To answer we need to resort to what we would define the paradigm of the "reactive" dynamic towards change. The answer, unfortunately, is as obvious as it is disarming. Simply, telematic payments have not yet been made mandatory. And you know, when change is not supported by "obligations", regulatory in this case, it is not always accepted. We are, by definition, a resilient people but we need stimuli to change our habits.
For this, in the last 12 months, they have only been carried out 54.518 telematic payments of justice expenses. Too few indeed! Such a negligible number denotes a lack of understanding of the enormous potential of an instrument which is widely used in other sectors and in other countries. It is unlikely that the Ministry of Justice is not fully aware of this. The principle of the need for obligation has undeniable evidence. Let's start from the news of these days and in particular from the news of the scam perpetrated against the State - and citizens - through the counterfeiting of revenue stamps, sold within the Courts and in other judicial offices in Rome.
Many law firms in the courts of the capital and Naples were defrauded, with damages of millions of euros to the treasury. Situations like these highlight a huge gap between established practices and current innovations. It is a story that repeats itself…Our legislators cannot continue to underestimate this type of scam and stall any longer on a law that would primarily serve the interest of the state itself. Moreover, the State itself would save as much as 2,6% of the premium paid to tobacconists. Speaking of spending reviews! “While the technological systems – he says Dino Crivellari, CEO of UCCMB – unfortunately also accessible to the underworld, they advance at a constant pace, also allowing the creation of almost perfect products, such as these revenue stamps, the behavior habits of a certain more “conservative” class remain the same as those of a century ago. This is the terrain, made muddy by the interests of a few, on which the underworld moves easily to the detriment of the state and institutions, such as ours, which for years have supported legality, the world of justice and innovation as a tool for keep pace with the times. Here, then, who agrees that telematic payments do not take off and that things remain unchanged, to the detriment of the community."
The obligation is only the last step, necessary and can no longer be postponed. The tools to counter these kinds of problems have already been created, are available and work very well. The same reluctance to change also characterized the launch of the Telematic Civil Process. Enormous were the barriers raised against sending documents in digital format, the methods of filing, signing, etc. Objections of all kinds were raised, and not always technical. But the obligation was imposed and the results, one year later, speak for themselves. “Years have passed since the Ministry of Justice selected a niche of technical partners – and UniCredit Credit Management Bank was the only bank among them – to create, from scratch, the Telematic Payment node for justice expenses. – continues Dino Crivellari – Those were times of studies and proposals, of experiments and also of successes. The Electronic Payment System today, in fact, has the highest standards of efficiency and maximum security. Moreover, proceeding electronically is much more convenient and faster than the normal payment process, which costs more time and unnecessary queues even just for purchases at tobacconists: lawyers can pay the costs of justice and royalties directly from their offices, by connecting to the Telematic Services Portal of the Ministry of Justice or to an authorized Access Point (PdA).”
Imposing the electronic payment of expenses and fees means tracing the transactions, reduce times, make the Justice machine more efficient and above all, it means making the whole process more transparent and safer. For these reasons, for a broader sense of perspective, imposing the obligatory telematic payment of court costs is extremely urgent. Regulatory intervention to regulate the use of electronic tools for the settlement of justice charges will be able to make our country overcome this burning delay which has exclusively cultural origins.
