Sanctioned by the CSM, dismissed for “lack of impartiality” but still on the job: the story of Public Prosecutor De Tommasi

Sanctioned by the High Council of the Judiciary for “seriously improper conduct” towards a female colleague. Denied promotion on the grounds of “failing to meet the prerequisite of impartiality”. Yet he remains in post, presiding over highly sensitive trials. This is the incredible situation involving Milan public prosecutor Francesco De Tommasi, whose past actions we have previously reported on. The latest development came just a few days ago: the magistrate was censured by the CSM for having “breached his duties of fairness and diligence” towards a female colleague at the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office. But this is merely the latest blow to the credibility of the public prosecutor, who is currently leading the ‘Equalize’ trial concerning unauthorised access.

De Tommasi handled the case against Alessia Pifferi, who was convicted of leaving her two-year-old daughter at home to die of starvation. During the first-instance trial, De Tommasi launched a parallel investigation into lawyer Alessia Pontenani (Pifferi’s legal representative), a psychiatrist and four psychologists working at San Vittore prison, accusing them of aiding and abetting and forgery. De Tommasi even requested and obtained authorisation for telephone wiretaps without the knowledge of his fellow public prosecutor, Rosaria Stagnaro, with whom he was conducting the Pifferi trial; as soon as she became aware of the facts, she withdrew from the case. At the end of the first-instance trial, Pifferi was sentenced to life imprisonment (a sentence later reduced to 24 years on appeal and finally upheld by the Court of Cassation). The parallel trial, however, collapsed spectacularly: the preliminary hearing judge in Milan, Roberto Crepaldi, acquitted Pontenani and all the other defendants.

However, another move by De Tommasi had, in the meantime, disrupted the normal course of the trial against Pifferi. Following the decision by the Milan Court of Assizes of Appeal to order a psychiatric assessment of Pifferi – a move opposed by De Tommasi at first instance – De Tommasi himself proposed to Advocate General Lucilla Tontodonati – who was tasked with representing the prosecution on appeal – that she use the wiretaps he had gathered months earlier during the parallel investigation into the prison psychologists. Tontodonati declined the proposal, but at that point De Tommasi included the wiretaps in his first-instance case file anyway, informing the parties of the possibility of using them in the appeal proceedings. In this way, as the Disciplinary Section of the High Council of the Judiciary (CSM) ruled in recent days, De Tommasi, acting “against Tontodonati’s express objection”, engaged in “seriously improper conduct towards” the Advocate General, both “due to the evasive manner in which he disregarded her opposition and due to the consequent violation of her autonomy in the conduct of the hearing”.

To complete the picture, it should be noted that in November 2025, the Judicial Council at the Milan Court of Appeal issued a negative opinion on the recognition of De Tommasi’s fifth professional assessment, finding a “failure to meet the prerequisite of balance”. In particular, the Judicial Council, referring to the parallel investigation opened by De Tommasi into the Pifferi case, emphasised that “the repeated irregularities in the assignment and subsequent handling of a sensitive criminal case of clear media significance, as well as the protracted, negligent and unjustified lack of information and coordination with the colleague jointly assigned to an equally significant related case, have indicated an excess of personalism and a corresponding significant lack of a sense of proportion in a very delicate area of the exercise of her duties, with significant repercussions for the credibility of the prosecution’s case and, potentially, for the impartiality of the judge’s assessment”.

None of this had any impact on De Tommasi, who continued to carry out his work undisturbed, leading the ‘Equalize’ investigation into the alleged unauthorised access to confidential databases, and turning it into a major trial. The prosecutor has, in fact, theorised that the clients of the private investigation agency were aware of the unauthorised access. The result: a request for committal for trial involving as many as 74 defendants and the identification of 832 aggrieved parties. A mammoth trial that is unlikely ever to come to an end.