this is because they think the courts are politicized, not because the judiciary takes input from the government. In fact there has been a constant conflict between judges and government for the last 30 years.
Kinda. The judicial branch is rigorously separated from the other two, but it self-organises in a way that often replicates the ideological groups emerging in regular politics (they have their own little parliament, basically). When the postwar political equilibrium crumbled under the weight of its own corruption and Berlusconi got in power, effectively altering the ideological landscape, the judiciary “class” did not immediately follow, since most of them saw the guy as a dodgy felon (which was technically correct); and things have been a bit hairy ever since.
It's hard to say, certainly some investigations have appeared political, but in US terms there is distrust against "public attorneys" rather than against judges (and Italy permits one to change career between the two).
But what I meant to say is that one political side have complained about judges for 30 years, which has impacted the public opinion.
See the effects Trump has had on institutional trust in the US, and make it last 5 mandates.
AFAIK controlling shareholder means that the shareholder has more than 50% of the voting power. They or the group they belong to have unilateral control of the company barring some restrictions.
But controlling looks to more about how much voting power and influence you have rather than how many shares, because remember companies can have different classes of shares.