ORDER NO. 122
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, Marco D’ALBERTI, Giovanni PITRUZZELLA, Antonella SCIARRONE ALIBRANDI, Massimo LUCIANI, Maria Alessandra SANDULLI, Roberto Nicola CASSINELLI, Francesco Saverio MARINI,
has issued the following
ORDER
in the proceedings regarding a conflict of attribution between State powers, arising from the failure of the Panel for Ministerial Crimes at the Ordinary Court of Rome and the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of Rome to initiate, in relation to the conduct of Giusi Bartolozzi, the procedure provided for by Constitutional Law no. 1 of January 16, 1989 (Amendments to Articles 96, 134, and 135 of the Constitution and to Constitutional Law no. 1 of March 11, 1953, and rules regarding proceedings for crimes under Article 96 of the Constitution) and by Law no. 219 of June 5, 1989 (New provisions regarding ministerial crimes and crimes provided for by Article 90 of the Constitution), promoted by the Chamber of Deputies, with an application filed with the Registry on June 9, 2026, and registered as no. 3 of the 2026 Register of conflicts between State powers, admissibility phase;
having heard in the chambers on July 6, 2026, the Reporting Judges Francesco Viganò and Luca Antonini;
decided in the chambers on July 6, 2026.
Considering that by application filed on June 9, 2026, the Chamber of Deputies promoted a conflict of attribution between State powers, claiming that—in the context of the criminal proceedings initiated against the Minister of Justice Carlo Nordio, the Minister of the Interior Matteo Piantedosi, and the Undersecretary of State Alfredo Mantovano for the crimes of refusal to perform official acts, aiding and abetting, and embezzlement, in relation to the release and repatriation of Osama Almasri—the Panel for Ministerial Crimes and the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Ordinary Court of Rome did not initiate, "in relation to the overall behavior held by Dr. Giusi Bartolozzi," Head of the Cabinet of the Minister of Justice at the time of the events, "the special procedure outlined by Constitutional Law no. 1 of 1989 and Law no. 219 of 1989, omitting the formalities provided therein, which are instrumental to the protection of the constitutional prerogatives granted to the Houses under Article 96 of the Constitution, and in particular that concerning 'the unchallengeable assessment that the suspect acted for the protection of a constitutionally relevant State interest or for the pursuit of a preeminent public interest,' thereby causing its violation";
that, on the facts, the applicant states that following a complaint filed by a private individual in relation to the release and repatriation of Osama Almasri, who was arrested in Turin on January 19, 2025, criminal proceedings were initiated against Carlo Nordio, Minister of Justice, Matteo Piantedosi, Minister of the Interior, and Alfredo Mantovano, Undersecretary of State to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, regarding the crimes of refusal to perform official acts (Art. 328, first paragraph, of the Penal Code) for failing to act on requests for cooperation addressed to Italy by the International Criminal Court; aiding and abetting (Art. 378 of the Penal Code) for having agreed on the issuance of the expulsion decree for Osama Almasri and the subsequent transfer to Libya via a flight of the Compagnia Aeronautica Italiana spa; and embezzlement (Art. 314 of the Penal Code) for the diversion of the aircraft from its intended use and the appropriation of the fuel necessary for the repatriation flight of Osama Almasri;
that on August 5, 2025, the Panel for Ministerial Crimes requested the Chamber of Deputies for authorization to proceed, pursuant to Art. 96 of the Constitution, against the individuals under investigation; a request rejected by the Assembly, by an absolute majority, on October 9, 2025, with the subsequent dismissal of the proceedings by the Panel for Ministerial Crimes on October 16;
that, in its request for authorization to proceed, the Panel for Ministerial Crimes qualified the statements made by the Head of the Cabinet of the Minister of Justice, Giusi Bartolozzi—heard during the investigation as a person informed of the facts—as unreliable and false;
