JUDGMENT NO. 165

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 delivered the following

JUDGMENT

in proceedings concerning a conflict of attribution between powers of the State, arising from the resolution of the Chamber of Deputies of May 8, 2024, approving the proposal of the Committee on Parliamentary Immunities (doc. IV-ter, no. 6-A), brought by the Court of Appeals of Ancona, Second Civil Section, by means of an order-appeal notified on January 21, 2026, filed with the registry on January 23 thereafter, registered under no. 3 of the register of conflicts between powers of the State for 2025, and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic no. 5, 1st special series, for the year 2026, merits phase.

Having regard to the appearance in proceedings of the Chamber of Deputies, as well as the intervention brief of Alex Marini;

having heard the Judge Rapporteur Antonella Sciarrone Alibrandi at the public hearing of June 10, 2026;

having heard counsel Maria Teresa Losasso for the Chamber of Deputies and Rosa Michela Rizzi for Alex Marini;

deliberated in chambers on June 10, 2026.

Rits in Fact

1.‒ By order-appeal filed on January 23, 2026 (reg. confl. pot. no. 3 of 2025), the Court of Appeals of Ancona, Second Civil Section, brought a conflict of attribution between powers of the State against the Chamber of Deputies, with reference to the resolution of May 8, 2024 (doc. IV-ter, no. 6-A), whereby the latter declared the opinions expressed by Hon. Vittorio Sgarbi—at the material time a member of the Chamber of Deputies—in a post published on his Facebook page on May 6, 2019, concerning Alex Marini, then a member of the Council of the Autonomous Province of Trento, to be non-actionable pursuant to Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution.

1.1.‒ The conflict arose in the context of appellate proceedings against the judgment of the Ordinary Court of Macerata of April 6, 2021. The first-instance proceedings had concluded with the dismissal of the claim for damages brought by Hon. Sgarbi against Alex Marini regarding criticisms made by the latter, across various local online and print newspapers, concerning the appointment of the former as President of the Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art of Trento and Rovereto (MART). Conversely, the counterclaim for damages brought by Councillor Marini regarding the statements made by Hon. Sgarbi in reply to the aforementioned post was upheld.

The appellant Court reports that Hon. Sgarbi appealed against the first-instance judgment, alleging, inter alia, the violation and omission of application of Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution and Article 3 of Law no. 140 of June 20, 2003 (Provisions for the implementation of Article 68 of the Constitution and concerning criminal trials regarding high offices of the State), while also representing that he had himself submitted a request to the Chamber of Deputies to pass a resolution declaring the contested statements to be non-actionable.

The Court of Appeals of Ancona further states that it had ordered the transmission of a copy of the case file to the Chamber of Deputies, by order of June 9-24, 2021, and had consequently suspended the proceedings. During the proceedings, the resolution of the Chamber of Deputies of May 8, 2024 was filed, whereby, approving the proposal of the Committee on Parliamentary Immunities, the opinions expressed by Hon. Vittorio Sgarbi were declared non-actionable pursuant to Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution.

In setting forth the grounds of the conflict, the appellant recalls that the appellee Alex Marini had expressed a series of criticisms regarding the appointment of Vittorio Sgarbi as President of MART (which occurred by resolution of the Provincial Government of Trento no. 509 of April 12, 2019), deeming it inappropriate both in consideration of a prior criminal conviction for aggravated fraud against the State incurred by the same in relation to activities comparable to the one forming the object of the appointment, and because it was considered substantially incompatible with the role of Member of Parliament held by Vittorio Sgarbi himself, as well as, furthermore, because it was motivated by reasons of political closeness to the then-serving President of the Provincial Government, with whom it was moreover alleged that Hon. Sgarbi had shared a part of his parliamentary activity. In reply to such criticisms, Hon. Sgarbi, in the aforementioned Facebook post of May 6, 2019, made certain statements deemed offensive by Alex Marini, in which the latter and another provincial councillor were described as «inettes», «deberebrates», «handsomely paid for their absolute incompetence», «[u]nited in their stubborn ignorance», «uselessly and detrimentally paid».

