Three judges, three automatic rules: what Italy’s Constitutional Court really decided

The judgment against him becomes final on 9 March 2016. On 16 April 2015 the Reggio Calabria Court of Appeal sentenced him to six years and eight months in prison for membership of a mafia-type association, with one precise aggravating circumstance: the association was armed. In the same proceedings, other defendants charged with belonging to the same association took a different route. Tried in open court by the Reggio Calabria District Court, they were convicted in judgment no. 606 of 2014, which on the weapons aggravator says the opposite: it finds it not established. That judgment is final too, because nobody appealed it. Two final judgments on the same group, two opposite answers to the same question of fact: were there weapons or not?

At first instance the convicted man had been tried under the fast-track procedure known as rito abbreviato, by the preliminary investigations judge of the Reggio Calabria District Court, in a judgment of 4 June 2013. It was the choice of procedure, according to the Catanzaro Court of Appeal that would later examine his case, that set him apart from the others: had he been tried in open court together with his co-defendants, it writes, he would have been treated differently. And the judgment that rules out the weapons also concerns members of the same clan whom the referral order describes as holding “top-level positions” (our translation).

The convicted man then applies for a review of his conviction. The application concerns only the aggravating circumstance: he asks the court to recognise the conflict between the two final judgments on the count concerning its application, “with the consequent modification of the sentence”. The application is decided by the first criminal division of the Catanzaro Court of Appeal, where it is registered as no. 6/16 REV.

At the hearing the prosecutor general asks for the application to be declared inadmissible. Review, he argues, is allowed only where it can lead to “a full acquittal”, not where the conflict between the judgments concerns an aggravating circumstance. And the case law, the Catanzaro judges acknowledge, consistently denies any weight, in review proceedings, to a conflict between final judgments over an aggravating circumstance. The obstacle is written into Article 631 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which limits review to evidence capable of showing, if established, that the convicted person must be acquitted under Articles 529, 530 or 531. In the same order the Court of Appeal cites a judgment of the first criminal division of the Court of Cassation, no. 20470 of 10 February 2015, which had already paired that rule with a hint of doubt about its systematic and constitutional coherence.

The Court of Appeal could have stopped there. Instead, by an order of 5 April 2017, it stays the proceedings and sends the file to the Constitutional Court, asking whether that limit is compatible with the Constitution. It invokes four articles, 3, 24, 27 and 111, that is, in the words of the order, equality and equal treatment, the right of defence, the rehabilitative purpose of punishment and fair trial. The order, entered as no. 98 in the 2017 register of referral orders, is published in the Official Gazette, first special series, no. 28 of the same year.

The Calabrian judges’ reasoning is straightforward. If a convicted person can obtain, on the basis of conflicting final judgments, a review of the entire finding of guilt, they write, there is no reason why the same right should be denied to someone who wants to remove only part of the conduct, the part classified as an aggravating circumstance. A part that the order calls “particularly significant, moreover”, and for which a degree of culpability is always required: in this case, intent.

Then come the numbers, which the order spells out. According to the Catanzaro judges, the sentence started from a base of nine years, the minimum then provided for the aggravated association offence, increased by one year for continuation and reduced for the fast-track procedure to six years and eight months. Without the aggravating circumstance, the sentencing range would no longer start at nine years, but at seven. That is why, the Court of Appeal concludes, the question is relevant: if it were upheld, the convicted man could obtain a lighter sentence.

The order also makes an argument about the meaning of punishment. Knowing that one must serve “a (part of a) sentence for a circumstance which, for other defendants, for the same offence” another court has definitively ruled out, the Catanzaro judges write, conflicts with the rehabilitative purpose of punishment, because it gives the convicted person the perception of suffering an unjust and discriminatory penalty. For the same reason, according to the order, the impartiality of justice is at stake: the citizen sees that for one of his peers a question was decided favourably, while for him another court decided in the diametrically opposite way. And the choice of a procedure, it adds, concerns the form of the trial and the admissible evidence, not an unconditional acceptance of the evidentiary findings. Review, in the Calabrian judges’ view, also serves to achieve uniform decisions in identical cases handled by different courts: “one justice, equal for all”.

In the order’s design, review is not an isolated exception. The Court of Appeal places it alongside the other remedies that protect citizens from an unjust conviction: compensation for miscarriages of justice, compensation for unjust detention, and the extraordinary appeal to the Court of Cassation for a material or factual error. And on Article 24 of the Constitution it cites a constitutional judgment of 15 January 1969, no. 1, according to which that provision “sets out a principle of the highest ethical and social value”.

The Catanzaro referral is the first of three questions that this investigation reconstructs from the original texts published in the Official Gazette. In each of them a judge faces a rule that decides in the judge’s place, and asks the Constitutional Court for permission to set it aside. The other two come from the Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont, in 2021, and from the Turin Assize Court of Appeal, in 2022. Of the three questions, two end in a declaration of inadmissibility and only one in a finding of unconstitutionality.

Before the Constitutional Court the President of the Council of Ministers intervenes, represented by the State Attorney General’s Office, and asks for the questions to be declared inadmissible or, in any event, unfounded. According to the State Attorney, review is an extraordinary remedy founded on the principle that no innocent person must be subjected to punishment: what counts for reopening a case is an error in the historical reconstruction of the offence. And Article 24 of the Constitution, it argues, leaves Parliament the discretionary power to identify the cases and the means of redressing miscarriages of justice.

How the Constitutional Court answered

The Court decides in chambers on 10 January 2018, with Giorgio Lattanzi as both President and reporting judge. Judgment no. 42 is filed on 2 March and published in the Official Gazette of 7 March 2018. It is not a ruling on the merits: the questions are declared inadmissible. The reason fits in one line: the referral order fails to describe the facts, which amounts to a failure to state reasons on relevance.

To understand the criticism, one has to go back to the rule the convicted man wanted to use. A conflict between final judgments, governed by Article 630 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be understood as a logical contradiction between the assessments in two judgments, the Court recalls, citing its own judgment no. 129 of 2008: it must be an objective incompatibility between the facts on which the judgments rest. Of those facts, the Catanzaro order contains no description whatsoever. The Court of Appeal did not specify which findings in the judgment ruling out the aggravating circumstance differ from those in the judgment to be reviewed. It merely set the two operative parts side by side, the one convicting with the weapons aggravator and the one excluding it, and operative parts, for the Court, are not enough.

“Of these facts, the referral order contains no description whatsoever.” (our translation)

Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42 of 2018

For the purposes of review, the judgment repeats in the words of the 2008 ruling, what counts is not the judge’s assessment, right or wrong, but exclusively the new fact. And there is a chronological detail which, for the Court, makes the conclusion even clearer. The conviction whose review was sought had come after the other judgment, and had become final after the Court of Cassation, second criminal division, had already ruled on the aggravating circumstance, in judgment no. 12871 of 9 March 2016. It is the same date on which, according to the Catanzaro order, the conviction became final. The Court of Cassation had noted the “ample body of evidence” on the availability of weapons and had held irrelevant “the circumstance that, according to the defence, another judgment had ruled out the aggravating circumstance at issue”.

The operative part declares inadmissible the questions on Article 631 raised by the Catanzaro Court of Appeal with reference to Articles 3, 24, 27 and 111 of the Constitution. The underlying question, whether it is fair that review can wipe out an entire conviction but not part of one, is thus left unanswered: the Court did not reject it, it did not examine it.

Fossano, a sentence with no alternative

On the night of 2 June 2006 two devices explode near one of the entrances of the Carabinieri cadet school in Fossano. Each holds 500 grams of gunpowder, and they are timed to go off about half an hour apart. According to findings that are now final, those who planted them, the defendant together with a co-defendant, intended to undermine the security of the State by killing an indeterminate number of members of the police forces. Only by a stroke of luck, writes the Turin Assize Court of Appeal, is nobody hurt, and the damage to property is limited.

In the trial and first appeal the offence had been classified as ordinary massacre, punishable under Article 422 of the Criminal Code. The Turin Public Prosecutor’s Office, from the outset, had instead charged Article 285: massacre aimed at undermining the security of the State. The Court of Cassation, in judgment no. 38184 of 6 July 2022, reclassified the offence along the prosecution’s lines and referred the case back to the Turin Assize Court of Appeal to redetermine the sentence. The classification of the offences and the defendants’ liability are no longer in question, and neither is the recidivism: all that remains for the court on remand is the sentence.

Article 285 provides for a single penalty: life imprisonment. According to the Turin order, in the Italian Criminal Code a fixed life sentence as the principal penalty appears in only six offences, including an attack on the President of the Republic, civil war and epidemic. And before Legislative Decree no. 224 of 1944, the same order recalls, the offence in Article 285 carried the death penalty.

The defence then invokes a provision that had never come into play at the earlier stages: Article 311 of the Criminal Code, the mitigating circumstance of the minor nature of the offence. It was a new issue because Article 311 applies to offences against the personality of the State, not to the ordinary massacre on which the trial and appeal courts had ruled. As early as the end of the first-instance trial, the order notes, the public prosecutor himself had considered the offence to be of a minor nature when he sought a conviction under Article 285; on remand the prosecutor general departed from that view. The Turin Assize Court of Appeal considers that the conditions for the mitigating circumstance are met, and that in the balancing exercise it should prevail over recidivism.

