Attached to ruling no. 135 of 2024, available here.

ORDER

Having examined the documents pertaining to the proceedings concerning the constitutional legitimacy of Article 580 of the Criminal Code, initiated by the Investigating Judge of the Ordinary Court of Florence, pursuant to the Order of January 17, 2024, registered as no. 32 in the 2024 Register of Orders and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic, no. 11, Special Series, of 2024.

Having noted that, on March 29, 2024, L. S. and M. O. filed a motion to intervene, asserting their entitlement to do so based on their request for verification of the conditions for access to assisted suicide, which has, to date, been rejected by the contacted Local Health Authorities;

that, during oral argument, the intervenors' counsel specifically argued that they have no other procedural avenue to assert the unconstitutionality of the challenged provision, since their position is not that of potential defendants in criminal proceedings in which Article 580 of the Criminal Code could be applied, but rather that of individuals requesting assistance in accessing assisted suicide procedures, currently precluded by the challenged provision;

that the intervenors' counsel further emphasized that, considering the intervenors' medical conditions, these proceedings represent the only forum in which they could assert their arguments in support of the unconstitutionality of Article 580 of the Criminal Code.

Considering that L. S. and M. O. are not parties to the main proceedings;

that, according to the consistent jurisprudence of this Court (see, among others, the orders attached to rulings no. 39 of 2024, no. 130 of 2023, and no. 158 of 2020), participation in incidental proceedings on constitutional legitimacy is normally limited to the parties to the a quo proceedings, in addition to the Prime Minister and, in the case of regional legislation, the President of the Regional Government (Articles 3 and 4 of the Supplementary Rules for Proceedings before the Constitutional Court);

that, in this context, intervention by parties extraneous to the main proceedings is admissible only when it concerns third parties holding a qualified interest, directly and immediately related to the substantive matter in dispute (Article 4, paragraph 3, of the Supplementary Rules), and not simply governed, like any other, by the provision under challenge (see, among others, the orders attached to rulings no. 39 and no. 22 of 2024, no. 206 of 2019);

that intervention is, therefore, normally admissible only if the impact on the intervenor's position does not derive, as with all other substantive situations governed by the challenged provision, from the ruling on the constitutional legitimacy of the law itself, but is an immediate and direct consequence of the effect that this Court's ruling would produce on the substantive matter of the a quo proceedings (see, among others, the orders attached to rulings no. 22 of 2024, no. 130 of 2023, and no. 210 of 2021);

that, however, regardless of whether it is possible for the intervenors to challenge the constitutional legitimacy of Article 580 of the Criminal Code in another court, the arguments of their counsel cannot be disregarded, according to which the evolution of their respective pathologies may, in practice, prevent them from asserting their rights in a timely manner;

that this Court, in a matter involving the very lives of the intervenors, is particularly obliged to ensure the protection of the right of defense in its essential dimension of effectiveness (ruling no. 111 of 2023, point 3.5.2. of the "Considerato in diritto," and other precedents cited therein);

that, therefore, L. S. and M. O. are entitled to participate in these proceedings.

For These Reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

declares the interventions of L. S. and M. O. admissible.

Signed: Augusto Antonio Barbera, President