According to the Court of Appeals of Ancona, the resolution adopted by the Chamber of Deputies revealed «an incorrect exercise of the attributions reserved to said institutional body regarding the power to evaluate the conduct attributed to Dr. Sgarbi», since the opinions expressed in the post could not be traced back to political criticism and denunciation relevant pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 1, of Law no. 140 of 2003, as asserted by the Chamber. In the appellant’s opinion, the assumption underlying the aforementioned resolution—namely, that the opinions in question are referable to a dispute between political subjects (on the one hand, provincial councillor Alex Marini, a member of the Five Star Movement; on the other hand, Member of Parliament Vittorio Sgarbi, «aligned with the right and with Fugatti», the then President of the Provincial Government), as well as to the activity of political criticism and denunciation, which in this case referred to the appointment of the President of MART, falling under the competence of the Provincial Government—would be in contrast with constitutional case law regarding the application and interpretation of Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution (reference is made to judgments no. 241 of 2022 and no. 144 of 2015). Indeed, the established principle had been disregarded in this case, according to which, for the existence of a functional nexus between statements made *extra moenia* by a Member of Parliament and the performance of their functions as a member of Parliament, there must exist, first of all, a temporal link between the parliamentary activity and the external activity, such that the latter assumes the purpose of disseminating the former, and subsequently a substantial correspondence in meaning between the opinions expressed in the exercise of functions and the external acts.

In this case, the expressions and phrases forming the object of the post, uttered following a dispute that arose between the parties concerning the appointment of the President of MART, which falls under the competence of the Provincial Government of Trento, would concern matters extraneous to the parliamentary sphere and the related activity, as can be deduced from the statements made by the interested party himself, who claims to have been «chosen culturally, for clear fame» for the performance of the assignment at MART, as well as from the report of the Committee on Parliamentary Immunities itself, which is devoid of «any reference to parliamentary acts of Dr. Sgarbi to which the statements in question» can be connected.

Therefore, the statements in question would not disseminate any act attributable to the activity of Deputy Sgarbi, as they were made outside the exercise of the parliamentary function, as would result from the report of the Committee on Parliamentary Immunities itself, in which the need is expressed to arrive at an «hermeneutic criterion that goes beyond the formalistic search for the typical prior act». They would rather be an exercise of the right of reporting and criticism attributable to Article 21 of the Constitution, «the existence of the limits of which is nonetheless entrusted exclusively to the ascertainment by the Judicial Authority». Such ascertainment would have been precluded to the Chamber of Deputies by the resolution in question, «in violation of Articles 68 and 102 of the Constitution».

Having premised this, the Court of Appeals of Ancona considers that, «in light of the principles affirmed by the Constitutional Court and in conformity with what was expressed on the point by the case law of legitimacy», in the case at hand the prerogative of non-actionability provided for by Article 68 of the Constitution cannot operate.

In bringing the conflict of attribution between powers of the State, the appellant therefore asks this Court to declare that the Chamber of Deputies lacked the power to qualify as non-actionable the opinions expressed by Hon. Sgarbi in the post published on his Facebook page on May 6, 2019, as it was exercised outside the hypotheses provided for by Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution, and, consequently, to annul the related resolution adopted on May 8, 2024.

2.‒ The conflict was declared admissible by this Court by order no. 176 of 2025.

3.‒ The Chamber of Deputies, in the person of its President *pro tempore*, entered an appearance in the proceedings and asked this Court to dismiss the appeal as unfounded and to declare that it pertained to the Chamber of Deputies to affirm that the facts mentioned in the Assembly’s resolution in the sitting of May 8, 2024, concern opinions expressed by Hon. Sgarbi in the exercise of his functions pursuant to Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution, and as such are non-actionable.

According to the Chamber’s defense, the appeal for conflict is unfounded, specifically in light of the new orientation of constitutional case law regarding the configurability of the functional nexus between statements made *extra moenia* by a Member of Parliament and the exercise of his functions, such that the correspondence of the former with a typical parliamentary act, while constituting a particularly qualified index of the existence of such nexus, is no longer its necessary and exclusive precondition.

In particular, it is recalled that, starting from judgment no. 104 of 2024 — confirmed by judgments no. 193 and no. 194 of 2024 and no. 19 of 2026 —, this Court has clarified that all opinions expressed by a Member of Parliament, even outside assemblies, that are connected to the exercise of his functions are referable to the first paragraph of Article 68 of the Constitution, and are therefore non-actionable, provided they are opinions and not mere insults, threats, material behaviors, or conscious assertions of objectively false facts damaging to the reputation of others.

In the presence of opinions expressed *extra moenia* that are effectively such, it was subsequently affirmed that those enjoying non-actionability are not only statements connected to parliamentary acts—which constitute exclusively revealing indices and not constitutive elements of the functional nexus—but also those for which, in the absence of parliamentary acts, an «evident and qualified nexus with the exercise of the parliamentary function» is deemed to exist. Such a condition would occur where they are referable to the parliamentary function of informing the electorate and assuming political responsibility for the choices made.