This is where the mechanism jams. The defendant has been declared a repeat recidivist in a finding that is now final. And Article 69(4) of the Criminal Code, as replaced by Law no. 251 of 5 December 2005, forbids treating mitigating circumstances as prevailing over repeat recidivism. If the mitigating circumstance prevailed, the sentence would be twenty to twenty-four years in prison; without that, life imprisonment remains the only possible penalty. On 19 December 2022 the second division of the Turin Assize Court of Appeal reads out in court the order by which it raises the question, entered as no. 14 in the 2023 register of referral orders, with reference to Articles 3, 25 and 27 of the Constitution.

For the Turin judges, the fixed nature of the penalty rules out any adjustment to the specific case. The prohibition, they write, means that less serious acts are punished with life imprisonment exactly like the most serious ones, solely on account of the offender’s criminal record. The order cites a judgment of the first division of the Court of Cassation, no. 1538 of 15 November 1978, according to which life imprisonment under Article 285 survives constitutional scrutiny partly because mitigating circumstances leave the judge the option of imposing a prison term instead. With the prohibition on prevalence, it concludes, that option would be irretrievably foreclosed.

The 2023 answer

Before the Constitutional Court the State Attorney General’s Office raises several objections of inadmissibility. The most radical, according to the State’s lawyers, is that the minor-nature mitigation cannot apply to a massacre at all, given the inherent gravity of the offence. The Court rejects it: the text of Article 311 applies to all offences in Title I of Book II of the Criminal Code, Articles 241 to 300, that is, to all offences against the personality of the State. The massacre in Article 285, the Court acknowledges, is certainly an extremely serious offence even when nobody dies, because it is enough that the conduct is capable of endangering people’s physical safety. But its nature as an inchoate offence does not prevent its seriousness from being graded according to whether or not the conduct caused harm. So much so that an attempted massacre is not even conceivable: the attempt is already a completed massacre.

On the merits, the decision starts from a principle that constitutional case law has affirmed many times: a fixed penalty is, for that reason alone, presumptively unconstitutional. In the case of life imprisonment, with repeat recidivism and the prohibition on prevalence, the penalty becomes for the Court the only one that can be imposed, “fixed” and “unavoidable”. Then there is an effect that the judgment calls by its name. As a rule, even when mitigating circumstances are only equivalent to recidivism, they at least cancel the increase in sentence that recidivism entails. But a life sentence cannot be increased, because it is already perpetual: thus, the Court writes, “all mitigating circumstances are, in effect, ‘sterilised’ by their concurrence with repeat recidivism”.

And the gap between a perpetual and a temporary penalty, it adds, is “radically greater than any imbalance considered by the case law” in the cases where the same prohibition had already fallen. Not even parole closes it, for the Court, since for a life prisoner it requires having served at least twenty-six years. The Code itself, the judgment further observes, when Article 270-bis.1 lays down a similar prohibition on prevalence for terrorism or subversion offences, expressly limits it to offences punishable by a penalty other than life imprisonment.

The decision is taken on 18 April 2023, after the public hearing held the same day, with Silvana Sciarra as President and Giovanni Amoroso as reporting judge. Judgment no. 94 is filed on 12 May and published in the Official Gazette of 17 May 2023. It declares Article 69(4) of the Criminal Code unconstitutional insofar as, for offences punishable by life imprisonment, it prohibits mitigating circumstances from prevailing over repeat recidivism. The Court specifies that the violation concerns every mitigating circumstance, including the general ones, and all offences carrying a fixed life sentence. From then on the judge can once again weigh them: treat the mitigating circumstances as prevailing over, equivalent to or even outweighed by repeat recidivism.

Waste, a prefect and a mandatory measure

The third story moves from criminal to administrative law, but the problem is the same. A company identified in the documents by the initial L. works in the collection, transport and disposal of animal by-products, and in the collection of used vegetable oils. Every activity requires several administrative authorisations, including registration with the national register of environmental operators. Three authorities, the Turin Chamber of Commerce, the Rome vehicle licensing office and an operations centre of the Revenue Agency in Cagliari, request an anti-mafia communication on the company through the national anti-mafia database.

The answer comes from the Prefect of the Province of Alessandria: the company is subject to the disqualifying conditions laid down in Articles 67 and 84 of the Anti-Mafia Code. As a knock-on effect, its authorisation to work as a road haulier is revoked and it is struck off the register of road hauliers. The communication, the administrative court reports, rests exclusively on a conviction handed down by the Cagliari Court of Appeal for organised activities for the illegal trafficking of waste. According to the referral order, two of those convicted are attorneys-in-fact of the company, whose sole shareholder is another company in which the convicted persons hold the majority. According to that conviction, they had unlawfully received, transported, handled and disposed of large quantities of animal by-products, sending them to be turned into meal and oils for animal feed.

The Cagliari Court of Appeal, however, had ruled out criminal conspiracy: there was no proof that the scheme, “well devised” as it was, served a permanent programme of unlawful acts. The communication is triggered anyway, because the law requires it after a final conviction, or one upheld on appeal, for that offence, even when it is not committed as part of an association. It does so by cross-reference: Article 67(8) of the Anti-Mafia Code points to the list of offences in Article 51(3-bis) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and illegal waste trafficking is on that list. The offence was created by Law no. 93 of 23 March 2001, as Article 53-bis of Legislative Decree no. 22 of 1997, moved to Article 260 of the 2006 Environmental Code, and today is Article 452-quaterdecies of the Criminal Code. The anti-mafia communication, for its part, assesses nothing: it consists in certifying whether or not one of the grounds for forfeiture, suspension or prohibition in Article 67 applies.

The Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont, first division, decides in chambers on 10 March 2021. The order by which it raises the question is dated 29 April 2021, is entered as no. 142 in the 2021 register of referral orders and invokes five articles of the Constitution: 3, 25, 27, 38 and 41. Its central argument concerns the nature of the offence. According to the Court of Cassation, the administrative court recalls, organised activities for the illegal trafficking of waste are a single-perpetrator offence: what is required is not several people but several operations continuing over time. And the offence is committed even when the unlawful activity is marginal or secondary to a lawful main business, as the third criminal division of the Court of Cassation held in judgment no. 43710 of 28 October 2019.

The administrative court does not deny that mafia organisations’ interest in the waste sector is by now “common knowledge”, so much so that a specific term was coined for them: ecomafie. But it does not follow from this, it writes, that everyone convicted of illegal waste trafficking is “ipso facto at risk of collusion” with organised crime. Disqualifying measures, it recalls, serve a preventive and not a punitive purpose. In support, the order cites constitutional judgment no. 24 of 2020, which had struck down another automatic rule: the one in the Highway Code under which the prefect had to revoke, rather than being able to revoke, the driving licence of anyone subject to a personal security measure.

The 2022 answer

The Court decides on 5 April 2022, after the public hearing held the same day, with Giuliano Amato as President and Nicolò Zanon as reporting judge. Judgment no. 118 is filed on 10 May and published in the Official Gazette of 11 May 2022. Once again the outcome is that all questions are inadmissible. The complaints under Articles 38, 25 and 27 of the Constitution fail for lack of reasoning: the one under Article 38 is excessively concise and therefore obscure, those under Articles 25 and 27 are mere assertions. The order, the Court observes, contains no critical analysis of the extensive administrative case law that treats these measures as anticipatory, starting with judgment no. 3 of 6 April 2018 of the Plenary Assembly of the Council of State.

The complaint under Article 3 is a different matter: here, the Court acknowledges, the reasoning is extensive. But it runs along two irreconcilable paths. On the first, the administrative court asks for non-associative waste trafficking to be removed from the list, and one automatic rule would be replaced, the Court writes, “by an automatic rule of the opposite sign”. On the second, it asks instead that, after a conviction for that offence, the actual connection with organised criminal associations be assessed case by case: a discretion whose conditions and object, for the Court, are left unclear. The conclusion is that the order “leaves the two very different lines of argument described unresolved and side by side”, and that the Court cannot be called upon to choose between them.

Our reading

Set side by side, the three judgments tell a less linear story than that of a Court dismantling automatic rules. When the question arrives properly framed, as from Turin, the Court rules on the merits and removes the rule imposing a single, perpetual penalty, and does so for every offence punished the same way, not only for the case that raised it. When the question arrives without the facts described, as from Catanzaro, or with two requests that contradict each other, as from the Piedmont administrative court, the Court stops at the threshold, and the rule stays in force.

This is an observation of this investigation, not of the judgments: two automatic rules, review limited to acquittal and the anti-mafia communication tied solely to a conviction for waste trafficking, came before the Court and left it intact, not because they were found consistent with the Constitution but because the question was never examined. In the Calabrian case the question was weak from the start, partly for reasons beyond the referring judge: the Court of Cassation had already ruled on the weapons, and had done so citing an ample body of evidence. But the problem that question raised, two defendants from the same group with two opposite judicial truths about one fact, separated only by the procedure chosen, is not a textbook hypothesis: it can happen whenever the same facts are tried in separate proceedings.

