From San Marino information (by Antonio Fabbri) – Ban on the publication of the personal details of minors involved in any capacity in criminal proceedings, it took 4 years before reaching a first degree conviction. An easy case, a clear rule which led to the conviction in first instance, 4 years after the facts, to a (suspended) fine of Marco Severini director of journalism…while still those names of minors are still published online. Let’s go back to retrace the long judicial process and the obstacles encountered in court to offer protection that would be obvious, even more so where the laws of the State provide it in an explicit and crystal-clear manner.
The origin of the incident
It all starts with the publication of the personal details of the minors – the injured party in a trial against their father for failure to pay alimony – by Marco Severini on his websitejournalism, where the children’s personal details are still published today.
Faced with the dissemination of minors’ data, April 11, 2023 Antonio Fabbri And Carlo Filippini newspaper journalists San Marino Information filed a complaint with the Court. The act alleged violation of the art. 192-bis of the Penal Code and art. 75 of Law no. 171/2018 on the protection of personal data, rules that prohibit the publication of information, images or elements capable of identifying minors involved in any capacity in judicial proceedings.
The complaint goes to the Law Commissioner Roberto Battaglino who, without even investigating Severini, archives it because the trial was open-door and then, according to him, the law only concerns cases in which minors are victims of violence. A singular interpretation of a clear rule which states that the details of minors “in any capacity involved in criminal proceedings” cannot be published. The judge tells Battaglino that the rule is crystal clear Renato Bricchettiwhich after the dismissal, the complainants Filippini and Fabbri with their lawyer Enrico Carattoni, had appealed. Wanting to simplify as much as possible, Judge Bricchetti essentially says that, if there is an unequivocal provision of the San Marino penal code, it is exactly the one that protects minors in any capacity involved in criminal proceedings. Then Judge Bricchetti reopens the case.
Reassignment of the file
The file is reassigned by the manager Giovanni Canzio to another investigator, Elisa Beccariwhich opens the investigation against Marco Severini.
At that point, the editor of GerusalemmeSM, with lawyers Stefania Podeschi and Stefano Pagliai, challenged Judge Bricchetti’s appeal decision, calling it an “abnormal act”.
Before the judgment for this appeal can be assigned, the appeal judges Valeria Pierfelici and Laura Di Bona abstain. The case then ends up with the judge for the civil liability of magistrates, as judge of appeals, Giuseppe Severini.
The complaint for abnormality
On September 14, 2023, the lawyers Stefano Pagliai And Stefania Podeschi they have in fact presented, on behalf of Marco Severini, a complaint for alleged “abnormality” (ex art. 56 cpp) against the order of the Judge of Appeal.
The complaint argued first of all that the appeal presented by Antonio Fabbri and Carlo Filippini was inadmissible since the complainants lacked an “actual interest” in appealing. Added to this were formal protests. Finally, on the merits, the defense reiterated the thesis according to which art. 192-bis of the Criminal Code would not have been violated, maintaining that the law would only prohibit the publication of documents covered by secrecy or relating to hearings held behind closed doors. A thesis that the lawyer then Filippo Coccowho in the meantime had become Severini’s defender, argued at first instance, but without success given the conviction.
The clear response of Judge Giuseppe Severini
Ordinance no. intervened to bring down the defensive system. 57/2023 of 19 October 2023, signed by the Judge Giuseppe Severini. The Judge clarified without reservations that the appeal against the dismissal presented by Fabbri and Filippini was completely legitimate. The art. 135, second paragraph, of the Code of Criminal Procedure in fact expressly attributes to the “complainant” the power to challenge the dismissal decree. This is an extraordinary legitimacy to appeal conferred by law for the sole fact of having presented the complaint, acting in the general interest for crimes prosecutable ex officio, regardless of the ordinary preliminary screening on the existence of a direct personal interest.
No “abnormalities”
Judge Giuseppe Severini deemed the hypothesis of abnormality of the reopening order to be devoid of any basis. The concept of an “abnormal” act arises exclusively in the presence of measures that are totally unrelated to the legal system or express a misuse of the jurisdictional function.
The further formal exceptions, which raised questions relating to who had physically presented the appeal and the signatures, were deemed equally reductive and unfounded. Everything is fine.
Having rejected the alleged abnormality, judge Giuseppe Severini confirmed the sentence of judge Bricchetti, condemning Marco Severini to pay the costs of the complaint: “Given the rejection of the complaint, the compensation (…) is borne by SEVERINI Marco. However, as can be seen from the documents of the proceedings, it is acknowledged that it was not previously filed by the appellant (…) it is therefore the responsibility of the Administration to advance the same compensation, without prejudice to compensation”.
The confirmation of Judge Bricchetti’s sentence
By rejecting the abnormality and confirming the sentence of the Judge of Appeals, the key principles put in place to defend the little ones are thus reiterated: the rules of special protection introduced by the art. 192-bis of the Criminal Code and art. 75 of Law no. 171/2018 operate to prevent the identification of minors involved in any capacity in judicial proceedings.
These protections prevail over the collective interest in the news and operate with regard to all procedural documents, regardless of whether the trial was celebrated in a public hearing or not. Now, therefore, the proceedings could continue before the investigator Elisa Beccari, but not without encountering other obstacles to the protection of minors.
af
(Continues)
(Published in full after 9pm)