On these bases, the Chamber’s defense maintains that the resolution by which the statements expressed by Vittorio Sgarbi in the post published on Facebook on May 6, 2019 were qualified as non-actionable is immune from the defects alleged by the Court of Appeals.

First of all, it considers that the contested statements do not go beyond the negative limit of non-actionability, meaning they can be configured as opinions.

Such statements, although «characterized by a particularly harsh polemical register», would be inserted in a context aimed at countering, on the political plane, two specific statements of councillor Marini, «not to express a personal offense entirely autonomous with respect to the object of the controversy, but to formulate a critical judgment on the position assumed by provincial councillors with respect to the M.A.R.T. affair».

Secondly, according to the Chamber’s defense, there exists the «evident and qualified nexus with the exercise of the parliamentary function» in any case required in the absence of a contemporaneous parliamentary act of corresponding content.

The contested statements, indeed, were made by a Member of Parliament called into question publicly by reason of his mandate; they would therefore have as their object the relationship between such mandate, political affiliation, and the conferral of a public assignment in the cultural sphere; they would be inserted in a thematic sphere cultivated in a particular way by Hon. Sgarbi in his longstanding parliamentary activity; they would be addressed to public opinion with the purpose of reply and political clarification.

4.‒ By a brief filed on February 23, 2026, Alex Marini, at the material time a member of the Provincial Council of Trento, requested to intervene *ad adiuvandum* in these proceedings.

In the intervention brief—declared admissible by this Court by order no. 99 of 2026—the provincial councillor reaffirms the considerations made by the Court of Appeals of Ancona regarding the non-existence of the functional nexus supporting the non-actionability of the statements made by Hon. Sgarbi, primarily by reason of the absence of any connected parliamentary act, as would be deduced from the report of the Chamber’s Committee on Parliamentary Immunities itself.

The statements, made outside Parliament, would concern Vittorio Sgarbi’s position as President of MART and as a media personality, and would refer to an affair characterized by evident entanglements and profiles of private interest. Therefore, they would present no functional connection with the exercise of the parliamentary function.

The resolution of the Chamber of Deputies that declared them non-actionable would thus have determined a concrete interference in the sphere of attributions of the judicial authority, preventing the continuation of the trial in violation of Articles 24, 102, and 113 of the Constitution.

The extension of parliamentary non-actionability to conduct devoid of a functional nexus with the exercise of the mandate would determine a compression of judicial review incompatible with the principles of the Rule of Law indicated by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the so-called Venice Commission) in opinion no. 845/2016 («Parameters on the Relationship between the Parliamentary Majority and the Opposition in a Democracy: a Checklist»), adopted in plenary session on June 21-22, 2019 and subsequently approved by the Committee of Ministers on February 5, 2020, transforming a functional prerogative into an instrument capable of removing certain subjects from the review of the judge, in violation of the principle of legality and the balance between powers.

Finally, the denigrating nature of the statements would conflict with the obligation weighing upon citizens entrusted with public functions to fulfill the latter with discipline and honor, pursuant to Article 54 of the Constitution.

Reasons in Law

5.‒ The Court of Appeals of Ancona, Second Civil Section, by the order-appeal indicated in the heading (reg. confl. pot. no. 3 of 2025), brought a conflict of attribution between powers of the State against the Chamber of Deputies, with reference to the resolution of the latter of May 8, 2024, approving the proposal of the Committee on Parliamentary Immunities (doc. IV-ter, no. 6-A) which declared non-actionable, pursuant to Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution, the opinions expressed by Hon. Vittorio Sgarbi—at the material time a member of the Chamber of Deputies—in the post published on his Facebook page on May 6, 2019, concerning Alex Marini, then a member of the Council of the Autonomous Province of Trento and a member of the Five Star Movement.

The appellant premises that the aforementioned resolution was filed in the context of the appellate proceedings against the judgment of the Court of Macerata—rendered without a prior request to the Chamber to pass a resolution pursuant to Article 3 of Law no. 140 of 2003—whereby the counterclaim for damages brought by provincial councillor Alex Marini for the defamatory statements made by Hon. Sgarbi in the aforementioned post was upheld. According to the Court of Appeals, the expressions and phrases contained in the latter, although uttered in relation to a contrast that arose between the parties regarding the appointment of Hon. Sgarbi as President of MART, which falls under the competence of the Provincial Government of Trento, not only would not disseminate any parliamentary act attributable to the then-deputy Vittorio Sgarbi, but could not even be traced back to the activity of political criticism and denunciation relevant pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 1, of Law no. 140 of 2003.