In the Piedmont case the knot is different. The administrative court lined up serious arguments, the single-perpetrator nature of the offence, the possibility that the unlawful activity is marginal, the distance between a business and a mafia organisation, but it did not choose which remedy to ask for. The Court did not say that the automatic rule is fair: it said it could not choose on behalf of the judge who had referred the question. Whether and when another judge will raise one of these two questions again, with the facts described or with a single request, is a question the documents leave open.

The case file

This section is generated from ARKA’s evidence register, not written by hand. Every claim in the investigation appears here with the exact words of the records that support it, found in the stored files and checked against their fingerprint. 79 claims: 0 corroborated across independent vectors, 76 confirmed by an official record, 3 attributed. Whether a passage truly supports its claim is checked today by a person: there is no automatic check yet.

Confirmed by an official record (76)

established by the court or by the procedural account of a ruling (one origin, but a formal record).

1. The convicted man was finally sentenced by the Court of Appeal of Reggio Calabria for mafia-type association, with the aggravating circumstance of the association being armed. 1 origin · 1 vector

   • «La Corte rimettente riferisce di essere investita della richiesta di revisione di una sentenza della Corte d’appello di Reggio Calabria, con la quale il ricorrente era stato definitivamente condannato per il reato di associazione di tipo mafioso, con l’aggravante prevista dal quarto comma dell’art. 416-bis del codice penale, per essere l’associazione armata.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c

2. The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Reggio Calabria was issued on April 16, 2015, became final on March 9, 2016 and imposed six years and eight months of imprisonment. 2 origins · 1 vector

   • «avverso la sentenza della Corte d’appello di Reggio Calabria emessa il 16 aprile 2015, divenuta irrevocabile in data 9 marzo 2016, con la quale veniva definitivamente inflitta la pena di anni sei e mesi otto di reclusione» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09
   • «la sentenza della Corte d’appello di Reggio Calabria, del 16 aprile 2015» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c

3. At first instance the convicted man had been tried under the fast-track procedure (rito abbreviato) by the preliminary investigations judge of the Tribunal of Reggio Calabria, with a judgment of June 4, 2013. 2 origins · 1 vector

   • «In primo grado il ricorrente era stato giudicato con il rito abbreviato dal Giudice per le indagini preliminari del Tribunale ordinario di Reggio Calabria» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c
   • «In primo grado, il giudice per le indagini preliminari presso il Tribunale di Reggio Calabria [sentenza 4 giugno 2013» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09

4. Other defendants charged with the same offense, members of the same association, were tried in full proceedings by the Tribunal of Reggio Calabria in judgment no. 606 of 2014, which became final and found the aggravating circumstance of weapons not established. 2 origins · 1 vector

   • «mentre altri imputati ai quali era stato contestato lo stesso reato, in quanto appartenenti alla medesima associazione di tipo mafioso, erano stati giudicati dal Tribunale di Reggio Calabria e condannati con una sentenza, divenuta anch’essa irrevocabile, che aveva ritenuto insussistente l’aggravante prevista dal quarto comma dell’art. 416-bis cod. pen.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c
   • «la sentenza del Tribunale di Reggio Calabria, n. 606 del 2014, resa all’esito di un giudizio dibattimentale» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c
   • «veniva ritenuta insussistente l’aggravante di cui al quarto comma dell’art. 416-bis codice penale (pag. 210 della sentenza indicata)» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09

5. The judgment excluding the aggravating circumstance became final because it was not appealed. 1 origin · 1 vector

   • «Con tale secondo giudicato, anch’esso divenuto definitivo, per omessa interposizione di impugnazione» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09

6. According to the Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, had the convicted man been tried in full proceedings with his co-defendants he would have received different treatment; the judgment excluding the weapons also concerns members of the same clan in leading positions. 1 origin · 1 vector

   • «Nel caso di specie, si verifica che mentre per altri componenti della medesima cosca di appartenenza, persino posti in posizione apicale, una sentenza esclude la disponibilita’ di armi da parte della associazione mafiosa, tale circostanza rimarrebbe addebitata al partecipe, che ha seguito diversa strada giudiziaria, ma che ove fosse stata giudicato in dibattimento assieme ai coimputati, avrebbe ricevuto diverso trattamento.» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09

7. The convicted man applied for review to have the conflict between the two final judgments on the aggravating circumstance recognized, with the consequent change in sentence. 2 origins · 1 vector

   • «chiede rilevarsi il contrasto di giudicati sul capo che concerne l’applicazione della predetta aggravante, con conseguente modificazione della pena» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09
   • «era volta a far rilevare il contrasto di giudicati relativo alla «applicazione della predetta aggravante, con conseguente modificazione della pena»» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c

8. The application was decided by the first criminal section of the Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, where it was registered as no. 6/16 REV. 1 origin · 1 vector

   • «CORTE D’APPELLO DI CATANZARO I Sezione penale» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09
   • «con ricorso iscritto al n. 6/16 REV. della Corte» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09

9. At the hearing the Prosecutor General asked for the application to be declared inadmissible, because review is allowed only when it can lead to a full acquittal and not when the conflict concerns an aggravating circumstance. 2 origins · 1 vector

   • «Il P.G. d’udienza ha eccepito che non puo’ darsi in tal caso il rimedio della revisione, facendo la norma procedurale espresso riferimento ai casi da cui discende un effetto di totale proscioglimento e non anche a quelli in cui il contrasto riguardi una circostanza aggravante, chiedendo dichiararsi inammissibile il ricorso» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09
   • «Il Procuratore generale della Corte d’appello di Catanzaro aveva eccepito l’inammissibilita’ della richiesta osservando che la revisione e’ consentita solo nei casi in cui dall’impugnazione straordinaria puo’ derivare «un effetto di totale proscioglimento»» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c

10. The Court of Appeal of Catanzaro acknowledged settled case law that gives no weight, in review proceedings, to a conflict between final judgments on an aggravating circumstance. 2 origins · 1 vector

    • «ha verificato che e’ giurisprudenza costante quella di disattendere la rilevanza di questioni che attengono all’esclusione di un’aggravante» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09
    • «ha preso atto dell’esistenza di una giurisprudenza costante volta a negare la rilevanza del contrasto tra giudicati relativo a un’aggravante» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c

11. Article 631 of the Code of Criminal Procedure limits review to elements capable of showing, if established, that the convicted person must be acquitted under Articles 529, 530 or 531. 2 origins · 1 vector

    • «l’art. 631 codice di procedura penale e’ del resto chiaro nel limitare il diritto alla revisione a quegli elementi tali da accertare - ove dimostrati - esclusivamente «che il condannato deve essere prosciolto a norma degli articoli 529, 530, o 531»» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09
    • «che regola i «[l]imiti della revisione» con la richiesta di elementi tali da dimostrare, «se accertati, che il condannato deve essere prosciolto a norma degli articoli 529, 530 e 531» cod. proc. pen.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c

12. The Catanzaro order cites judgment no. 20470 of February 10, 2015 of the first criminal section of the Court of Cassation, which contained a hint of doubt about the systematic and constitutional consistency of the provision. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «con accenno anche al dubbio sulla coerenza sistematica e costituzionale della disposizione limitatrice, Cass. Pen., Sez. I, n. 20470 del 10 febbraio 2015» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09

13. By order of April 5, 2017, entered as no. 98 in the 2017 register of orders and published in Official Gazette no. 28, first special series, of 2017, the Court of Appeal of Catanzaro stayed the proceedings and raised the question on Article 631 with reference to Articles 3, 24, 27 and 111 of the Constitution. 2 origins · 1 vector

    • «promosso dalla Corte d’appello di Catanzaro nel procedimento penale a carico di C. M., con ordinanza del 5 aprile 2017, iscritta al n. 98 del registro ordinanze 2017 e pubblicata nella Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica n. 28, prima serie speciale, dell’anno 2017.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c
    • «Dichiara rilevante e non manifestamente infondata la questione di legittimita’ sollevata in relazione all’art. 631 codice di procedura penale, 3, 24, 27 e 111 Costituzione» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, operative part, page · fingerprint 304908290405
    • «Sospende il giudizio in corso dando lettura alle parti in udienza della presente ordinanza. Catanzaro, 5 aprile 2017» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, operative part, page · fingerprint 304908290405
    • «Dispone l’immediata trasmissione degli atti di causa alla Corte costituzionale» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, operative part, page · fingerprint 304908290405

14. For the Court of Appeal of Catanzaro the limit conflicts with equality and equal treatment, the right of defense, the rehabilitative purpose of punishment and fair trial, Articles 3, 24, 27 and 111 of the Constitution. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «Il risultato contrasta con i valori costituzionali di eguaglianza e parita’ di trattamento, diritto alla difesa, finalita’ rieducativa della pena, e del giusto processo di cui agli articoli 3, 24, 27 e 111 Cost.» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09

