommendation of the Court Director and the consequent decision of the Judicial Council in charge of the procedure, was the then auditor (and now Law Commissioner, ed.), Elia Zaghini”. Towards this recruitment procedure, which among other things had seen auditors with more seniority in service bypassed, the appellant had activated the administrative tribunal, but her requests were rejected at first instance by the Law Commissioner Francesco Santoni and on appeal by Judge Valeria Pierfelici, in October 2025. And it is in the administrative proceedings that the appellant raised the critical issues. “During the first instance proceedings – reconstructs the ECHR – the appellant had unsuccessfully asked Commissioner Santoni to abstain (by virtue of his friendship with Zaghini). She raised the issue again on appeal, pointing out that a request for recusal for the same reason, presented by another candidate, had already been rejected before the Judge for Extraordinary Remedies. The Judge of Appeal rejected her request, noting that the Judge for Extraordinary Remedies had already deemed it unfounded in merit and, at the same time, noting that the appellant could not raise the issue on appeal, having not raised it before the judge for extraordinary remedies. During the appeal proceedings, the appellant also unsuccessfully requested the recusal of Judge Pierfelici, for favoritism towards Zaghini (who had been Pierfelici’s assistant for several years; who had been publicly praised by Pierfelici for a contribution to the publication of a book of which Pierfelici was the author; and with whom she had close relationships both in the office and outside of it), as well as for his enmity towards the appellant (deriving from a situation in 2018 following which the appellant believed she had been subjected to unfavorable treatment). However, with a ruling of 23 July 2025, the Judge for Extraordinary Remedies found that the points cited did not prove friendship or enmity”. However, he did not even want to receive the evidence requested by the appellant and “the appellant’s request to present certain evidence and to hear witnesses was deemed irrelevant”.
The ECHR article referred to
From the reconstruction we understand, in addition to the already questionable methods of overriding in recruitment, how the problem to be resolved regarding the possible violation of fundamental principles is twofold.
The first: the lack of impartiality of the judges involved in the administrative procedure, with the personal and professional ties between the judging magistrates and the successful candidate of the recruitment. For the ECHR, it is not enough to be impartial, you must also appear to be impartial, and here both dimensions would seem to be compromised. The alleged links have never really been explored in depth on an evidentiary level.
And this is the second issue, before the Judge for extraordinary remedies: the refusal to listen to witnesses and acquire evidence appears as a defensive closure of a path that is not exactly linear.
In essence, therefore, the article of the European Convention on Human Rights referred to for potential violations is Article 6 where it refers to the impartiality of the trial on the one hand and the right to a fair trial on the other, which also takes the form of the possibility of producing evidence and having relevant witnesses examined.
There is more because “based on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains that her case was not decided by an independent and impartial tribunal, given that administrative courts are subject to disciplinary actions by the Judicial Council (party to the dispute) and to the control of the Director of the Court (party interested in the outcome of the proceedings)” we read in the Court’s report
Questions to the parties
At this point the Court formulates a series of questions (about ten) to the parties which can be summarized in a couple of main ones: “Were the administrative courts that dealt with the applicant’s case independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?” And again: “Were the conclusions of the administrative tribunals arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable? And did the administrative tribunals fail to respect the principle of fairness enshrined in Article 6, in particular, was the applicant allowed to produce relevant documentary or testimonial evidence? And did this rejection contain adequate reasons?” Questions which in light of the facts described would seem rather rhetorical, but we will see what the ECHR decides, which is also examining the other two appeals, again linked to recruitment, which will be discussed in detail tomorrow.
(Reposted in full after 11pm)