The latter provision, «while broadening the concept of expression of vote guaranteed by Article 68, paragraph 1, of the Constitution», would not have intended to exclude the necessity of the functional link between the opinions expressed and the exercise of parliamentary functions for the purpose of recognizing their non-actionability.

In this case, the expressions in question would not reveal any nexus with the exercise of the functions of a Member of Parliament. On the contrary, they would have been uttered within the context of matters that lie outside parliamentary activities, since the «mere existence of a political context in which the statements were made» is not sufficient for the purpose of traceability to the same.

Therefore, the Court of Appeals of Ancona asks this Court to declare that the Chamber of Deputies lacked the power to affirm, by resolution of May 8, 2024, the non-actionability, pursuant to Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution, of the opinions expressed by the then-deputy Vittorio Sgarbi in the aforementioned post, and, consequently, to annul the resolution itself.

6.‒ As a preliminary matter, the admissibility of the conflict already declared by this Court *in limine* by order no. 176 of 2025 must be confirmed pursuant to Article 37 of Law no. 87 of March 11, 1953 (Norms on the constitution and functioning of the Constitutional Court).

Indeed, as already deemed in an initial and summary assessment, the subjective and objective requirements of the conflict between powers of the State, as identified by established constitutional case law, are met.

The Court of Appeals, which has the competence to declare definitively, in the proceedings vested in it, the will of the power to which it belongs, complains of an infringement of its sphere of constitutionally guaranteed attributions—namely, the possibility of exercising the judicial function—as a consequence of the exercise of the power of the Chamber of Deputies to declare definitively the will to qualify as non-actionable the opinions expressed by one of its members, in violation of the preconditions referred to in Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution.

Nor is the admissibility of the conflict affected by the circumstance that the introductory act of the proceedings takes the form of an order rather than that of an appeal.

This Court has long recognized that if a conflict is brought by means of an order, but this «possesses the necessary requirements of a valid appeal» (judgment no. 10 of 2000), it «may be deemed suitable to institute the proceedings» (judgment no. 133 of 2018).

In this case, the introductory act of the conflict contains all the elements required by Article 37 of Law no. 87 of 1953 and by Article 26 of the Supplementary Norms for proceedings before the Constitutional Court. More precisely, the order-appeal identifies the appellant subject (the proceeding judicial body) and the act from which the alleged infringement of attributions pertaining to it is claimed to stem (the resolution of the Chamber of Deputies); it expresses the will to promote the conflict, with the request for a ruling by this Court declaring that the Chamber did not have the power to make the evaluation performed in the impugned resolution and annulling the latter; it indicates the grounds of the conflict and the constitutional rules governing the matter; and it bears the signature of the appellant subject.

7.‒ On the merits, the appeal is well-founded.

7.1.‒ In order to assess whether the statements of the then-deputy Vittorio Sgarbi, expressed in the post published on Facebook on May 6, 2019, in reply to the criticisms directed by provincial councillor Alex Marini against his appointment as President of MART, constitute opinions rendered by the Member of Parliament in the exercise of his functions and are therefore non-actionable pursuant to Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution, some preliminary remarks concerning the *ratio* and scope of operation of the guarantee it ensures, as well as the type of review this Court is called upon to perform in relation to it, must be briefly set forth.

7.1.1.‒ As recently reiterated, within the current constitutional system, parliamentary immunities are «structured in such a way as to define "a rational and measured balance between the instances of the Rule of Law, which tend to exalt the values connected to the exercise of jurisdiction (universality of the law, legality, removal of any privilege, mandatory nature of criminal prosecution, right of defense in court, etc.) and the safeguarding of spheres of parliamentary autonomy removed from common law, which serve to preserve an indispensable space of freedom for political representation" (judgment no. 379 of 1996)» (judgment no. 104 of 2024).

Placed within this complex balance is the provision of the first paragraph of Article 68 of the Constitution, which, for the purpose of «safeguarding—according to a tradition consolidated in modern constitutions—the autonomy and freedom of parliamentary assemblies, as organs of direct popular representation, from possible interferences by other powers» (judgment no. 115 of 2014), prevents Members of Parliament from being held accountable for opinions expressed and votes cast in the exercise of their functions, so as to «render fully free the discussions that take place within the Chambers, for the fulfillment of the superior public interest connected therewith» (judgment no. 104 of 2024, citing judgment no. 81 of 1975), thereby relieving them «from the fear of possible sanctioning measures against them» (judgment no. 46 of 2008).