15. For the Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, if a convicted person can obtain review of the entire finding of guilt because of conflicting final judgments, there is no reason why the same right should not apply to exclude a part of the conduct classified as an aggravating circumstance, which always requires a degree of culpability, in this case intent. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «Se il condannato puo’, sulla base di un contrasto tra giudicati, ottenere una revisione del proprio giudizio di colpevolezza nel suo intero (tertium comparationis), non si vede perche’ il medesimo diritto non possa essere riconosciuto al condannato, che intende escludere dal proprio giudizio di responsabilita’, una parte - peraltro particolarmente significativa - della condotta, qualificata come aggravamento della pena, in relazione alla quale e’ sempre richiesto un grado di colpevolezza (nella specie, il dolo).» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09

16. According to the Catanzaro order, the sentence had been calculated from a base of nine years, the minimum for the aggravated associative offense at the time of the facts, increased by one year for continuation and reduced for the procedure to six years and eight months; without the aggravating circumstance the minimum would have been seven years, and the convicted man could have obtained a lower sentence. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «pena base, per il reato associativo, minimo della pena di cui al quarto comma, nella versione edittale corrispondente al tempus commissi delicti, nove anni, aumentata di anni uno per la continuazione, ridotta per il rito ad anni sei e mesi otto. Nel caso di esclusione dell’aggravante, il nuovo range edittale non partirebbe piu’ dal minimo di anni nove, bensi’ da sette anni.» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09
    • «il condannato potrebbe vedersi riconosciuta una pena minore» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09

17. For the Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, serving part of a sentence for a circumstance excluded for other defendants conflicts with the rehabilitative purpose, and the conflict between final judgments gives the citizen the perception of a judgment that is not impartial. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «sapere di dover scontare una (parte di) pena per una circostanza che per altri imputati, per il medesimo reato, e’ stata da altro organo giudiziario definitivamente esclusa, appare in conflitto con la finalita’ rieducativa, poiche’ comporta ai condannato l’evidente percezione di subire una sanzione ingiusta e discriminatoria» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09
    • «Il cittadino avverte, in tal caso che mentre per un suo pari e’ stato deciso favorevolmente una determinata questione, nei suoi confronti altro giudice ha adottato una decisione diametralmente opposta» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09

18. For the Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, the choice of procedure concerns the form of the trial and the usable records, not the unconditional acceptance of the evidence, and review also serves to ensure uniform decisions among different judges. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «Ne’ puo’ addossarsi al condannato gli effetti della scelta di un percorso processuale, che attiene alle forme del rito e agli atti utilizzabili, ma non anche all’accettazione incondizionata dei risultati probatori.» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09
    • «oltre che di perseguire parita’ di trattamento e decisioni tendenzialmente uniformi negli stessi casi, affrontati da giudici diversi (una giustizia uguale per tutti)» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09

19. Before the Constitutional Court the President of the Council of Ministers intervened, represented by the State Attorney General’s Office, asking for the questions to be declared inadmissible and in any case unfounded. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «E’ intervenuto in giudizio il Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri, rappresentato e difeso dall’Avvocatura generale dello Stato, il quale ha chiesto che le questioni siano dichiarate inammissibili e comunque non fondate.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c

20. Judgment no. 42 of 2018 was decided in chambers on January 10, 2018, with Giorgio Lattanzi as president and rapporteur, filed on March 2, 2018 and published in Official Gazette no. 10 of March 7, 2018. 3 origins · 1 vector

    • «udito nella camera di consiglio del 10 gennaio 2018 il Giudice relatore Giorgio Lattanzi» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c
    • «Cosi’ deciso in Roma, nella sede della Corte costituzionale, Palazzo della Consulta, il 10 gennaio 2018. F.to: Giorgio LATTANZI, Presidente e Redattore» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, operative part, page · fingerprint d9516a6d212c
    • «Depositata in Cancelleria il 2 marzo 2018.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, operative part, page · fingerprint d9516a6d212c
    • «(GU 1 a Serie Speciale - Corte Costituzionale n.10 del 7-3-2018)» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, Official Gazette record, page · fingerprint dde260c94ae6

21. The Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the questions on Article 631 of the Code of Criminal Procedure raised by the Court of Appeal of Catanzaro with reference to Articles 3, 24, 27 and 111 of the Constitution. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «dichiara inammissibili le questioni di legittimita’ costituzionale dell’art. 631 del codice di procedura penale, sollevate, in riferimento agli artt. 3, 24, 27, terzo comma, e 111 della Costituzione, dalla Corte d’appello di Catanzaro» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, operative part, page · fingerprint d9516a6d212c

22. The questions are inadmissible because the referral order lacks a description of the facts, which becomes a failure to state reasons on relevance. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «Le questioni sono inammissibili perche’ l’ordinanza di rimessione presenta una carenza di descrizione dei fatti che si traduce in difetto di motivazione sulla rilevanza.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c

23. For the Court, citing judgment no. 129 of 2008, the irreconcilability between final judgments provided for by Article 630 is not a logical contradiction between assessments, but an objective incompatibility between the facts on which the judgments are based. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «il concetto di inconciliabilita’ fra sentenze irrevocabili, evocato dall’art. 630, comma 1, lettera a), cod. proc. pen., non puo’ essere inteso in termini di contraddittorieta’ logica tra le valutazioni effettuate nelle due decisioni. Tale concetto deve, invece, essere inteso in termini di oggettiva incompatibilita’ tra i "fatti" (ineludibilmente apprezzati nella loro dimensione storico-naturalistica) su cui si fondano le diverse sentenze» (sentenza n. 129 del 2008).» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c

24. The Catanzaro order contains no description whatsoever of the facts: it does not indicate which findings of the judgment excluding the aggravating circumstance differ from those of the judgment under review, and merely sets side by side the operative parts of the two convictions, which is not enough. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «Di questi fatti nell’ordinanza di rimessione manca qualunque descrizione.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c
    • «La Corte rimettente non ha indicato quali accertamenti contenuti nella sentenza che ha escluso l’aggravante sono diversi da quelli contenuti nella sentenza oggetto della richiesta di revisione.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c
    • «non e’ sufficiente a tal fine allegare il contrasto tra i "dispositivi" delle due diverse decisioni di condanna sulla sussistenza dell’aggravante della disponibilita’ di armi» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c

25. For the Court, for the purposes of review what counts is not the judge’s assessment but exclusively the new fact, as stated in judgment no. 129 of 2008. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • ««[n]on e’ la erronea (in ipotesi) valutazione del giudice a rilevare, ai fini della rimozione del giudicato; bensi’ esclusivamente il "fatto nuovo"» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c

26. The conviction under review came after the other one and had become final after the Court of Cassation, second criminal section, had ruled on the aggravating circumstance in judgment no. 12871 of March 9, 2016. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «la sentenza della quale si chiede la revisione e’ intervenuta successivamente a quella posta a fondamento della richiesta, ed e’ passata in giudicato dopo che sull’esistenza dell’aggravante in questione si era pronunciata anche la Corte di cassazione (sezione seconda penale, sentenza 9 marzo 2016, n. 12871)» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c

27. The Court of Cassation had acknowledged the extensive body of evidence on the availability of weapons and held irrelevant that, according to the defense, another judgment had excluded the aggravating circumstance. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «Questa infatti aveva dato atto dell’«ampio compendio probatorio» comprovante la disponibilita’ di armi e aveva giudicato irrilevante «la circostanza che, secondo la difesa, altra sentenza avrebbe escluso l’aggravante in esame».» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c

28. For the Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, review belongs to a set of institutions that protect citizens from unjust convictions, and Article 24 of the Constitution, according to constitutional judgment no. 1 of 1969 cited in the order, sets out a principle of the highest ethical and social value. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «con istituti che vanno dalla riparazione dell’errore giudiziario, alla riparazione della ingiusta detenzione, dal ricorso straordinario per errore materiale o di fatto al giudice di legittimita’, alla revisione del giudizio di condanna» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09
    • ««enuncia un principio di altissimo valore etico e sociale» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09
    • «[Corte cost. sentenza 15 gennaio 1969 n. 1]» — Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, page · fingerprint 0c21ea6d3a09

29. According to the findings covered by final judgment, on the night of June 2, 2006 the defendant and a co-defendant placed two explosive devices near an entrance of the Carabinieri cadet school in Fossano, to attack the security of the State by killing an indeterminate number of members of the police forces. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «secondo quanto stabilito con accertamento coperto da giudicato, i fatti oggetto di contestazione sono accaduti la notte del 2 giugno 2006, in cui A. C., in concorso con una persona coimputata, al fine di attentare alla sicurezza dello Stato mediante l’uccisione di un numero indeterminato di esponenti delle forze dell’ordine, ha collocato due dispositivi ad alto potenziale esplosivo nei pressi di uno degli ingressi della scuola Allievi Carabinieri di Fossano» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a

30. The devices contained 500 grams of gunpowder each and were timed to explode about half an hour apart. 2 origins · 1 vector

    • «gli ordigni contenevano 500 grammi di polvere pirica ciascuno ed erano dotati di un sistema di attivazione temporizzato che ne aveva determinato la deflagrazione ad un intervallo di tempo precedentemente programmato di circa mezz’ora l’uno dall’altro» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a
    • «Gli ordigni contenevano 500 grammi di polvere pirica ciascuno ed erano dotati di un sistema di attivazione temporizzato» — Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, referral order no. 14/2023, page · fingerprint 8f8008453b9a

