SAN MARINO – Repubblica Futura presents a question to the Congress of State on the sentences of the European Court of Human Rights relating to the Casali against San Marino and Simoncini against San Marino cases, asking for clarifications on the management of the judicial proceedings, on the institutional relations with the Court of Strasbourg and on any responsibilities connected to the events.
The initiative follows the ruling of 22 October 2026 on the Casali case, with which the European Court unanimously recognized the violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights, relating to the right to a court established by law, and of Article 10, relating to freedom of expression. The State of San Marino was condemned to pay 24,000 euros.
According to what was reported in the sentence, the Judge for Extraordinary Remedies, with a ruling of 5 October 2024, had accepted the complaint nullitatis presented by the civil party, annulling without postponement the previous acquittal pronounced by the Judge of Third Instance and thus reviving the appellant’s conviction. The European Court held that the judge did not have a legal basis or the necessary competence to decide on the issue, specifying that the querela nullitatis provided for by Constitutional Law no. 1/2021 concerns exclusively civil proceedings.
Repubblica Futura also recalls the previous ruling of 19 February 2026 on the Simoncini case, in which the same Section of the Court had ascertained the violation of articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, ordering compensation of 160,000 euros.
Among the aspects submitted to the Government is the request for recusal of judge Gilberto Felici, made in the two cases, and rejected by the Court. The question asks to know whether the initiative was approved by the State Congress or requested by a single Secretary of State.
The councilors also ask for clarification on the exception of abuse of the right of individual appeal raised by the Government in the Casali case, also based on the political affiliation of the appellant and her lawyer to Repubblica Futura. The European Court rejected the objection, finding that the arguments presented were irrelevant to the abuse of the right of appeal and indicated strong internal political tension.
The question also addresses the criminal proceedings for slander initiated against Ingrid Casali’s defender, following a report from the Court Manager while the judgment was still pending before the Judge of Third Instance. The proceeding was closed on 30 October 2024 due to the lack of the subjective element. In the ruling, the Court noted that the initiative could have been perceived as pressure on the defender, especially in a heated political context.
A further point concerns the letter of 22 October 2024 with which the Judge of Third Instance, whose acquittal was subsequently annulled, had reported concerns about the independence of the judiciary to the San Marino institutional leaders and representatives of the Council of Europe. The communication had been criticized by the Judicial Council with resolution no. 1 of 6 November 2024. Repubblica Futura requests to know the date, reasons and recipient of the magistrate’s subsequent resignation, as well as the possible initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the judge who had accepted the complaint nullitatis.
The councilors also ask if, during the current legislature or while the appeals were pending, meetings were held between members of the State Congress, San Marino magistrates and representatives of the European Court of Human Rights. If so, they want to know dates, participants, methods of organization and topics addressed, including any discussion of pending or already defined proceedings.
Finally, among the questions is the Government’s intention to request the referral of the Casali case to the Grand Chamber of the European Court, a possibility provided for by Article 43 of the Convention within three months of the ruling of 22 October, with an indication of the assessments underlying the decision and the estimated costs.
Repubblica Futura requests a written response and attaches to the request the need to acquire the documentation relating to the three appeals, including the briefs of the State Attorney and the Government Agent, the requests for recusal, the documents relating to the possible referral to the Grand Chamber, the resignation letter of the magistrate, the communication of 22 October 2024 and the resolution of the Judicial Council. A copy of the correspondence between the Director of the Court, the individual Secretariats of State and the State Attorney’s Office in relation to the Casali and Simoncini cases is also requested.