Non-actionability therefore protects «the "core" of the parliamentary mandate, the performance of which must be free from conditioning in order to allow, as outlined by Article 67 of the Constitution, a free representation, not of factional or party interests, but of the Nation» (again, judgment no. 104 of 2024).

Consequently, it cannot cover «all the behaviors of the members of the Chambers, but only those strictly functional to the independent exercise of the attributions proper to the legislative power, whereas behaviors extraneous to the justificatory *ratio* of the constitutional autonomy of the Chambers fall under the dominion of common law rules» (judgment no. 379 of 1996), in consideration of the equally constitutionally prominent requirement to «guarantee to individuals the right to the protection of their dignity as persons, safeguarded by Article 2 of the Constitution as well as by various conventional norms» (judgment no. 115 of 2014, citing judgment no. 313 of 2013).

Moreover, unlike other Constitutions (such as, for example, the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, Article 46, paragraph 1, and the Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 6), the Italian one does not adopt a spatial criterion aimed at identifying non-actionable opinions only as those uttered within the "parliamentary precinct" or in any case within one of the organs comprising the parliamentary structure and in the exercise of typical parliamentary activity; rather, it favors a functional criterion, which implies that «the opinions expressed are characterized by the existence of a close nexus with the exercise of functions (judgment no. 11 of 2000)» (judgment no. 104 of 2024), in order to prevent immunity from transforming itself «from an exemption from liability linked to the function into a personal privilege» (again, judgment no. 11 of 2000). The evident transformation that has characterized the exercise of the representative function over time—enriching itself with forms of expression originally unknown—while rendering an excessively restrictive conception of the guarantee of non-actionability obsolete, certainly does not entail the lapse of the underlying *ratio* of protecting the autonomy of representative institutions by confusing the private sphere and the functional sphere of the individual Member of Parliament’s opinions.

7.1.2.‒ Within this framework, it is the task of this Court to safeguard, in proceedings for a conflict of attribution between powers, the boundary line fixed by the Constitution through the functional delimitation of the scope of the guarantee «between the protection of the autonomy and freedom of the Chambers, and, to that end, of the freedom of expression of their members, on the one hand, and the protection of constitutionally protected rights and interests susceptible to being infringed by the expression of opinions, on the other hand» (judgment no. 10 of 2000).

Such safeguarding implies that when this Court is called upon to «verify the correctness, on the constitutional plane, of a ruling of non-actionability», it must do so by ascertaining «whether, in the specific case, non-actionability subsists, that is, whether the opinion in question was expressed in the exercise of parliamentary functions, in light of the notion of such exercise that can be inferred from the Constitution (cf. judgment of the same date, no. 11 of 2000)» (again, judgment no. 10 of 2000); in other words, by ascertaining whether that "functional nexus" which indissolubly binds the opinions expressed by the Member of Parliament to the activities carried out in the "capacity" of a member of the Chambers is discernible.

Such verification is fairly straightforward in relation to opinions rendered during the proceedings of the Chambers or their various organs, as well as with reference to acts, including individual ones, that are manifestations of the specific powers of the individual Member of Parliament (proposals for amendments or questions or interpellations): in this regard, it must moreover be considered that parliamentary rules of procedure already assign to the Presidents of collegial bodies direct powers to prevent the immunity in question from being abused through typical acts.

A more complex ascertainment activity is required, however, when the aforementioned verification has as its object statements expressed *extra moenia*, which are also potentially covered by non-actionability since parliamentary activity by its very nature is destined «"to project itself outside the parliamentary chambers, in the interest of the free political dialectic which is a condition of life of democratic-representative institutions" (judgments no. 321 and no. 320 of 2000) (again, judgments no. 194, no. 193 and no. 104 of 2024)» (judgment no. 19 of 2026), «all the more so considering that in contemporary society political communication has profoundly transformed (and continues to transform)» (judgment no. 104 of 2024), as reiterated above.

For the specific purpose of facilitating the verification of the existence of a functional nexus between statements made outside the Chambers and parliamentary activity, this Court has progressively outlined certain conditions that can constitute «revealing indices» of such nexus: the «substantial correspondence [of the former] with opinions expressed in the exercise of typical parliamentary activity» (judgments no. 19 of 2026 and no. 104 of 2024) and the «substantial temporal contemporaneity between this latter activity and the external activity» (judgment no. 104 of 2024). The occurrence of such conditions—which, however consistent and qualified, it has already been clarified do not configure constitutive elements of a case punctually delineated by the Constitution or by law (judgment no. 104 of 2024)—may indeed be considered a "symptom" that simplifies, but does not replace, the verification of the nexus running between the exercise of the parliamentary function and the opinions expressed *extra moenia*: a verification in any case necessary to ascertain that the latter appear preordered to «communicating externally, notwithstanding the inevitable diversity of the instruments and language used in the typical act and in its dissemination to public opinion, the meaning of the activity performed in the exercise of the mandate» (judgments no. 19 of 2026 and no. 104 of 2024).

