JUDGMENT NO. 169
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 proceedings concerning the conflict of attribution between State powers arising from both the judgment of the Ordinary Court of Matera, Criminal Section, of March 1, 2024, no. 225, issued in criminal proceedings no. 2664/21 R.G.N.R. against the then Senator Saverio De Bonis, and the orders of the same Court rejecting the plea of non-accountability pursuant to Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution, as well as the orders adjourning the hearings of February 3, June 9, and December 1, 2023, and February 16, 2024, brought by the Senate of the Republic, by means of an application served on January 9, 2026, filed with the registry on January 23, 2026, registered under no. 5 of the register of conflicts between State powers for 2025, and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic, 1st Special Series, no. 6, of the year 2026, merits phase.
Having regard to the briefs in intervention submitted by F. C. and the Chamber of Deputies;
having heard Judge Rapporteur Francesco Saverio Marini at the public hearing of September 22, 2026;
having heard counsel Vinicio Settimio Nardo for the Senate of the Republic, Marco Cerase for the Chamber of Deputies, and Luisa Torchia for F. C.;
having deliberated in the chambers on September 22, 2026.
Ruling in Fact
1.– By application filed on January 23, 2026 (reg. confl. pot. no. 5 of 2025), the Senate of the Republic brought a conflict of attribution between State powers, with reference both to the judgment of the Ordinary Court of Matera, Criminal Section, of March 1, 2024, no. 225, and to the orders rejecting the plea of applicability of Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution, as well as the orders adjourning the hearings held in the relative criminal proceedings adopted by the same Court on February 3, June 9, and December 1, 2023, and February 16, 2024.
By the aforementioned judgment, the Court convicted the then Senator Saverio De Bonis of the offense of aggravated defamation (Article 595, third paragraph, of the Criminal Code), for having reproduced on his Facebook page on August 16, 2021, an article dating back to 2006 published by the daily newspaper "La Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno", entitled "Contaminated grain: entrepreneur knew". The defendant had added the following note: "the year was 2006 and the entrepreneur – according to what was ascertained – knew aboutochratoxin since the time of the purchase of the grain in Canada".
In summary, Senator De Bonis allegedly harmed the reputation of the entrepreneur F. C., endorsing the hypothesis that the latter had placed contaminated grain on the market, despite his acquittal in criminal proceedings concerning that fact.
2.– The applicant reports that during the criminal trial against Senator De Bonis, a plea was raised by the defense, starting from the preliminary phase, concerning the non-accountability of the conduct attributed to the defendant, as it constituted an opinion expressed in the exercise of parliamentary functions pursuant to Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution.
Rather than issuing a judgment of dismissal pursuant to Article 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or referring the question concerning non-accountability to the Senate of the Republic by means of an order, the Court proceeded with the trial during the hearings of February 3, June 9, and December 1, 2023, and February 16, 2024.
Finally, it issued a judgment of conviction on March 1, 2024.
The applicant Senate points out that, by proceeding in this manner, the Court of Matera violated Article 3 of Law no. 140 of June 20, 2003 (Provisions for the implementation of Article 68 of the Constitution as well as regarding criminal trials against high officers of State), pursuant to which, if a plea of non-accountability under Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution is raised before the judicial authority, the criminal judge shall immediately issue a judgment of dismissal pursuant to Article 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the event that the plea is deemed well-founded (paragraph 3), or an unappealable order transmitting the case file to the house of Parliament to which the defendant belonged at the time the fact was committed, should the plea be deemed unfounded (paragraph 4).
It is incumbent upon the House of Parliament thus seized to deliberate on the non-accountability, without prejudice to the judge's prerogative to bring a conflict of attribution before this Court should they disagree with any eventual resolution of non-accountability.
The procedure outlined by Article 3 of Law no. 140 of 2003, the applicant continues, gives effect to Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution, which reserves to the Houses of Parliament the assessment regarding the existence of the prerogative.
Therefore, by omitting to immediately seize the Senate of the Republic (the House to which the defendant belonged at the time the fact was committed), the Court of Matera, starting from the adoption of the hearing adjournment orders, allegedly impaired the applicant's constitutional attributions, compounding the breach by issuing a judgment of conviction which excluded the existence of a case of non-accountability.
The applicant adds that the judge is required to give immediate application to Article 3 of Law no. 140 of 2003, even if the parliamentarian does not take action to prompt the intervention of the House to which they belong, and cites extensive constitutional case law concerning non-accountability under Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution.
