Magi-Della Vedova clash: the fate of Più Europa ends up in court

Riccardo Magi, the secretary, wants Più Europa to join the broad coalition, but to do so on a separate list from Renzi’s Casa Riformista, which, in 2022, together with Calenda, played a memorable trick on him. Benedetto Della Vedova, the former secretary, is also convinced that aligning with Schlein and Conte is the right path. Unlike Magi, however, he believes that the best solution lies precisely in a single list with the leader of Italia Viva. Matteo Hallissey, the president, has yet another idea: he is convinced that Più Europa’s rightful place is within Calenda’s third-way project. In short, the clash is entirely political. And yet, as we know, when it comes to the Radicals, things get complicated. Especially if no one has a genuine majority to push through their own line. And so the political clash becomes a matter of quibbles, statutes and, by now, legal opinions entrusted to distinguished constitutional experts. Yesterday marked the latest chapter. Della Vedova and Hallissey envisage different paths forward, but agree on one point: Magi must be stopped. And so, after a months-long standoff, they managed to secure the convening of the party assembly. Not to pass a vote of no confidence in the secretary, but to table a motion to convene a new party congress. They now hold a majority in the assembly. And so the motion – following a gruelling meeting, not least due to the fierce filibustering by Magi’s supporters – was approved late in the evening with 52 votes in favour and 34 against. However, according to the secretary, the motion is illegitimate, as an extraordinary congress (held before the three-year term expires) can only be convened in the event of the secretary’s death or incapacity, or following the approval of a vote of no confidence – which requires a two-thirds majority that Della Vedova and Hallissey do not have. “It’s a motion of no confidence in the secretary but without the votes to remove him,” says Magi. For this reason, his loyal supporters have already prepared an appeal to seek a precautionary injunction to halt the congress. It is an urgent procedure – under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure – and Magi thus hopes to secure a ruling that will prevent the party from being paralysed just a few months before the elections. Meanwhile, Hallissey – who, according to the party constitution, is responsible for convening the congress – and Della Vedova have announced that the congress will take place on 4, 5 and 6 December. Della Vedova argues: “Più Europa has been at a standstill since the secretary lost his majority in the party’s governing bodies. We cannot stand in the elections like this. That is why the majority is simply calling for a party congress to be held to decide on the political line ahead of the vote, so that we can get back on track with renewed vigour. It seems to me a preferable option to endless disputes and court cases, doesn’t it?”. Not for Magi and his allies. And so it will probably be up to the judges to decide on the legitimacy – or otherwise – of this congress, and thus on the fate of Più Europa. In the meantime, the party—which polls suggest is worth over 1.4 per cent—remains at a standstill.

But who is right? Both Magi and Della Vedova have in their possession two legal opinions, drawn up by two eminent constitutional lawyers. The secretary’s opinion is signed by Andrea Pertici, professor of constitutional law at the University of Pisa, who is also very much favoured by Schlein (she envisaged him as a constitutional court judge) and, perhaps not coincidentally, a sworn enemy of Renzi. Pertici argues that “it is only in the event of one of the circumstances that lead to the secretary’s removal from office that an extraordinary party congress may be convened”. Della Vedova, on the other hand, has relied on Giovanni Guzzetta, professor of constitutional law at Tor Vergata. In a lengthy legal opinion, the professor maintains that a “systemic” reading of the text suggests the opposite: an early party congress is permissible. Furthermore, Guzzetta believes that requiring a two-thirds majority to call for a congress would undermine the democratic principle and, therefore, the Constitution. Finally, there is the established practice. Guzzetta points out that, in the past, at least one party congress (that of 2023) took place several months before its due date. In short, the early congress is legitimate. The Guarantee Board, the party body tasked with resolving such disputes, shares this view. However, its independence is contested by Magi’s loyalists. Of its three members, one is Giulio Mattioli, who stood as a candidate for Salvini’s Lega in the 2019 local elections and is part of the Lega group’s staff in the Emilia-Romagna Regional Council. None of these roles were declared. The other name under scrutiny is that of Valentina Fusco. In this case, the alleged issue is a matter of the heart: Fusco is due to marry Fabio Signoretta, one of the promoters of the motion in favour of the congress.