Having specified this, it appears an evident consequence that—as moreover already observed in the most recent constitutional case law—«statements made *extra moenia* not necessarily connected to parliamentary acts, for which an evident and qualified nexus with the exercise of the parliamentary function is nonetheless deemed to subsist (judgments no. 194, no. 193 and no. 104 of 2024 and no. 133 of 2018) may also be brought back within the perimeter of application of Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution» (judgment no. 19 of 2026).

Not only statements that constitute an expression of the function «of informing the electorate and assuming political responsibility for the choices made, which is also proper to the parliamentary mandate» (judgment no. 19 of 2026) satisfy the aforementioned requirements, but also those «of criticism and political denunciation» that flank those of «dissemination» (as, moreover, established by Article 3, paragraph 1, of Law no. 140 of 2003). All the aforementioned statements are covered by non-actionability if and insofar as they are aimed at promoting the quality of public debate and channeling «into the political process proper to a pluralist democracy the different and divergent interests referable to the people, in order to find, in the exercise of the representation of the Nation referred to in Article 67 of the Constitution, a mediation between them responding to the general interest» (again, judgment no. 104 of 2024).

Indeed, it is undeniable that that activity of information, criticism, and political denunciation that is functional to contributing to the dynamics of the "public sphere" (the so-called *Öffentlichkeit*), capable of impacting the choices made at the seat of national political representation with a view to realizing the general interest, facilitating intermediation between civil society and representative institutions, is referable to the parliamentary function.

The lack of the aforementioned symptomatic indices, however, requires—as constitutional case law has already emphasized—a punctual verification regarding the existence of the functional nexus, so as to recognize it only in the presence of external statements that constitute an «evident [...], specific and differentiated expression of the parliamentary function» (judgment no. 133 of 2018). Such a punctual verification is rendered necessary by the opposing constitutional interests that come into play and is also in line with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The latter, in recognizing that non-actionability pursues «legitimate aims, namely the protection of free parliamentary debate and the maintenance of the separation of the legislative and judicial powers», has indeed underlined how the absence of a link with a typical parliamentary activity «requires a strict interpretation of the concept of proportionality between the pre-established aim and the means employed» (European Court of Human Rights, judgment of February 24, 2009, CGIL and Cofferati v. Italy; in this sense, already judgment no. 104 of 2024).

Consequently, only those external statements that are bound by a close instrumentality with respect to the exercise of parliamentary functions are referable to the scope of operation of the first paragraph of Article 68 of the Constitution.

First of all, they—moving from a general, albeit partisan, vision of the interest of the *polis*—must provide the reasons for the specific points of view adopted (and proposed) from time to time on various matters, but always and in any case pertaining to the general interest. Points of view of which the Member of Parliament has made and/or undertakes to make himself a spokesperson in representative assemblies, through the specific instruments at his disposal in that capacity.

Furthermore, it is precisely the necessary consideration of the important parliamentary function as a public function that must be fulfilled with discipline and honor (Article 54 of the Constitution) that implies that it «does not tolerate manifestations that, far from being aimed at giving representation to the different and divergent interests referable to the people, are not "imprinted with respect for the dignity of the addressees of the criticism" (again, judgment no. 104 of 2024)» (judgment no. 194 of 2024). This is all the more so when the criticism is directed at subjects who are not themselves members of Parliament and «when the opinion is expressed by means of modern communication tools—such as online journalistic outlets or social media—which make it easily retrievable and the object of further dissemination» (judgment no. 104 of 2024). The more relevant the prestige of a public office, the more necessary it is for its holder to act consistently with the requirement to preserve its authority, which must necessarily find translation in adequate individual conduct.

Therefore, falling outside the perimeter of non-actionability are, in particular: insults—«the qualification of which as opinions is in any case debatable» (judgment no. 59 of 2018) just like mere material behaviors (judgment no. 218 of 2023)—; the assertion of objectively false facts or, in any case, «not supported by suitable factual elements, which corroborate the existence, or at least the plausibility, of the reported circumstance» (judgment no. 194 of 2024) and which are damaging to the reputation of others (judgments no. 19 of 2026 and no. 104 of 2024).

