JUDGMENT NO. 19

YEAR 2026

ITALIAN REPUBLIC

IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

composed of:

President: Giovanni AMOROSO;

Judges: Francesco VIGANÒ, Luca ANTONINI, Stefano PETITTI, Angelo BUSCEMA, Emanuela NAVARRETTA, Maria Rosaria SAN GIORGIO, Filippo PATRONI GRIFFI, Marco D’ALBERTI, Giovanni PITRUZZELLA, Antonella SCIARRONE ALIBRANDI, Massimo LUCIANI, Maria Alessandra SANDULLI, Roberto Nicola CASSINELLI, Francesco Saverio MARINI,

has pronounced the following

JUDGMENT

in the dispute concerning the conflict of attribution between State powers arising from the resolution of the Senate of the Republic of May 7, 2024, initiated by the Ordinary Court of Potenza, Criminal Section, with an appeal notified on August 13, 2025, filed with the Registry on the following August 14, 2025, registered under no. 2 of the Register of Conflicts between State Powers for the year 2025, and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic no. 35, first special series, of the year 2025, merits phase.

Having seen the statement of defense of the Senate of the Republic;

having heard Judge Rapporteur Stefano Petitti in the public hearing of January 13, 2026;

having heard the lawyer Giovanni Domenico Caiazza for the Senate of the Republic;

deliberated in the Chamber of Council on January 13, 2026.

Facts Considered

1.– With an appeal filed on August 14, 2025 (reg. confl. pot. no. 2 of 2025), the Ordinary Court of Potenza, Criminal Section, initiated a conflict of attribution between State powers against the Senate of the Republic, requesting a declaration that it is not within the Senate’s competence to deem, by resolution of May 7, 2024, that the statements made by Matteo Renzi, then a Senator, against Dr. Francesco Basentini during the television broadcast "Non è l’Arena" on May 29, 2022, constitute opinions expressed by a Parliament member in the exercise of his functions and are therefore non-reviewable pursuant to Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution, with a consequential request for partial annulment of the aforementioned resolution.

1.1.– The Court of Potenza states that it is seized of the criminal proceedings registered under no. 178 of the General Register 2024 against Senator Matteo Renzi for the crime of aggravated defamation, pursuant to Article 595, third paragraph, of the Penal Code.

The appeal fully reports the disputed statements, as derived from the indictment, according to which Senator Renzi allegedly implied that the investigation coordinated by Dr. Basentini, as a Deputy Prosecutor serving at the Public Prosecutor's Office of Potenza, in the so-called "Tempa Rossa" criminal proceedings, was instrumental in obtaining his appointment as head of the Department of Penitentiary Administration (DAP) by the then Minister of Justice, Alfonso Bonafede.

1.2.– The appellant reports that the Senate of the Republic, in the session of May 7, 2024, voted in favor of the applicability of Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution within the scope of the criminal proceedings under consideration. The resolution of non-reviewability, attached to the appeal together with the report of the Elections and Parliamentary Immunities Committee (doc. IV-quater, no. 3), references the opinions already expressed by Senator Renzi in the session of May 20, 2020.

1.3.– In the opinion of the Court of Potenza, however, there is no "functional link" between the external statements in question and the appellant’s parliamentary activity, as such a link can only be found when there is a "substantial identity of content" between the parliamentary act and the external expression of thought.

According to the appellant, these statements are not functionally connected to those expressed in the Senate on May 20, 2020, the textual content of which is reported in the appeal; the statements under consideration, in fact, may be deemed relevant to a political context, but the cognizance concerning their criminal unlawfulness, including the possible existence of the right to report or critique, falls to the presiding judicial authority, the sole body competent to verify whether they effectively constitute or not the crime of aggravated defamation charged, also pursuant to the constitutional precepts of Articles 27, 101, and 102 of the Constitution.

1.4.– The Court therefore complains that the resolution of the Senate of the Republic of May 7, 2024, has resulted in an infringement of its constitutionally guaranteed sphere of attribution, due to the illegitimate exercise, due to the non-existence of the relevant prerequisites, of the power to declare the non-reviewability of opinions expressed by one of its members.

2.– The appeal was declared admissible by Order no. 140 of 2025.