that, on August 1, 2025, the Panel reported Giusi Bartolozzi to the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of Rome in relation to the crime referred to in Art. 371-bis of the Penal Code; a report which resulted in the entry of her name by the Public Prosecutor in the register of crime reports for such alleged offense;
that on October 13, 2025, the Group Presidents Bignami, Molinari, Barelli, and Lupi requested the President of the Chamber to invite the Bureau to evaluate the advisability of "raising a conflict of attribution between State powers before the Constitutional Court to protect the prerogatives of the Chamber itself, allegedly violated by the omissive actions of the proceeding judiciary (Panel for Ministerial Crimes of Rome and Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of Rome), with regard to the entry, on August 7, 2025, of Dr. Giusi Bartolozzi in the register of crime reports for the offense under Article 371-bis of the Penal Code, without transmitting to this branch of Parliament the request for authorization to proceed pursuant to Article 96 of the Constitution";
that, following the report of the Committee for Authorizations of November 4, 2025, the Bureau, on April 1, 2026, proposed raising a conflict of attribution between State powers to the Assembly, which, in the session of April 14, 2026, resolved to do so;
that, regarding the admissibility of the conflict, the applicant observes that there can be no doubt as to the standing of the Chamber of Deputies to promote conflicts of attribution between State powers, when "attributions claimed in the name of the autonomy and independence of each branch of Parliament" are considered (citing the orders of this Court no. 261 and no. 35 of 2022, no. 286 of 2014, no. 327 of 2011, no. 275 of 2008, no. 58 of 2004, no. 232 and 31 of 2003, no. 379 of 1996, no. 129 of 1981, no. 150 of 1980), including the prerogatives referred to in Art. 96 of the Constitution (referencing the judgments of this Court no. 87 of 2012, no. 241 of 2009, and no. 403 of 1994, as well as orders no. 8 of 2008 and no. 217 of 1994);
that the Houses would be competent to decide on requests for authorization to proceed also against "lay suspects," that is, those who, while not holding the qualification of ministers, have participated in the ministerial crime or have committed a crime connected to it and that, in particular, the competence of the applicant Chamber to rule on the authorization to proceed against Minister Nordio, a deputy in office, "would attrac[t] the competence to also hear the requests concerning co-defendants" (Art. 5 of Constitutional Law no. 1 of 1989);
that there would also be passive standing of the Panel for Ministerial Crimes, as the exclusive holder of the attributions provided for by Art. 8 of Constitutional Law no. 1 of 1989 (citing the judgments of this Court no. 241 of 2009 and no. 403 of 1994 and the orders no. 8 of 2008 and no. 217 of 1994);
that the passive standing of the public prosecutor and, in particular, of the Public Prosecutor is undeniable (citing judgment no. 1 of 2013 and the orders no. 261 of 2022 and no. 193 of 2018 of this Court), as it is vested with the constitutionally guaranteed attribution regarding the mandatory exercise of criminal prosecution (Art. 112 of the Constitution), to which the direct and exclusive authority of the investigations aimed at it is connected (referencing judgments no. 88 and no. 87 of 2012 and the orders no. 273 of 2017 and 217 of 2016 of this Court) and, therefore, the competence to definitively declare, in a position of full independence, the will of the judiciary to which it belongs (citing the judgment of this Court no. 183 of 2017);
that, finally, the objective requirements for the admissibility of the conflict are present, proposed to guarantee a sphere of constitutional attributions belonging to the Chamber of Deputies, which can be deduced from Art. 96 of the Constitution and Constitutional Law no. 1 of 1989 (referencing the order of this Court no. 8 of 2008);