Indeed, if «[n]on-actionability *ex* Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution "protects and permits statements aimed at the promotion and quality of public debate, certainly not at its degradation" (judgment no. 104 of 2024)» (judgment no. 194 of 2024), its field of action *extra moenia* can only concern expressive forms proper to criticism and political denunciation, based on real data and correctly acquired information, the interpretive key of which underlying the criticism or political denunciation is clarified: expressive forms that, «far from transforming non-actionability into a guarantee of impunity and a privilege, are coherent with the prominence of the institution in the linkage between parliamentary institutions and public opinion and support its *ratio*, rather than placing it in crisis» (judgment no. 104 of 2024).

7.2.‒ In light of the foregoing, the statements made by Hon. Sgarbi must now be evaluated.

7.2.1.‒ It must first of all be pointed out that, in the present case, revealing indices of the existence of the functional nexus between the opinions expressed by Hon. Sgarbi in the post of May 6, 2019 and his parliamentary activity are not discernible.

As acknowledged in the report of the Committee on Parliamentary Immunities itself and subsequently confirmed in the Chamber’s defensive briefs, there is indeed no parliamentary act attributable to the same deputy and adopted within a contemporaneous timeframe that has, even in part, a content substantially corresponding to that of the post. In the brief of the Chamber’s defense, reference is in fact made to inspection acts, bills, and speeches in the assembly and committees by the then-deputy Vittorio Sgarbi, which have a non-corresponding object, as they generically pertain to the modalities of conferring top-level assignments relating to cultural, artistic, and scientific institutes. Such acts therefore have no connection with the specific affair of interest here.

However, as clarified by the aforementioned most recent constitutional case law, the circumstance that the statements forming the object of contestation find no cover in an internal act is not, in itself alone, sufficient to exclude that they are «expressive of the exercise of the parliamentary function» (judgment no. 19 of 2026).

It is therefore necessary to proceed to a punctual verification of the traceability to the exercise of the parliamentary mandate of the statements contained in the aforementioned post, in order to seek the existence of an evident and qualified nexus with the function, necessary to affirm the non-actionability of the same as a guarantee of free parliamentary debate and respect for the principle of the separation of powers.

7.2.2.‒ The outcome of such scrutiny is, in this case, negative.

In the defenses of the Chamber of Deputies, the contested statements are traced back to the exercise of the parliamentary function of criticism and political denunciation, pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 1, of Law no. 140 of 2003, as they were made in reply to criticisms of Hon. Sgarbi’s appointment as President of MART—a public artistic-cultural entity established by the Autonomous Province of Trento—expressed across various journalistic outlets, online and in print, by provincial councillor Alex Marini. The latter had contested such appointment, arguing that it would have been favored by a political affinity with the President of the Provincial Government and that it would in any case have been inappropriate by reason of the prior convictions incurred by the Member of Parliament in relation to activities comparable to those forming the object of the appointment, as well as in consideration of the difficult compatibility with the commitments of a Member of Parliament and mayor held by him.

To such assertions—recognized by the first-instance judge as expressive of the right of political criticism as well as that of reporting—Hon. Sgarbi reacted with the contested post on his Facebook page, in which he addressed two of the provincial councillors (including Alex Marini) who had expressed criticisms against him, qualifying them as «inettes [...] paid 6 thousand euros a month to utter nonsense», «deberebrates holding office in the Provincial Council of Trentino, handsomely paid for their absolute incompetence». In recalling thereafter the positive opinion of the National Anti-Corruption Authority (ANAC) on the compatibility of the assignment with the role of Member of Parliament by reason of the absence of delegations of managerial activities, Hon. Sgarbi himself also stated that he had been «chosen culturally, for clear fame, as would never happen to them, in the darkness in which their clouded minds grope», contesting that «[w]ith their non-existent arguments they reveal themselves to be onanists, with the right and with the left».

Although the criticisms directed by provincial councillor Alex Marini against the appointment of Hon. Vittorio Sgarbi as President of MART impinge on matters of unquestionable general interest (the criteria and requirements for the appointment of the president of a public cultural entity by a local political body such as the Provincial Government; the political opportunity of conferring such an assignment in the presence of criminal convictions for certain offenses; the reasonableness of the provision of the cumulation of the assignment with that of a Member of Parliament, in the absence of the delegation of managerial tasks), which could well have been followed by statements made *extra moenia* by the Member of Parliament for the purpose of making known to the electors-represented citizens his position on such matters—a position as such referable to the exercise of his parliamentary mandate—the content of the words and the overall tenor of the contested post do not allow for the finding of that evident and qualified nexus with the parliamentary function which is prescribed by the first paragraph of Article 68 of the Constitution as necessary for the purpose of the prerogative of non-actionability.