3.– The Senate of the Republic filed its statement of defense on October 1, 2025.

On November 10, 2025, the Senate filed a memorandum, concluding for the rejection of the appeal.

3.1.– Preliminarily, the respondent reports that it was Senator Matteo Renzi himself who submitted to the Senate the question of the applicability of Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution, pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 7, of Law of June 20, 2003, no. 140 (Provisions for the implementation of Article 68 of the Constitution and concerning criminal proceedings against high State officials).

3.2.– On the merits, according to the Senate, the most recent constitutional jurisprudence has adopted a more flexible assessment of the so-called functional link, considering opinions falling within the scope of application of Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution, defined by a positive requirement—the fact of being situated within a political context—and a negative requirement—the fact of not constituting an injury to the dignity of the recipients of the criticism (Judgments of this Court no. 194, no. 193, and no. 104 of 2024).

In the view of the respondent, both requirements should be deemed to be met: Senator Renzi's statements during the aforementioned television broadcast were situated in a "certainly not secondary" political context, concerning an issue that had repeatedly come to the attention of Parliament, the national press, and public opinion; moreover, they should not be attributed to private disputes or insults (Judgments of this Court no. 218 of 2023, no. 59 of 2018, and no. 137 of 2001 are cited), nor to threats (Judgment no. 218 of 2023 is still cited), nor to content involving mockery related to physical characteristics, sexual preferences, or ethnic origins that injure the dignity of the person to whom they refer.

3.2.1.– The defense of the Senate, moreover, deems the prerequisites for parliamentary non-reviewability to exist also under the aspect of the "classic parameters" of "substantial correspondence" and "temporal link," even if these are now considered "perhaps no longer entirely current."

3.2.2.– As for the temporal criterion, the *intra moenia* opinions must precede the *extra moenia* ones; in any case, the appeal does not raise any ground concerning the temporal link, which is uncontested between the parties.

3.2.3.– Regarding substantial correspondence, according to the respondent's defense, the *intra* and *extra moenia* statements concerned "the same political matter, with its various facets," as indicated both by the Elections and Parliamentary Immunities Committee and by the Senate Assembly through the reference to the statement of vote delivered by Senator Renzi in the session of May 20, 2020, on the occasion of the vote on motions of individual no confidence no. 230 and no. 235 against the then Minister of Justice.

The first of the two motions of no confidence made reference to the appointment of Dr. Francesco Basentini as head of the DAP, replacing Dr. Antonino Di Matteo. During the statement of vote, Senator Renzi censured this appointment due to the inadequacy of the measures adopted to address the COVID-19 epidemiological emergency. The statements, fully reported in the defensive brief, are as follows: "If the Minister of Justice had listened to us, in February 2020, regarding the Department of Penitentiary Administration (DAP), what happened regarding the releases on parole would not have occurred"; regarding this aspect, in reference to the relationship between "guaranteeism and punitive justice," after explicitly mentioning Dr. Di Matteo, Senator Renzi concluded his speech as follows: "We are guaranteeists, yes, but [...] this does not mean we are soft. Being guaranteeists means respecting the rules and rights of citizens. But when in 2016, while I was Prime Minister, the then Minister of Justice, the excellent Minister Andrea Orlando, came to tell me: 'We have a problem, Matteo, Bernardo Provenzano is dying; we are being asked to let him die at home' and an identical hypothesis occurred the following year regarding Totò Riina, with another Prime Minister, the Honorable Gentiloni, and always with Minister Orlando, we who are for justice, not for softness, made a commitment, which was to guarantee Bernardo Provenzano and Totò Riina the maximum possible care because we were, are, and will be the State. Bernardo Provenzano and Totò Riina, however, died in prison, because that was their place, and this is not softness, it is justice. Mr. Minister, on the issue of releases on parole, there was too much superficiality on the part of the DAP."

Similarly, according to the Senate, Senator Renzi expressed himself in the aforementioned television broadcast "Non è l’Arena," making it difficult to disregard the identity of the political matters that were the subject of the external and internal statements.

