Skip to main content

PeakMetrics / Fact Checks

Politics & government fact checks

Explore claims publishers have checked about politics & government. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.

12,754 published reviews in this topic

Pagella PoliticaPolitics & government

«Hanno cancellato i sindaci dal dpcm e ora non si capisce chi dovrà chiudere le strade e con quali mezzi controllare»

Publisher’s rating: Nì

The claim concerned Mara Carfagna’s 19 October statement that removing an explicit reference to mayors from the Dpcm left it unclear who could close streets or how closures would be enforced. The review confirms the reference had disappeared: the decree allowed closure after 9 p.m. of streets or squares where crowds might gather, but did not specify who would order it. It says the omission did not, by itself, leave the roles legally undefined. The review explains that the ordinary local-government law gives mayors powers to issue urgent orders in certain local public-health emergencies, and that the mayor’s role in public safety includes taking urgent measures to prevent serious dangers. It identifies the mayor as the official to decide whether to order a local closure, while distinguishing that decision from enforcement: responsibility for public order and safety rests with the prefect, who is responsible for ensuring compliance with closure orders. The provincial Committee for Public Order and Safety advises and supports the process. The account also marks an important timing qualification. On 19 October, Undersecretary Achille Variati said the decree had introduced no particular changes and described the mayor as the local health authority, supported by the committee. Anci president Antonio Decaro said mayors would identify areas through the committee and that the state would ensure enforcement through police forces coordinated by the prefect and questor. A ministry circular issued on 20 October later clarified that the relevant instrument was a mayoral order and called for collaboration between mayor and prefect. The review notes that this clarification postdated Carfagna’s statement; its conclusion rests on the legal framework and the division of responsibilities, not on treating that later circular as already available.