First of all, the words used by Hon. Sgarbi constitute a reply incapable of reaching the collective dimension of the interests at stake, stopping at the plane of the mere defense of a personal interest: even the reference to ANAC’s opinion on the compatibility, in this case, of the conferral of the assignment with the role of Member of Parliament falls exclusively within the contours of his specific individual affair.

Indeed, no enunciation from which a critical vision of the then-deputy on the matters of general interest underlying the opponent’s contestations could be deduced—to be supported and asserted in the context of political discourse constituting the exercise of the parliamentary function—is to be found in the post. In the absence of the integration within the text of the post of any argumentation referring to political positions concerning the themes touched upon by the affair, which is essential for the configuration of the exercise of such a function outwardly, the contested statements are therefore not classifiable as expressive of opinions «which, inscribed in a political context, [are] functional to the exercise of parliamentary activity» (judgment no. 104 of 2024) and capable of providing a contribution to public debate.

Alongside the aforementioned lack of argumentation of general interest, marking the exceeding of the «extreme limit of the prerogative of non-actionability, and with that very thing of the interpretative virtualities abstractly ascribed to Article 68» (judgment no. 120 of 2004), and thus the transformation of said prerogative into a personal privilege, there are furthermore the expressive modalities used in the post in response to the provincial councillor’s criticisms.

The words used by Hon. Sgarbi with reference to the provincial councillors—moreover by means of a communication tool suitable for amplifying their dissemination in terms of immediacy—«far from being aimed at giving representation to the different and divergent interests referable to the people, are not "imprinted with respect for the dignity of the addressees of the criticism" (again, judgment no. 104 of 2024)» (judgment no. 194 of 2024), who are not even members of Parliament. These are expressions aimed not at countering the arguments used to criticize the appointment forming the object of contestation, but exclusively at denigrating the person of the one who offered those arguments to the evaluation of public opinion. Therefore, they are not referable to the exercise of that parliamentary function which, it must be reiterated, «by reason of the prominence that the Constitution recognizes to it in the democratic legal order, is a public function that must be fulfilled "with discipline and honor" (Article 54 of the Constitution)» (judgment no. 194 of 2024).

If, as has been said, the extension of the prerogative of non-actionability to opinions expressed *extra moenia* obeys the requirement to provide a contribution to public debate for the purpose of the free exercise of parliamentary activity, where such opinions—as in the present case—entail on the contrary its degradation, said prerogative proves to be a measure not only manifestly disproportionate in light of the equally primary constitutional requirement to guarantee individuals the right to the judicial protection of their dignity as persons, but even priorly incompatible with the function, since opinions expressed outside parliamentary assemblies in such forms lose «any connection with the parliamentary function» (again, judgment no. 194 of 2024).

7.3.‒ In conclusion, the statements expressed by Hon. Sgarbi, at the time a deputy, in the post published on his Facebook page on May 6, 2019 cannot, due to the lack of the functional nexus, be deemed to have been rendered in the exercise of parliamentary functions and therefore immunity cannot be invoked for them pursuant to Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution.

The Chamber of Deputies, by adopting the resolution of non-actionability in question, has therefore illegitimately interfered in the sphere of attribution of the appellant judicial authority. Consequently, the annulment of the impugned resolution must be ordered.

Excluded from the object of these proceedings is any evaluation concerning the compatibility of the statements in question with the limits placed on the right of political criticism within the horizon of Article 21 of the Constitution: it is indeed up «to the ordinary judge "to pronounce concretely on the relationship between the right to the free manifestation of thought, in particular in the political field, and the right to honor and reputation of the subject who deems himself injured by the opinion expressed" (judgment no. 10 of 2000)» (judgment no. 104 of 2024).

for these reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

1) declares that the Chamber of Deputies lacked the power to resolve that the statements made by Vittorio Sgarbi, at the time a deputy, in the post published on his Facebook page on May 6, 2019—for which civil proceedings are pending before the Court of Appeals of Ancona, Second Civil Section, referred to in the order-appeal indicated 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;

2) consequently annuls the declaration of non-actionability adopted by the Chamber of Deputies in the sitting of May 8, 2024, approving the proposal of the Committee on Parliamentary Immunities (doc. IV-ter, no. 6-A).

So decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on June 10, 2026.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Antonella SCIARRONE ALIBRANDI, Rapporteur

Igor DI BERNARDINI, Registrar

Filed with the Registry on October 9, 2026