*sta volta se pol = “This time we can do it” in Triestin
THE HEARING CONCERNING THE NEW EXCEPTION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO MAY 7th
Another postponement for the exception of lack of jurisdiction in the Court of Trieste. This time, the hearing was the very awaited one of April 9th, in front of justice Piero Leanza. Because he is the same justice that, right on March 19th, had expressed himself about the sensitive matter concerning the validity of the Memorandum of Understanding of London of October 5th, 1954 and, consequently, about the nonexistence of Italian sovereignty over Zone A of the Free Territory of Trieste at least until 1977, meaning until the ratification of the Treaty of Osimo.
This time, the postponement of the hearing – decided by justice Leanza – is completely justifiable. Two days before the hearing, the prosecuted parts (I myself and Paolo G. Parovel, director of the newspaper “La Voce di Trieste”) had registered a relevant integration to the already risen exception of lack of jurisdiction, focusing that on the analysis of the ordinance of March 19th concerning the question of the Free Territory of Trieste.
With this act, the appellants, as citizens of the Free Territory, have contested the interpretation, provided by the justice, concerning the value of the Treaty of Osimo as for the regaining of Italian sovereignty over Zone A of the Free Territory of Trieste. And they did it annexing to to the integration several present-day documents, still in force in international diplomacy and proofing the exact contrary. Meaning that, as for Trieste and its International Port, nothing has changed since September 15th, 1947, as their status is acknowledged by Resolution XVI of the United Nations Security Council. And, among these documents, there even is the official position of the U.S. Department of State.
A very serious exception, considering its juridical contents: something too complex to be nonce evaluated right in the courtroom by the investigating magistrate.
This is why the postponement of the hearing was disposed. Also, despite the ungrounded request for a rejection “on sight” performed by the Public Prosecutor (Pubblico Ministero), for the first time, an Italian justice opposed. And he did also suggest to the Public Prosecutor himself to carefully read this acute integration before the next hearing.
This is a procedure which reminds Anglo-Saxon justice, as foreign justices do often recommend the parts to carefully evaluate their position taking into account the relevance of new evidences.