Judges in most European countries are supposed to "interprete" the law, so not apply it strictly as written, but add onto it whatever biases the particular judge might have.

It doesn't help that in some instances people are not allowed to speak for themselves, only their lawyers are allowed to speak, and if the lawyer forgets (or "forgets") to mention some aspect of the case, even if it had already been introduced into evidence, then it's like it never happened and the judge is free to ignore it.

Add to that only supreme court decision being considered as precedent, that supreme courts in many countries have been either coopted by the conservative right, or had their powers stripped, or simply blocked... and we get decisions like this.

Probably as a result of this: https://youtu.be/B5d_MPw1nQs ?

Regarding the undemocratic part, let's not forget it was a part of the Axis. Ideologies of leadership don't change so easily...

I have an answer to this question, as well as to why all the fascists (except one) weren't prosecuted after the war but left alone so that they are now ruling the country again. The reason is: they needed Italy to be a "liberal" western democracy, while giving too much power to the socialists/communists in the 50s/60s/70s would have made it too close to Soviet neighbours, endangering the equilibrium of the area.

Groping his face with your fist ✊