31. According to the Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, only by a stroke of luck did the attack cause no harm to persons, and limited damage to property. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «solo per un caso fortunato, l’attentato non avesse provocato danni alle persone e limitati danni alle cose» — Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, referral order no. 14/2023, page · fingerprint 8f8008453b9a

32. In judgment no. 38184 of July 6, 2022 the Court of Cassation partly annulled the decision of the Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, classifying the act not as ordinary massacre (Art. 422) but as massacre aimed at attacking the security of the State (Art. 285), as the Prosecutor’s Office had charged, and remanded the case solely for the sentence to be redetermined. 2 origins · 1 vector

    • «conseguente alla sentenza della Corte di cassazione del 6 luglio-11 ottobre 2022, n. 38184, che ha parzialmente annullato la precedente pronuncia della Corte d’assise d’appello di Torino, sezione prima, limitatamente alla qualificazione del delitto di cui al capo F) dell’imputazione; delitto da ricondursi alla violazione non gia’ dell’art. 422 cod. pen. (strage comune), come ritenuto dalla pronuncia impugnata, bensi’ dell’art. 285 cod. pen. (strage allo scopo di attentare alla sicurezza dello Stato).» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a
    • «Al giudice del rinvio e’ stata demandata la rideterminazione del trattamento sanzionatorio degli imputati.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a
    • «nei termini ipotizzati dalla Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Torino fin dall’iniziale contestazione del reato» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a
    • «che fin dall’avvio del procedimento aveva invece contestato la violazione dell’art. 285 codice penale» — Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, referral order no. 14/2023, page · fingerprint 8f8008453b9a

33. In the remand proceedings the classification of the offenses, the criminal liability of the defendants and the defendant’s repeated recidivism, established by final judgment, were no longer in question. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «non sono piu’ in discussione ne’ la qualificazione giuridica dei reati contestati, ne’ il giudizio di penale responsabilita’ degli odierni imputati» — Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, referral order no. 14/2023, page · fingerprint 8f8008453b9a
    • «gia’ dichiarato recidivo reiterato con valutazione ormai coperta da giudicato» — Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, referral order no. 14/2023, page · fingerprint 8f8008453b9a

34. The offense under Article 285 of the Criminal Code is punishable only by life imprisonment. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «il reato di cui all’art. 285 cod. pen. e’ sanzionato unicamente con la pena dell’ergastolo» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a

35. According to the Turin order, fixed life imprisonment as the principal penalty appears in the Criminal Code in only six offenses, including an attack on the President of the Republic, civil war and epidemic. 2 origins · 1 vector

    • «si riscontra nel codice penale italiano soltanto in sei fattispecie (articoli 242, 276, 284 comma 1, 285, 286 e 438 codice penale)» — Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, referral order no. 14/2023, page · fingerprint 8f8008453b9a
    • «276 (Attentato contro il Presidente della Repubblica), 284, primo comma (Insurrezione armata contro i poteri dello Stato), 286 (Guerra civile), e 438 (Epidemia)» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a

36. According to the Turin order, before Lieutenant Legislative Decree no. 224 of 1944 the offense under Article 285 was punishable by death. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «prima dell’entrata in vigore del decreto legislativo luogotenenziale n. 224 del 1944 che l’ha abolita, addirittura con la pena capitale» — Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, referral order no. 14/2023, page · fingerprint 8f8008453b9a

37. The defense invoked the mitigating circumstance of minor seriousness under Article 311 of the Criminal Code, a new issue because Article 311 applies to offenses against the personality of the State and not to the ordinary massacre judged at the first two levels. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «costituisce un inedito assoluto il tema proposto dalle difese degli imputati, che hanno invocato l’applicazione della circostanza attenuante prevista dall’art. 311 codice penale» — Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, referral order no. 14/2023, page · fingerprint 8f8008453b9a
    • «e non anche con riferimento al delitto di strage previsto dall’art. 422 codice penale, viceversa contemplato dal titolo VI del medesimo Libro, sul quale si erano invece pronunciati i giudici di primo e secondo grado» — Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, referral order no. 14/2023, page · fingerprint 8f8008453b9a

38. At the end of the first-instance trial the public prosecutor, while seeking conviction under Article 285, had considered the act of minor seriousness; in the remand proceedings the Prosecutor General departed from that view. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «lo stesso pubblico ministero, chiedendo la condanna degli imputati per il reato di cui all’art. 285 codice penale, aveva ritenuto il fatto come connotato da lieve entita’» — Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, referral order no. 14/2023, page · fingerprint 8f8008453b9a
    • «il Procuratore generale si e’ viceversa legittimamente discostato nel presente giudizio di rinvio» — Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, referral order no. 14/2023, page · fingerprint 8f8008453b9a

39. The Assize Court of Appeal of Turin found that the conditions for the mitigating circumstance under Article 311 were met and that in the balancing it should prevail over repeated recidivism. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «anche questa Corte d’assise d’appello ritiene che siano integrati i presupposti della circostanza attenuante di cui si discute» — Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, referral order no. 14/2023, page · fingerprint 8f8008453b9a
    • «il giudizio di bilanciamento fra circostanze dovrebbe risolversi nel caso concreto riconoscendo la prevalenza della circostanza attenuante di cui trattasi rispetto alla recidiva ex art. 99, comma 4 codice penale» — Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, referral order no. 14/2023, page · fingerprint 8f8008453b9a

40. Article 69, fourth paragraph, of the Criminal Code, as replaced by Law no. 251 of December 5, 2005, prohibited mitigating circumstances from prevailing over repeated recidivism. 2 origins · 1 vector

    • «nel giudizio di legittimita’ costituzionale dell’art. 69, quarto comma, del codice penale, come sostituito dall’art. 3 della legge 5 dicembre 2005, n. 251» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a
    • «prevede il divieto di prevalenza delle circostanze attenuanti sulla recidiva reiterata di cui all’art. 99, quarto comma, cod. pen.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, operative part, page · fingerprint d80c6f8e3c63

41. If the mitigating circumstance prevailed, the penalty would be imprisonment from twenty to twenty-four years instead of life; without it, life imprisonment remains the only penalty. 2 origins · 1 vector

    • «non sarebbe piu’ punito con l’ergastolo, bensi’ con una pena di durata compresa fra i venti ed i ventiquattro anni di reclusione» — Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, referral order no. 14/2023, page · fingerprint 8f8008453b9a
    • «sarebbe determinabile entro l’intervallo di un minino (venti anni di reclusione) e un massimo (ventiquattro anni) ai sensi dell’art. 65 cod. pen.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a
    • «la pena dell’ergastolo diventa l’unica irrogabile, quindi "fissa" e "indefettibile".» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a

42. On December 19, 2022 the Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, second section, read out at the hearing the order raising the question, entered as no. 14 in the 2023 register of orders and published in Official Gazette no. 7, first special series, of 2023, with reference to Articles 3, 25 and 27 of the Constitution. 2 origins · 1 vector

    • «dando atto che della presente ordinanza e’ stata data lettura all’udienza del 19 dicembre 2022 alla presenza del Procuratore generale, degli imputati e delle parti» — Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, referral order no. 14/2023, operative part, page · fingerprint 58d21973656f
    • «promosso dalla Corte d’assise d’appello di Torino, sezione seconda, nel procedimento penale a carico di A. C. e altro, con ordinanza del 19 dicembre 2022, iscritta al n. 14 del registro ordinanze 2023 e pubblicata nella Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica n. 7, prima serie speciale, dell’anno 2023.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a
    • «in riferimento agli artt. 3, primo comma, 25, secondo comma, e 27, terzo comma, Cost.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a

43. According to the Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, the fixed nature of the penalty under Article 285 prevents any adjustment to the specific case, and the prohibition leads to punishing less serious acts with life imprisonment just like the most serious cases. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «La natura fissa della pena prevista dall’art. 285 codice penale, infatti, inibisce completamente ogni possibilita’ di adeguamento della pena al caso concreto.» — Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, referral order no. 14/2023, page · fingerprint 8f8008453b9a
    • «fatti di minore entita’ possano essere sanzionati con la pena dell’ergastolo prevista dall’art. 285 codice penale, esattamente come le ipotesi piu’ gravi» — Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, referral order no. 14/2023, page · fingerprint 8f8008453b9a
    • «sarebbero puniti con la stessa sanzione in virtu’ di una esclusiva considerazione dei precedenti penali del loro autore» — Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, referral order no. 14/2023, page · fingerprint 8f8008453b9a

44. The Turin order cites judgment no. 1538 of November 15, 1978 of the first section of the Court of Cassation, according to which life imprisonment under Article 285 is compatible with the Constitution partly because mitigating circumstances allow imprisonment to be applied; with the prohibition on prevalence that possibility would be precluded. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «proprio attraverso l’applicazione delle circostanze attenuanti, «non si sottrae al giudice la possibilita’ di far luogo alla pena della reclusione in luogo di quella dell’ergastolo» (Corte di cassazione, Sezione prima, sentenza n. 1538 del 15 novembre 1978)» — Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, referral order no. 14/2023, page · fingerprint 8f8008453b9a
    • «tale possibilita’ sarebbe irrimediabilmente preclusa all’interprete» — Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, referral order no. 14/2023, page · fingerprint 8f8008453b9a

