The use of legal and administrative procedures as tools for persecution has raised concerns about the financing of such actions. According to a recent article, the duration, frequency, burdens, repetition, and cumulative effects of a procedure can contribute to assessing its actual function and purpose. This has sparked discussions about the legitimacy of certain procedures and the impact on individuals, particularly those from marginalized communities. The issue has been highlighted in the case of Youssef Siher, an Italian citizen of Moroccan origin, who faced detention and pretrial imprisonment requests from Chief Prosecutor Marcello Viola and Public Prosecutor Francesca Crupi.
The Public Prosecutor's Office at the Court of Milan rejected the requests for validation of detention and pretrial detention in prison for Youssef Siher on October 28, 2026. This case has raised questions about the use of public institutions for persecution and the need for accountability. The literature has documented various forms of abuse, including bureaucratic harassment, foot-dragging, and legal systems abuse. These phenomena can have severe consequences for individuals, affecting their daily lives, work, and overall well-being. The issue is not limited to individual acts but also concerns the function that procedures actually perform.
Institutions exist to pursue public purposes, such as ensuring justice and performing functions in the common interest. However, the initiation or continuation of a procedure based on false, unfounded, or pretextual grounds may mean using a public function to persecute someone or pursue an unrelated purpose. The European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour establishes that powers must be exercised exclusively for the purposes for which they have been conferred. This implies that the fact that a procedure appears formally regular is not sufficient to rule out abuse. The actions of Chief Prosecutor Marcello Viola and Public Prosecutor Francesca Crupi within the proceedings against Youssef Siher should be examined not only for formal regularity but also for the purposes actually pursued.
Bureaucratic harassment has been defined as the intentional manipulation of legitimate administrative policies and procedures by people who hold institutional power over others, with the aim of harming them. A study by Stephanie Bonnes shows how ordinary administrative procedures can become instruments of harassment. The OECD has identified indicators useful for identifying corruption, including time spent interacting with public officials and disproportionately long timeframes. These indicators can also be linked to bureaucratic harassment and foot-dragging aimed at soliciting bribes or engaging in extortion.
The distribution of responsibility can make it difficult to identify who devised, coordinated, or knowingly contributed to a particular abuse. Even people who are unaware of it can, through a single legitimate act, become part of the mechanism that makes the abuse possible. In an interconnected European administrative and judicial system, a procedure initiated in one State may require cooperation from officials in other States. This can lead to a fragmentation of responsibility, making it challenging to hold individuals accountable.
The process itself can be the intended outcome, as highlighted by Malcolm Feeley's 1979 study on lower-level criminal courts in the United States. Court appearances, waiting, loss of time and income, practical difficulties, and other costs can burden a person before and independently of the final decision. When a procedure occupies years of a person's life, uncertainty can extend to the decisions that must be made in the meantime. This can have significant consequences, depending on age, circumstances, physical and psychological conditions, and available resources.
The issue of financing legal and administrative persecution is complex and multifaceted. It requires a comprehensive approach to address the root causes of abuse and ensure accountability. The case of Youssef Siher and the discussion around bureaucratic harassment and foot-dragging highlight the need for greater transparency and oversight in the use of public institutions. Ultimately, it is essential to ensure that procedures are used for their intended purposes and that individuals are protected from abuse.
Key points
- The use of legal and administrative procedures as tools for persecution has severe consequences for individuals and society.
- The financing of such actions raises questions about accountability and the need for transparency in the use of public institutions.
- The issue requires a comprehensive approach to address the root causes of abuse and ensure that procedures are used for their intended purposes.