In Law Considered

4.– The Ordinary Court of Potenza, Criminal Section, with the appeal indicated in the heading, initiated a conflict of attribution between State powers regarding the resolution of May 7, 2024, of the Senate of the Republic, which approved the proposal of the Elections and Parliamentary Immunities Committee (doc. IV-quater, no. 3), requesting this Court to declare that it is not within the Senate's competence to qualify as non-reviewable, pursuant to Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution, the statements made by Matteo Renzi, then a Senator, against Dr. Francesco Basentini during the television broadcast "Non è l’Arena" on May 29, 2022, with the consequential partial annulment of the aforementioned resolution.

4.1.– The appellant states that it must adjudicate the charge of aggravated defamation, pursuant to Article 595, third paragraph, of the Penal Code, against Senator Matteo Renzi for the statements made in the aforementioned television broadcast. These statements, in the opinion of the appellant, cannot be said to be functionally connected to those expressed by Senator Renzi himself in the Senate on May 20, 2020, as there is a lack of substantial identity of content between them.

5.– Preliminarily, the admissibility of the appeal, already declared by this Court with Order no. 140 of 2025, must be confirmed pursuant to Article 37 of Law of March 11, 1953, no. 87 (Provisions on the Constitution and Functioning of the Constitutional Court).

Indeed, as already held in the preliminary and summary deliberation, the subjective and objective requirements are met, given that the Court of Potenza, competent to definitively declare the will of the power to which it belongs for the proceedings before it, complains of an infringement of its constitutionally guaranteed sphere of attribution as a consequence of the illegitimate exercise, due to the non-existence of the relevant prerequisites, of the power of the Senate of the Republic to declare the non-reviewability of opinions expressed by one of its members pursuant to Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution.

6.– On the merits, the appeal is unfounded.

6.1.– For the purpose of resolving conflicts concerning whether opinions expressed *extra moenia* are attributable to the exercise of parliamentary function, this Court adopts a functional criterion, according to which the substantial correspondence with opinions expressed in the exercise of typical parliamentary activity and the temporal link between such activity and the external activity (most recently, Judgments no. 194, no. 193, and no. 104 of 2024) are primarily considered indicative of the existence of the functional link.

When these conditions are met, this Court holds that opinions expressed outside the Chambers are connected to the exercise of parliamentary function, as they are intended to communicate externally, despite the inescapable diversity of the instruments and language used in the typical act and in its dissemination to public opinion, the meaning of the activity carried out in the exercise of the mandate. Such activity, moreover, by its nature, is intended "to project itself outside the parliamentary halls, in the interest of the free political dialectic which is a condition of life for representative-democratic institutions" (Judgments no. 321 and no. 320 of 2000)" (Judgments no. 194, no. 193, and no. 104 of 2024).

Nonetheless, in the most recent constitutional jurisprudence, it has been specified that, where the disputed statements do not find adequate coverage in an internal act, it is still necessary to verify whether they can otherwise be deemed expressive of the exercise of parliamentary function, as will be discussed (points 9.3.1., 9.3.2., and 9.3.3.).

7.– In the present case, it is clear from the resolution of the Senate of May 7, 2024, and the related proposal of the Elections and Parliamentary Immunities Committee (doc. IV-quater, no. 3), attached to the appeal and referenced in the Senate's memorandum, that the typical internal act against which to assess the existence of the functional link consists of the statement of vote delivered by Senator Renzi during the Assembly session of May 20, 2020, XVIII Legislature, on the occasion of the vote on motions of individual no confidence no. 230 and no. 235, initiated pursuant to Article 94 of the Constitution and Article 161 of the Rules of Procedure of the Senate of the Republic of February 17, 1971, against the then Minister of Justice Alfonso Bonafede.

7.1.– For the purposes of applying Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution, the submission of motions and the connected expressions of vote are included among the typical activities connected to the parliamentary function by Article 3, paragraph 1, of Law no. 140 of 2003.

There is no doubt, in fact, that the vote on the motion of individual no confidence and the preceding statements of vote constitute a particularly weighty instrument for the exercise of Parliament's control function over the individual minister, who is called to account, as a political body and simultaneously the head of the respective department, for the political choices made and the timing and manner of their implementation by the administration (Judgment no. 7 of 1996).