45. Before the Constitutional Court the State Attorney General’s Office raised several objections of inadmissibility of the questions. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «occorre esaminare le plurime eccezioni di inammissibilita’ delle questioni prospettate dall’Avvocatura generale dello Stato» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a

46. The Court rejected the objection: Article 311 applies to all offenses in Title I of Book II of the Criminal Code, Articles 241 to 300, that is, to all offenses against the personality of the State. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «Quest’ultima eccezione - che ha carattere pregiudiziale e che quindi va esaminata per prima - non puo’ essere accolta.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a
    • «la diminuente configurata all’art. 311 cod. pen. si applica a tutti i reati previsti dal Titolo I del Libro II del codice penale (articoli da 241 a 300), ossia a tutti i delitti contro la personalita’ dello Stato» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a

47. For the Court, massacre under Article 285 is an extremely serious offense even when no one dies, because it is enough that the conduct is capable of endangering people’s safety; but its gravity can still be graded according to the consequences, and an attempted massacre is already a completed massacre. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «e’ sicuramente un reato di estrema gravita’, anche quando, in ipotesi, non sia stata cagionata la morte di alcuno» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a
    • «essendo sufficiente l’idoneita’ della condotta a porre in pericolo l’incolumita’ delle persone» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a
    • «La sua natura di reato di pericolo a consumazione anticipata non esclude, infatti, che il concreto disvalore dei fatti riconducibili alla figura astratta di reato resti graduabile a seconda che la condotta del reo abbia, o meno, prodotto conseguenze lesive» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a
    • «il "tentativo" di strage e’ gia’ strage consumata» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a

48. Constitutional case law has repeatedly held that a fixed penalty is, for that reason alone, presumptively unconstitutional. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «La giurisprudenza costituzionale ha piu’ volte affermato che una pena fissa e’ per cio’ solo indiziata di illegittimita’ costituzionale» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a

49. As a rule, mitigating circumstances found equivalent to recidivism at least exclude an increase in the penalty; but life imprisonment, already perpetual, cannot be increased, and so for the Court all mitigating circumstances are in fact neutralized by repeated recidivism. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «quanto meno hanno l’effetto di escludere l’aumento di pena per la recidiva» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a
    • «Ma nel caso dell’ergastolo, questo effetto non puo’ conseguirsi, non essendo esso suscettibile di aggravamento per la recidiva reiterata in quanto di per se’ perpetuo.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a
    • «tutte le attenuanti sono, di fatto, "sterilizzate" dal concorso con la recidiva reiterata» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a

50. For the Court, even with parole possible after at least twenty-six years, the gap between a perpetual and a temporary penalty is radically greater than any imbalance considered in the precedents on the prohibition on prevalence. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «Tuttavia va considerato che, pur con il riconoscimento di queste tutele» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a
    • «quale presupposto della liberazione condizionale del condannato all’ergastolo dopo l’espiazione di non meno di ventisei anni di reclusione (art. 176 cod. pen.)» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a
    • «il fossato che, come divario sanzionatorio, esiste tra la pena perpetua, al momento della sua irrogazione, ed una temporanea, e’ radicalmente maggiore di ogni squilibrio considerato dalla giurisprudenza» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a

51. Article 270-bis.1 of the Criminal Code, which provides a similar prohibition on prevalence for terrorism or subversion offenses, refers expressly to offenses punishable by a penalty other than life imprisonment. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «il regime "privilegiato" delle circostanze di cui all’art. 270-bis.1 cod. pen., che al secondo comma prevede un divieto di prevalenza delle attenuanti, non dissimile da quello attualmente censurato, per i reati commessi per finalita’ di terrorismo o di eversione dell’ordine democratico, si riferisce espressamente, al primo comma, a quelli punibili con pena diversa dall’ergastolo» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a

52. Judgment no. 94 of 2023 was decided on April 18, 2023, after the public hearing held the same day, with Silvana Sciarra as president and Giovanni Amoroso as rapporteur, filed on May 12, 2023 and published in Official Gazette no. 20 of May 17, 2023. 3 origins · 1 vector

    • «udito nell’udienza pubblica del 18 aprile 2023 il Giudice relatore Giovanni Amoroso» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a
    • «Cosi’ deciso in Roma, nella sede della Corte costituzionale, Palazzo della Consulta, il 18 aprile 2023. F.to: Silvana SCIARRA, Presidente Giovanni AMOROSO, Redattore» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, operative part, page · fingerprint d80c6f8e3c63
    • «Depositata in Cancelleria il 12 maggio 2023.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, operative part, page · fingerprint d80c6f8e3c63
    • «(GU 1 a Serie Speciale - Corte Costituzionale n.20 del 17-5-2023)» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, Official Gazette record, page · fingerprint 6a0a7ad74b69

53. The Court declared Article 69, fourth paragraph, of the Criminal Code unconstitutional insofar as, for offenses punishable by life imprisonment, it prohibits mitigating circumstances from prevailing over repeated recidivism. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «dichiara l’illegittimita’ costituzionale dell’art. 69, quarto comma, del codice penale» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, operative part, page · fingerprint d80c6f8e3c63
    • «nella parte in cui, relativamente ai delitti puniti con la pena edittale dell’ergastolo, prevede il divieto di prevalenza delle circostanze attenuanti sulla recidiva reiterata» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, operative part, page · fingerprint d80c6f8e3c63

54. The violation applies to every mitigating circumstance, including general mitigating circumstances, and to all offenses punishable by fixed life imprisonment; the judge may now find the mitigating circumstances prevailing over, equivalent to or outweighed by repeated recidivism. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «vale altresi’ con riguardo ad ogni altra attenuante, comprese le attenuanti generiche di cui all’art. 62-bis cod. pen., e per tutti gli altri reati puniti allo stesso modo, ossia con la pena edittale fissa dell’ergastolo» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a
    • «puo’ ritenere le attenuanti prevalenti sulla recidiva reiterata (secondo comma), oppure equivalenti a quest’ultima (terzo comma), o finanche subvalenti rispetto ad essa (primo comma).» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a

55. Company L. works in the collection, transport and disposal of animal by-products and in the collection of used vegetable oils, and needs several administrative authorizations to operate. 2 origins · 1 vector

    • «opera nel settore dell’ecologia, svolgendo attivita’ di prelievo, trasporto e smaltimento di sottoprodotti di origine animale, nonche’ di raccolta e messa in riserva di olii esausti vegetali» — Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont, referral order no. 142/2021, page · fingerprint 1c040919da70
    • «Per lo svolgimento di qualunque attivita’ la ricorrente necessita di plurime autorizzazioni amministrative» — Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont, referral order no. 142/2021, page · fingerprint 1c040919da70
    • «l’iscrizione all’Albo nazionale gestori ambientali» — Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont, referral order no. 142/2021, page · fingerprint 1c040919da70
    • «Il giudice a quo e’ stato investito di un ricorso proposto della societa’ L., operante nel settore del prelievo, traporto e smaltimento di sottoprodotti di origine animale» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522

56. The Turin Chamber of Commerce, the Rome office of the civil motor vehicle authority and the Cagliari Operations Center of the Revenue Agency requested the anti-mafia notice on the company through the Single National Database. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «la Camera di commercio di Torino ha chiesto, tramite la Banca dati nazionali unica, il rilascio della comunicazione antimafia nei confronti della ricorrente» — Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont, referral order no. 142/2021, page · fingerprint 1c040919da70
    • «anche l’Ufficio della motorizzazione civile di Roma ha chiesto, tramite la Banca dati nazionale unica, il rilascio della comunicazione antimafia nei confronti della ricorrente» — Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont, referral order no. 142/2021, page · fingerprint 1c040919da70
    • «anche il Centro operativo dell’Agenzia delle entrate di Cagliari ha chiesto, tramite la Banca dati nazionale unica, il rilascio della comunicazione antimafia» — Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont, referral order no. 142/2021, page · fingerprint 1c040919da70

57. The Prefect of the Province of Alessandria notified the company that the impeding situations under Article 67 and Article 84, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree no. 159 of 2011 applied to it. 2 origins · 1 vector

    • «il Prefetto della Provincia di Alessandria ha informato la ricorrente della sussistenza nei suoi confronti delle situazioni ostative di cui all’art. 67 e art. 84, comma 2 del decreto legislativo n. 159 del 2011.» — Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont, referral order no. 142/2021, page · fingerprint 1c040919da70
    • «volto all’annullamento del provvedimento del Prefetto della Provincia di Alessandria recante la comunicazione» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522

58. As a result, the authorization to operate as a road haulier was revoked, with removal from the Register of Road Hauliers. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «e’ stata disposta la revoca dell’autorizzazione all’esercizio della professione di autotrasportatore su strada con contestuale cancellazione del R.E.N. e dall’Albo degli autotrasportatori» — Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont, referral order no. 142/2021, page · fingerprint 1c040919da70