that, in particular, this Court is asked to "establish whether, in relation to the overall behavior held by Dr. Bartolozzi, the failure to initiate the special procedure, outlined by Constitutional Law no. 1 of 1989 and Law no. 219 of 1989, impaired the attributions of the Chamber deriving from Art. 96 of the Constitution" and specifically whether it prevented it from expressing the assessment that "the suspect acted for the protection of a constitutionally relevant State interest or for the pursuit of a preeminent public interest in the exercise of the Government function";
that the guarantee granted by Art. 96 of the Constitution is instrumental to the safeguarding of ministerial functions, as it is intended to "prevent the exercise of criminal prosecution against Ministers, or subjects who have acted in complicity with them, or have held conduct teleologically connected, for the protection of a constitutionally relevant State interest, or for the pursuit of a preeminent public interest, from compromising and/or altering the action of the Government and the exercise of the function of Minister, thus preventing interference or pressure from other powers of the State, or in any case damaging the prerogatives of the Chamber to assess the 'subsistence of the qualified interest against which the legal system considers the needs of justice of the concrete case to be recessive' (Const. Court, judg. no. 87/2012)";
that the branch of Parliament competent pursuant to Art. 96 of the Constitution could therefore express "its own assessment on the nature of the fact contested to the President of the Council of Ministers, or to a minister, provided that it is placed within the procedure for ministerial crime activated by the judicial authority, or is instrumental to claiming that said procedure is followed, and provided that such appreciation results in the only reaction allowed by the system before a qualification, by the judiciary, of the crime as common rather than ministerial, or in the recourse [to the] Court by means of the conflict of attribution" (citing the judgment of this Court no. 87 of 2012);
that such a case would occur in this instance, in which "the choice to proceed through ordinary channels against the Chief of Staff, even if it falls to the Judiciary, has prevented the Chamber, also due to the omitted communication to it of the decision regarding the non-ministerial nature of the crime, any appreciation on the 'derived' ministerial nature of the crime contested to Dr. Bartolozzi";
that, having set out detailed considerations on the merits of the application, the Chamber of Deputies asks that this Court rule, "alternatively:
a) that the Panel for Ministerial Crimes and the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of Rome were aware of elements, present from the beginning and, in any case, confirmed during the investigations, such as to require considering Dr. Giusi Bartolozzi as a participant in the crimes of the Minister of Justice Nordio and that therefore the request for authorization to proceed should have been extended to her person; in any case, having made the assessment of the non-ministerial nature of the conduct, the outcome of such assessment should have been communicated to the Chamber in order to allow it to ensure the protection of its constitutional attributions;
b) that – possibly after raising a question of constitutional legitimacy before itself for conflict with Arts. 96, 70, 72, 94, 95, 105, 3 of the Constitution of Art. 4, paragraph 2, of Law no. 219/1989, where it does not also mention the cases of functional connection with the crimes of the Ministers for conduct attributable to 'lay' subjects – the crimes committed by third parties should also be considered 'ministerial', if functionally connected with those of the Minister and such as to frustrate, if ascertained, the correct governmental function and that therefore the discipline dictated by Const. Law no. 1/1989 also applies to the case of the crime referred to in Art. 371-bis of the Penal Code attributed to Dr. Giusi Bartolozzi and that the transmission of documents to the Panel for Ministers and the subsequent necessary request for authorization to proceed is also extended to that case."