7.2.– In relation to this internal act, the aforementioned indicators must be applied, with the caution already expressed by this Court, that these are always and only indicators, however consistent and qualified, and not constituent elements of a legal case precisely delineated by the Constitution or the law, given that non-reviewability finds its *raison d'être* in the protection of the "heart" of the parliamentary mandate, whose exercise must be free from conditioning factors to allow, as outlined by Article 67 of the Constitution, a free representation, not of party or factional interests, but of the Nation (Judgment no. 104 of 2024).

8.– As for the existence of the temporal requirement, as noted by the Senate's defense, it is not contested by the appeal, remaining uncontroversial between the parties.

9.– Regarding the requirement of content correspondence, it is constant jurisprudence of this Court that merely referring to a generically political context in which the statement is made is not sufficient, nor is a precise textual coincidence required; instead, a substantial correspondence of content must be ascertained (Judgment no. 10 of 2000).

9.1.– From this point of view, the disputed statements can be broken down into two sets.

The first set concerns the activity of Dr. Basentini as head of the DAP, in relation to the inadequate management of prisons during the pandemic. The appeal reports the following statements: "and since I know what he did when he was at the DAP and since I demanded Basentini's resignation" and "[a]t the DAP he managed the feat of not managing the COVID situation."

The second set relates to the so-called Tempa Rossa investigation and the appointment of Dr. Basentini to the DAP itself. The following statements reported in the appeal are relevant in this regard: "since I know what Basentini did when I was Prime Minister"; "[I] add, the Tempa Rossa investigation was a scandal, the umpteenth damp squib"; "the objective was not to hold a trial... Basentini was... organized... investigated starting from a supposed hypothesis of crime, he was the protagonist of a damp squib and as a reward he went to the DAP."

9.2.– The first set of statements, concerning the management of the penitentiary administration during the pandemic, finds a correspondence in the statement of vote delivered in the Senate session of May 20, 2020.

The motion of individual no confidence no. 230 against the Minister of Justice was based precisely on the appointment of Dr. Basentini as head of the DAP to call into question the political responsibility of the Minister, the addressee of the statement of vote itself, in relation to the riots in the penitentiary institutions and the releases on parole of members of organized crime that occurred during the pandemic. Regardless of the different literal formulas used, which reflect "[t]he use of expression and communication modalities physiologically different, considering the inescapable diversity of the instruments actually used" (Judgment no. 104 of 2024), in the statement of vote, as well as in the interview, Senator Renzi expressed analogous content, which can be summarized as follows: a) if the Minister of Justice in February 2020 had listened to the indications of the Senator's political party and had decided differently for the appointment to the DAP, the events related to the releases on parole occurring during the pandemic would not have happened; b) during his term as Prime Minister, together with the then Minister of Justice, Andrea Orlando, as well as during the subsequent Gentiloni Government, the requests for release on parole for Bernardo Provenzano and Totò Riina on health grounds were not granted, despite the commitment to ensure them the best care in prison, whereas during the pandemic the DAP showed too much superficiality regarding releases on parole.

The substantial correspondence of meaning between the opinions expressed during the vote on the motions of individual no confidence and the statements made during the interview allows for the conclusion that the functional link required by Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution exists.

9.3.– The second set of statements, however, finds only partial correspondence in the statement of vote, concerning the appointment of Dr. Basentini as head of the DAP. This appointment, as mentioned, was one of the premises for the motion of individual no confidence no. 230, and Senator Renzi's statement of vote expressly refers to it to invoke the political responsibility of the Minister, even in the face of the anticipation of a vote against the no confidence motion.

9.3.1.– Instead, the reference to the so-called Tempa Rossa investigation is not found in the internal statement, nor is the fact that Dr. Basentini's appointment to the head of the DAP constituted a "reward" following, according to the speaker, the disappointing outcome of the investigation.

This Court deems it appropriate, however, to confirm its most recent line of reasoning, according to which the lack of correspondence in the typical act is not, in itself, sufficient to exclude the exercise of parliamentary function. In particular cases, *extra moenia* statements not necessarily connected to internal parliamentary acts may be included within the scope of application of Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution, for which an evident and qualified link with the exercise of parliamentary function is nevertheless deemed to exist (Judgments no. 194, no. 193, and no. 104 of 2024 and no. 133 of 2018).