59. The anti-mafia notice was based exclusively on a conviction issued by the Court of Appeal of Cagliari for organized activities for illegal waste trafficking. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «Riferisce il rimettente che la comunicazione antimafia in questione aveva tratto esclusiva giustificazione dalla condanna emessa dalla Corte d’appello di Cagliari» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522
    • «per il reato di «Attivita’ organizzate per il traffico illecito di rifiuti»» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522

60. According to the order, two of the convicted persons are attorneys-in-fact of company L., whose sole shareholder is another company in which the convicted persons are majority shareholders. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «Si apprende dall’ordinanza di rimessione che due dei destinatari della condanna sono procuratori della societa’ L., parte del giudizio a quo, il cui socio unico e’, a sua volta, la societa’ M. G. Soci di maggioranza di quest’ultima sono i gia’ citati» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522

61. The Court of Appeal of Cagliari had excluded criminal association, because there was no proof that the system, however well devised, served a permanent program of unlawful acts. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «La Corte d’appello di Cagliari aveva invece escluso la sussistenza della contestata fattispecie di associazione per delinquere di cui all’art. 416 cod. pen., giacche’ non vi era prova che il riscontrato e pur «ben congegnato sistema criminoso, non occasionale o contingente» fosse assimilabile ad un piu’ generale programma permanente ed indeterminato di azioni illecite» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522

62. The provision requires a prohibitive anti-mafia notice after a final conviction, or one upheld on appeal, for that offense even when it is not committed in associative form, by referring to the list in Article 51, paragraph 3-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «la disposizione censurata impone l’emissione della comunicazione antimafia interdittiva in caso di condanna definitiva, o confermata in appello, per il reato ricordato, anche laddove quest’ultimo non si manifesti in forma associativa.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522
    • «La disposizione e’ censurata nella parte in cui, rinviando al catalogo di reati previsto dall’art. 51, comma 3-bis, del codice di procedura penale» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522

63. Illegal waste trafficking was introduced by Law no. 93 of March 23, 2001 as Article 53-bis of Legislative Decree no. 22 of 1997, was then provided for by Article 260 of Legislative Decree no. 152 of 2006 and finally placed in the Criminal Code as Article 452-quaterdecies. 2 origins · 1 vector

    • «era previsto dall’art. 53-bis del decreto legislativo n. 22 del 1997. L’introduzione di questo delitto e’ infatti avvenuta ad opera dell’art. 22 della legge 23 marzo 2001, n. 93.» — Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont, referral order no. 142/2021, page · fingerprint 1c040919da70
    • «delitto al momento dei fatti previsto dall’art. 260 del decreto legislativo 3 aprile 2006, n. 152 (Norme in materia ambientale), e successivamente inserito nel codice penale all’art. 452-quaterdecies» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522

64. The anti-mafia notice consists of a certification of whether or not one of the grounds for forfeiture, suspension or prohibition under Article 67 of the Anti-Mafia Code applies. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • ««[l]a comunicazione antimafia consiste nell’attestazione della sussistenza o meno di una delle cause di decadenza, di sospensione o di divieto di cui all’articolo 67»» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522

65. The Regional Administrative Court (TAR) of Piedmont, first section, decided in chambers on March 10, 2021 and raised the question by order of April 29, 2021, entered as no. 142 in the 2021 register of orders and published in Official Gazette no. 39 of 2021, with reference to Articles 3, 25, 27, 38 and 41 of the Constitution. 2 origins · 1 vector

    • «Cosi’ deciso in Torino nella Camera di consiglio del giorno 10 marzo 2021» — Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont, referral order no. 142/2021, operative part, page · fingerprint 844c9cd31b84
    • «Con ordinanza del 29 aprile 2021, iscritta al n. 142 del r.o. del 2021, il Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Piemonte, sezione prima, solleva, in riferimento agli artt. 3, 25, 27, 38 e 41 della Costituzione» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522
    • «pubblicata nella Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica n. 39, prima serie speciale, dell’anno 2021» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522

66. According to the Court of Cassation case law cited by the TAR, illegal waste trafficking is a single-perpetrator offense, which requires several continuous operations but not several people, and can be committed even when the unlawful activity is marginal to a lawful main activity (section III, no. 43710 of October 28, 2019). 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «non e’ richiesta una pluralita’ di soggetti agenti, trattandosi di fattispecie monosoggettiva, mentre e’ richiesta una pluralita’ di operazioni in continuita’ temporale» — Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont, referral order no. 142/2021, page · fingerprint 1c040919da70
    • «il reato e’ configurabile anche quando l’attivita’ criminosa sia marginale o secondaria rispetto all’attivita’ principale lecitamente svolta (Cassazione, sezione III, 28 ottobre 2019, n. 43710)» — Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont, referral order no. 142/2021, page · fingerprint 1c040919da70

67. For the TAR, the mafias’ interest in waste is common knowledge, so much so that it gave rise to the term «ecomafie», but it does not imply that everyone convicted of illegal waste trafficking is ipso facto at risk of collusion; prohibitive measures have a preventive, not a punitive, function. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «sebbene l’interesse che da anni muove le organizzazioni criminali di tipo mafioso nel settore dei rifiuti rappresenti oramai un fatto notorio, tanto che e’ stato coniato un termine ad hoc per definirle, "ecomafie"» — Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont, referral order no. 142/2021, page · fingerprint 1c040919da70
    • «cio’ non implica necessariamente che tutti i soggetti condannati per traffico illecito di rifiuti - che si ribadisce costituisce un reato mono soggettivo - siano ipso facto a rischio di collusione con ambienti della criminalita’ organizzata» — Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont, referral order no. 142/2021, page · fingerprint 1c040919da70
    • «le misure di prevenzione antimafia a carattere interdittivo hanno funzione preventiva e non afflittiva» — Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont, referral order no. 142/2021, page · fingerprint 1c040919da70

68. The TAR cites constitutional judgment no. 24 of 2020, which declared unconstitutional Article 120, paragraph 2, of the Highway Code insofar as the prefect is required, rather than permitted, to revoke the driving license of a person subject to a personal security measure. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «la sentenza n. 24 del 2020 di questa Corte, che, pur in un ambito molto diverso, ha dichiarato l’illegittimita’ costituzionale dell’art. 120, comma 2, del decreto legislativo 30 aprile 1992, n. 285 (Nuovo codice della strada), nella parte in cui dispone che il prefetto «provvede», anziche’ «puo’ provvedere», alla revoca della patente di guida nei confronti di coloro che sono sottoposti a misura di sicurezza personale» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522

69. Judgment no. 118 of 2022 was decided on April 5, 2022, after the public hearing held the same day, with Giuliano Amato as president and Nicolò Zanon as rapporteur, filed on May 10, 2022 and published in Official Gazette no. 19 of May 11, 2022. 3 origins · 1 vector

    • «nell’udienza pubblica del 5 aprile 2022 il Giudice relatore Nicolo’ Zanon» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522
    • «Cosi’ deciso in Roma, nella sede della Corte costituzionale, Palazzo della Consulta, il 5 aprile 2022. F.to: Giuliano AMATO, Presidente Nicolo’ ZANON, Redattore» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, operative part, page · fingerprint 4e5ce18d6152
    • «Depositata in Cancelleria il 10 maggio 2022.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, operative part, page · fingerprint 4e5ce18d6152
    • «(GU 1 a Serie Speciale - Corte Costituzionale n.19 del 11-5-2022)» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, Official Gazette record, page · fingerprint 772b3d4a4f39

70. The Court declared inadmissible all the questions on Article 67, paragraph 8, of Legislative Decree no. 159 of 2011 raised by the TAR of Piedmont. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «dichiara inammissibili le questioni di legittimita’ costituzionale dell’art. 67, comma 8, del decreto legislativo 6 settembre 2011, n. 159» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, operative part, page · fingerprint 4e5ce18d6152
    • «dal Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Piemonte, sezione prima, con l’ordinanza indicata in epigrafe» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, operative part, page · fingerprint 4e5ce18d6152

71. The challenges based on Articles 38, 25 and 27 of the Constitution were declared inadmissible: the one on Article 38 as excessively concise and obscure, those on Articles 25 and 27 as apodictic and lacking any analysis of administrative case law, starting with Plenary Session decision no. 3 of April 6, 2018 of the Council of State. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «Devono essere innanzitutto dichiarate inammissibili le questioni di legittimita’ costituzionale incentrate sull’asserita lesione agli artt. 38, 25 e 27 Cost.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522
    • «l’ordinanza di rimessione risulta eccessivamente concisa e, quindi, oscura» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522
    • «In modo del tutto apodittico» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522
    • «non contiene alcuna analisi critica dell’ampia giurisprudenza amministrativa - del resto neppure menzionata (si veda, in particolare, Consiglio di Stato, adunanza plenaria, sentenza 6 aprile 2018, n. 3) - che ha qualificato quelle derivanti dalla documentazione antimafia come misure di carattere anticipatorio» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522