Considering that, in the present phase of the proceedings, this Court is called to deliberate, in chambers and without an adversarial hearing, on the existence of the subjective and objective requirements prescribed by Art. 37, first paragraph, of Law no. 87 of March 11, 1953 (Rules on the constitution and functioning of the Constitutional Court), i.e., to decide whether the conflict arises between bodies competent to definitively declare the will of the power to which they belong and for the delimitation of the sphere of attributions outlined for the various powers by constitutional norms, with all further questions remaining unprejudiced, including those regarding admissibility;
that, as for the subjective requirement, the Chamber of Deputies is entitled to propose a conflict, in order to defend the attributions that belong to it pursuant to Arts. 96 of the Constitution and 5 of Const. Law no. 1 of 1989 (orders no. 241 of 2011 and no. 8 of 2008; similarly, with reference to the Senate of the Republic, orders no. 80 of 2026 and no. 104 of 2011);
that, furthermore, with specific reference to this case, there are no doubts about the competence of the applicant branch of Parliament, pursuant to Art. 5 of Const. Law no. 1 of 1989, to grant the authorization to proceed against the Ministers of Justice and the Interior and the Undersecretary of State (and, therefore, according to the applicant's view, also Giusi Bartolozzi), as Hon. Carlo Nordio, the only parliamentarian among the subjects undergoing criminal proceedings, is a member of the Chamber of Deputies;
that, without prejudice to the in-depth examinations to be carried out during the examination of the merits of the conflict regarding the respective roles of the Panel for Ministerial Crimes and the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the event that, during the investigations for ministerial crimes, indications of guilt emerge against a person not included among the recipients of the original complaint referred to in Art. 6 of Const. Law no. 1 of 1989, prima facie both subjects brought to court by the Chamber of Deputies have passive standing;
that there is, in particular, the standing to resist on the part of the Panel for Ministerial Crimes, as the "exclusive holder of the attributions provided for by Art. 8" of Const. Law no. 1 of 1989 (order no. 8 of 2008), that is, those concerning the conduct of preliminary investigations related to ministerial crimes and the transmission of documents to the Public Prosecutor for the submission to the competent Chamber of the request for authorization to proceed;
that the same nature of State power must also be recognized for the public prosecutor – and, in particular, for the Public Prosecutor (order no. 133 of 2025) – as it is invested with the constitutionally guaranteed attribution regarding the mandatory exercise of criminal prosecution, including with reference to the subject matter of ministerial crimes (orders no. 80 of 2026 and no. 241 and no. 104 of 2011);
that the Public Prosecutor is indeed in charge of receiving reports, findings, and complaints concerning the crimes indicated by Art. 96 of the Constitution and transmitting them to the Panel for Ministerial Crimes with its own requests (Art. 6 of Const. Law no. 1 of 1989) as well as, at the outcome of the investigations carried out by the Panel, issuing the opinion referred to in Art. 8, paragraph 1, of the same law, and submitting to the competent Chamber the request for authorization to proceed formulated by the Panel;
that, regarding the objective requirement, the application aims to protect a sphere of constitutional attributions, which can be deduced from Art. 96 of the Constitution and Const. Law no. 1 of 1989 (orders no. 80 of 2026, no. 241 and no. 104 of 2011), with the Chamber of Deputies suggesting that the failure to identify Giusi Bartolozzi as a participant in the crimes contested to the Minister of Justice and in any case her reporting and entry in the register of suspects for the offense referred to in Art. 371-bis of the Penal Code in relation to the statements made to the Panel for Ministerial Crimes has resulted in the applicant being deprived of the prerogative to deliberate on the authorization to proceed against the Chief of Staff;
that, pursuant to Art. 37, fourth paragraph, of Law no. 87 of 1953, the notification of this application must also be ordered to the Senate of the Republic, given the identity of the constitutional position of the two branches of Parliament in relation to the issues of principle to be addressed (ex plurimis, orders no. 80 of 2026, no. 133 of 2025, no. 179 of 2023, no. 250 of 2022).
FOR THESE REASONS
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
1) declares admissible, pursuant to Art. 37 of Law no. 87 of March 11, 1953 (Rules on the constitution and functioning of the Constitutional Court), the application for conflict of attribution between State powers indicated in the heading, promoted by the Chamber of Deputies against the Panel for Ministerial Crimes at the Ordinary Court of Rome and the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Ordinary Court of Rome;
2) orders:
a) that the Registry of this Court provide immediate communication of this order to the Chamber of Deputies;
b) that the application and this order be notified, by the applicant, to the Panel for Ministerial Crimes at the Ordinary Court of Rome, to the Public Prosecutor at the Ordinary Court of Rome, and to the Senate of the Republic, within thirty days from the communication referred to in point a), to be subsequently filed, with proof of notification, in the Registry of this Court within the thirty-day term provided for by Art. 26, paragraph 3, of the Supplementary Rules for proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
Decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on July 6, 2026.
Signed:
Giovanni AMOROSO, President
Francesco VIGANÒ
Luca ANTONINI, Reporters
Roberto MILANA, Director of the Registry
Filed in the Registry on July 7, 2026