Revista da EMERJ - V. 21 - N. 2 - Maio/Agosto - 2019

19  R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 21, n. 2, p. 11-39, Maio-Agosto, 2019  more than one text of decision per day. Thus, conflicting judgments are unavoidable and, as such, the Corte di cassazione has been for decades unable to guarantee the consistency and predictability of its decisions, which makes the uniform interpretation of the law a difficult task to be achieved: 26 “Instead, the court has become a sort of judicial supermarket, wherein lawyers can often be sure to find any precedent they need to plead the case of their client” 27 , which increases legal uncertainty and the litigation rate in the Italian legal system. In the last decade some “internal” procedural devices were intro- duced to reduce the workload of the Court with modest results. 28 The best solution to tackle this problem would be to filter access to the Court in order to reduce the number of appeals only to those having a great significance, analogous to how access to the German Supreme Court is regulated. This reform proposal is strongly opposed by the bar, on the basis that the constitutional right to review by the Corte di cassazione implies an unrestricted access to the courts up to the Supreme Court. A constitutional principle of efficiency of civil procedure would allow the legislator to introduce a filter to the Corte di cassazione , such as to balance access to the courts with the need to concentrate resources for the Corte di cassazione to better perform its task of ensuring uniform ap- plication of the law. 29 IV. Judicial Independence: Institutional and Pro- cedural Devices 1. Introductory Remarks Judicial independence is a major principle of civil procedure world- 26 Cf. M. De Cristofaro, N. Trocker (eds.), Civil Justice in Italy, p. 26. 27 S. Chiarloni , Civil Justice and its Paradoxes: An Italian Perspective, in A.A.S. Zuckerman, S. Chiarloni, P. Gottwald (eds.), Civil Justice in Crisis. Comparative Perspectives of Civil Procedure, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 263 ff., p. 267. 28 Cf. from the newest: reform of the Art. 360, n. 5 c.p.c. (L. no. 134 of 2012); Art. 360bis c.p.c. (L. no. 69 of 2009, also introducing the Sixth Section “Filter”); Art. 366bis c.p.c. (introducing in 2006 a new requirement of the application for review, the so called quesito di diritto , query on point of law, abolished in 2009); Art. 375, 380bis, 380ter c.p.c. (L. No. 89 of 2001, regulating an accelerated proceedings, procedimento in camera di consiglio ). 29 Pointing in that direction cf. the results of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court, held in June 2015, suggesting to Parliament and government to amend Art. 111 Const., limiting the admissibility of appeals to the Corte di cassazione in civil matters to cases in which this is needed in order to formulate “legal principles of general validity”, www.cortedicas sazione.it.