9.3.2.– There is no doubt that the statements made by Senator Renzi both during the vote on the motions of individual no confidence and in the interview contain strong criticism of the then Minister of Justice's choice to appoint Dr. Basentini as head of the DAP. The references, albeit harsh in tone, to the so-called Tempa Rossa investigation coordinated by Dr. Basentini and its outcome appear, in this respect, strictly connected to the circumstances of the appointment, with the objective of highlighting, in the speaker's opinion, the absence of the necessary competence and capability to hold a delicate institutional office within the administration of justice.

The statements relating to the so-called Tempa Rossa investigation, in fact, take on meaning within the overall context of the statements made in the interview, from which the exercise of the same function of criticizing the Minister's directives, already expressed in internal acts, emerges (Judgment no. 194 of 2024).

9.3.3.– The same must be said for the reference to the appointment as a "reward," resulting, for the speaker, from the outcome of the investigation itself.

While acknowledging that the task of this Court is not to rule in concreto on the relationship between the free expression of thought and the right to honor and reputation but, at a logically preliminary stage, to delineate the boundary of the prerogative in relation to the exercise of parliamentary function (Judgment no. 104 of 2024), it must first be held that the statement in question does not exceed the negative limit of non-reviewability.

This limit has been identified in statements that constitute insults (Judgments no. 218 of 2023, no. 59 of 2018, and no. 137 of 2001), threats (Judgment no. 218 of 2023 again), and, more generally, mere material conduct (Judgments no. 218 of 2023 and no. 137 of 2001 again), the attribution of a factual circumstance capable of constituting a crime (Judgments no. 218 of 2023 and no. 388 of 2007), as well as the conscious assertion of objectively false facts damaging to the reputation of others (on the peculiar offensiveness of which, see Judgment no. 150 of 2021). Such statements remain excluded from the scope of application of Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution, as they are entirely unsuitable for promoting and qualifying public debate and, rather, destined for its decline (Judgment no. 104 of 2024).

The statement concerning the appointment as a reward must also be read in conjunction with the preceding ones, given that all, considered collectively, contest the appointment within the context of a harsh criticism of the political choices of the then Minister of Justice. The statement is therefore attributable to the opinion expressed by the Parliament member on the performance of government activities, "which the appointment to the head of a department of a ministry inevitably is, and at the highest levels," and must be included in "the sphere of activities of members of Parliament covered by the constitutional guarantee" (Judgments no. 321 and no. 320 of 2000)" (Judgment no. 194 of 2024).

9.4.– With respect to the totality of the disputed statements, the nexus with the exercise of parliamentary function therefore exists, as all are traceable to the same function of directing and controlling the Government, and in particular the individual minister, which belongs to Parliament and each of its members, of which the typical internal act, in the present case, constituted a particularly qualified manifestation. The external statements participate in that same function. In accounting for the activities carried out during the mandate, moreover, in this case through the solicitation of the journalist, they perform an informational function towards the electorate and a function of assuming political responsibility for the choices made, which is also characteristic of the parliamentary mandate, given that, as already recalled, the exercise of the representation of the Nation pursuant to Article 67 of the Constitution "constitutes in fact the first foundation and, at the same time, the limit, of the non-reviewability of opinions provided for by Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution" (Judgment no. 104 of 2024).

9.5.– In conclusion, it was within the competence of the Senate of the Republic, by resolution of May 7, 2024, to declare the opinions expressed by Senator Matteo Renzi, for which criminal proceedings are pending before the Court of Potenza, as non-reviewable.

The appeal is therefore unfounded.

for these reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

declares that it was within the competence of the Senate of the Republic to resolve that the statements made by Senator Matteo Renzi, for which criminal proceedings are pending before the Ordinary Court of Potenza, Criminal Section, referred to in the appeal in the heading, constitute opinions expressed by a member of Parliament in the exercise of his functions, pursuant to Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution.

So decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on January 13, 2026.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Stefano PETITTI, Rapporteur

Roberto MILANA, Director of the Registry

Filed with the Registry on February 23, 2026