72. The challenges based on Article 3 were extensively reasoned, but the reasoning followed two irreconcilable paths: removing the non-associative offense from the list, replacing one automatic mechanism with one of the opposite sign, or requiring a case-by-case assessment of links with the associative phenomenon, whose conditions and object were not clarified. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «esse, a differenza delle precedenti, risultano ampiamente motivate» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522
    • «che si snoda lungo due percorsi tra loro non conciliabili» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522
    • «dovrebbe essere sostituito, per cosi’ dire, da un automatismo di segno opposto» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522
    • «nella parte in cui non prevede che, in caso di condanna per il reato di cui all’art. 452-quaterdecies cod. pen., debba essere valutata in concreto la sussistenza di elementi di connessione con il fenomeno associativo criminale» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522
    • «Di questa attivita’ discrezionale, peraltro, non sono del tutto chiariti i presupposti e l’oggetto.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522

73. For the Court, the order leaves the two perspectives unresolved and coexisting, and the Court cannot be called upon to choose between them. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «L’ordinanza mantiene irrisolte e compresenti le due descritte, ben diverse, prospettive argomentative. Questa Corte, tuttavia, non puo’ essere chiamata a scegliere tra di esse.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522

74. The three judgments were decided in Rome, in the Palazzo della Consulta, seat of the Constitutional Court. 3 origins · 1 vector

    • «Cosi’ deciso in Roma, nella sede della Corte costituzionale, Palazzo della Consulta» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, operative part, page · fingerprint d9516a6d212c
    • «Cosi’ deciso in Roma, nella sede della Corte costituzionale, Palazzo della Consulta» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, operative part, page · fingerprint d80c6f8e3c63
    • «Cosi’ deciso in Roma, nella sede della Corte costituzionale, Palazzo della Consulta» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, operative part, page · fingerprint 4e5ce18d6152

75. Of the three questions, two were declared inadmissible (Catanzaro and the TAR of Piedmont) and one led to a declaration of unconstitutionality (Turin). 3 origins · 1 vector

    • «dichiara inammissibili le questioni di legittimita’ costituzionale dell’art. 631 del codice di procedura penale» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, operative part, page · fingerprint d9516a6d212c
    • «dichiara inammissibili le questioni di legittimita’ costituzionale dell’art. 67, comma 8» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, operative part, page · fingerprint 4e5ce18d6152
    • «dichiara l’illegittimita’ costituzionale dell’art. 69, quarto comma, del codice penale» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, operative part, page · fingerprint d80c6f8e3c63

76. The TAR of Piedmont ordered the redaction of the personal details and of any data capable of identifying the natural or legal persons named in the order. 1 origin · 1 vector

    • «manda alla Segreteria di procedere all’oscuramento delle generalita’ nonche’ di qualsiasi altro dato idoneo ad identificare qualunque persona fisica o giuridica indicata in ordinanza» — Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont, referral order no. 142/2021, operative part, page · fingerprint 844c9cd31b84

Attributed (3)

someone’s claim (a party, an agency): in the text they always appear attributed to whoever makes them.

1. According to the State Attorney General’s Office, review is an extraordinary remedy based on the principle that no innocent person should be subjected to punishment, only an error in the historical reconstruction of the facts is relevant, and Article 24 of the Constitution leaves to Parliament the choice of the cases for redress. 1 origin · 1 vector

   • «L’Avvocatura generale dello Stato sottolinea che la revisione costituisce un’impugnazione straordinaria, fondata sul principio che nessun innocente deve essere assoggettato a pena.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c
   • «ai fini della revisione sarebbe rilevante solo quello intervenuto «nella ricostruzione storica del fatto di reato» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c
   • «attribuirebbe al Parlamento il potere discrezionale di individuare i casi e i modi della riparazione» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, page · fingerprint 97fadfdc137c

2. According to the State Attorney General’s Office, the mitigating circumstance under Article 311 would be structurally inapplicable to massacre under Article 285 because of the intrinsic seriousness of the offense. 1 origin · 1 vector

   • «si eccepisce la strutturale inapplicabilita’ dell’attenuante prevista dall’art. 311 cod. pen. al delitto di strage di cui all’art. 285 cod. pen., in ragione dell’intrinseca gravita’ del reato.» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, page · fingerprint eafdadec328a

3. According to the conviction reported in the order, the convicted persons had unlawfully received, transported, managed and disposed of large quantities of animal by-products intended for meal and oils for animal feed. 1 origin · 1 vector

   • «avevano ricevuto, trasportato, gestito e smaltito abusivamente ingenti quantitativi di sottoprodotti di origine animale, destinandoli alla produzione di farine e oli da utilizzarsi per la preparazione di mangimi animali» — Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, page · fingerprint 6b2a922cc522

The records

1. Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018 · Gazzetta Ufficiale · gu-cc-sentenza-2018-42 · vector δ6 · source · retrieved on 2026-10-15 · SHA-256 97fadfdc137c321cc730ba241769fade369b7d39c7d5ad0bb39d13f77735193a
2. Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017 · Gazzetta Ufficiale · gu-promovimento-2017-98-ca-catanzaro · vector δ6 · source · retrieved on 2026-10-15 · SHA-256 0c21ea6d3a0964a5caf2b364a1ff91022168e98fc5de7d48b734b7d7e6b74fb3
3. Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, referral order no. 98/2017, operative part · Gazzetta Ufficiale · gu-promovimento-2017-98-ca-catanzaro-pqm · vector δ6 · source · retrieved on 2026-10-15 · SHA-256 3049082904050c665ea0d6dab9c45a685a6161f9b3db314280579e3c06b6665f
4. Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, operative part · Gazzetta Ufficiale · gu-cc-sentenza-2018-42-dispositivo · vector δ6 · source · retrieved on 2026-10-15 · SHA-256 d9516a6d212ce2da486c726b2048d41ba7f4993e38d6c7dc856c4fe4d003c761
5. Constitutional Court, judgment no. 42/2018, Official Gazette record · Gazzetta Ufficiale · gu-cc-sentenza-2018-42-scheda · vector δ6 · source · retrieved on 2026-10-15 · SHA-256 dde260c94ae67d59e2f91924eceab5babccc0b49c33f1fee7826a9cca574caa2
6. Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023 · Gazzetta Ufficiale · gu-cc-sentenza-2023-94 · vector δ6 · source · retrieved on 2026-10-15 · SHA-256 eafdadec328a0e35af787dc035c2b857549915c9ce73d49c44d1c25923ebc695
7. Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, referral order no. 14/2023 · Gazzetta Ufficiale · gu-promovimento-2023-14-cass-torino · vector δ6 · source · retrieved on 2026-10-15 · SHA-256 8f8008453b9a2709ca92ef9003f0e39f6037cab77fe10a08432f308f851c47be
8. Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, operative part · Gazzetta Ufficiale · gu-cc-sentenza-2023-94-dispositivo · vector δ6 · source · retrieved on 2026-10-15 · SHA-256 d80c6f8e3c63cc42a6f0fb758c8d51a973226c2d0d97c227b5b2c27438c71045
9. Assize Court of Appeal of Turin, referral order no. 14/2023, operative part · Gazzetta Ufficiale · gu-promovimento-2023-14-cass-torino-pqm · vector δ6 · source · retrieved on 2026-10-15 · SHA-256 58d21973656faad1559769cd687cecd2cc3bbef7321f7587a1eed4c033d57f04
10. Constitutional Court, judgment no. 94/2023, Official Gazette record · Gazzetta Ufficiale · gu-cc-sentenza-2023-94-scheda · vector δ6 · source · retrieved on 2026-10-15 · SHA-256 6a0a7ad74b6973297321e8734d5d69cff517ee147d0153f6a2608c8b910b1a71
11. Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont, referral order no. 142/2021 · Gazzetta Ufficiale · gu-promovimento-2021-142-tar-piemonte · vector δ6 · source · retrieved on 2026-10-15 · SHA-256 1c040919da701155aba7f08cd2fa1ba328b469b6a646089214403bd9c8951280
12. Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022 · Gazzetta Ufficiale · gu-cc-sentenza-2022-118 · vector δ6 · source · retrieved on 2026-10-15 · SHA-256 6b2a922cc5225706fe5a77797e7c37e44a2af11e512abd932324eb6c6dbc918b
13. Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont, referral order no. 142/2021, operative part · Gazzetta Ufficiale · gu-promovimento-2021-142-tar-piemonte-pqm · vector δ6 · source · retrieved on 2026-10-15 · SHA-256 844c9cd31b84d6a121102091f35c7c928e6f4e999ce450b597a320ef4d9c042b
14. Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, operative part · Gazzetta Ufficiale · gu-cc-sentenza-2022-118-dispositivo · vector δ6 · source · retrieved on 2026-10-15 · SHA-256 4e5ce18d6152fbd49e914499c110bf07deb6e81da945e759dca9658f19c3f9ef
15. Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2022, Official Gazette record · Gazzetta Ufficiale · gu-cc-sentenza-2022-118-scheda · vector δ6 · source · retrieved on 2026-10-15 · SHA-256 772b3d4a4f39f028f549900bd8953bd033ee42f540e062789ac40e97ec1fee9e