3.– The Senate of the Republic concludes that the indicated acts must be annulled by this Court, with a declaration that the Court of Matera lacks the power to adopt them.
4.– By Order no. 181 of 2025, the application for conflict was declared admissible pursuant to Article 37, first paragraph, of Law no. 87 of March 11, 1953 (Rules on the constitution and functioning of the Constitutional Court), and provision was made for the notification of the application and the admissibility order also to the Chamber of Deputies.
5.– By Order no. 124 of 2026, the intervention of F. C. was declared admissible; F. C. requested the dismissal of the application, invoking a restrictive interpretation of Article 3 of Law no. 140 of 2003.
6.– By a brief filed on February 24, 2026, the Chamber of Deputies intervened in the proceedings, reserving the right to file a subsequent memorial and asking this Court to uphold the application of the Senate of the Republic.
7.– In the run-up to the public hearing, the Senate of the Republic filed a memorial, insisting on the granting of the application.
The applicant recalls the temporarily inhibiting effect that the resolution of non-accountability produces on judicial activity pursuant to Article 3 of Law no. 140 of 2003, in order to deduce that such effect also occurs upon the raising of the plea of non-accountability before the judge by the interested party.
In light of this, the arguments put forward by the intervening third party to demonstrate the absence of a functional nexus between the opinions expressed by Senator De Bonis and parliamentary activity would fall into "eccentricity", as they evade the procedural defect committed by the Court of Matera.
8.– The Chamber of Deputies adhered to the conclusions of the Senate with an independent memorial, recalling that the judge's power to proceed without submitting the question of non-accountability to the relevant House of Parliament was provided for by Article 3 of Decree-Law no. 23 of January 14, 1994 (Urgent provisions for the implementation of Article 68 of the Constitution), which was never converted into law.
At present, therefore, such power does not exist, whereas the intervening third party, by arguing the contrary, falls into the error of deriving this procedural rule from the substantive absence of the requirements for non-accountability.
9.– For his part, the intervener F. C. filed a memorial, insisting on the dismissal of the application.
It is argued, in particular, that the interpretation of Article 3 of Law no. 140 of 2003 must be restrictive, to prevent the prerogative from transforming into a personal privilege.
In the present case, Senator De Bonis's statements are clearly unrelated to parliamentary activity, with the consequence that the judge must take direct cognizance of them, following the path indicated by Judgment no. 154 of 2004 of this Court and in accordance with the suggestions of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
Ruling in Law
10.– By application filed on January 23, 2026 (reg. confl. pot. no. 5 of 2025), the Senate of the Republic brought a conflict of attribution between State powers, with reference both to the judgment of the Ordinary Court of Matera, Criminal Section, of March 1, 2024, no. 225, and to the orders rejecting the plea of applicability of Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution, as well as the orders adjourning the hearings held in the relative criminal proceedings adopted by the same Court on February 3, June 9, and December 1, 2023, and February 16, 2024.
In those proceedings, Saverio De Bonis, formerly a Senator of the Republic at the time of the facts, is charged with the offense of aggravated defamation (Article 595, third paragraph, of the Criminal Code) to the detriment of F. C., for having reproduced and commented upon on his Facebook page on August 16, 2021, an article from a 2006 daily newspaper, in which F. C. was suspected of having placed contaminated grain on the market. In the meantime, however, F. C. had been acquitted of said charge in criminal proceedings.
The Senate of the Republic notes that the Court ordered four adjournments of the hearing and ultimately convicted De Bonis, despite the defendant having immediately raised a plea regarding the non-accountability of the opinion expressed pursuant to Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution. The judge thereby allegedly violated Article 3 of Law no. 140 of 2003, governing the "implementation" of Article 68 of the Constitution, which in such cases prescribes that the prosecuting judicial authority, should it not intend to uphold the plea and therefore immediately issue a judgment of dismissal pursuant to Article 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, must submit the question concerning non-accountability to the House to which the member belongs.
11.– By Order no. 181 of 2025, this Court deemed the application admissible, and participation therein was extended to the Chamber of Deputies, an assessment that is fully confirmed herein.
12.– By Order no. 124 of 2026, the intervention of F. C. was also deemed admissible, in his capacity as the person injured by the offense who has joined the proceedings as a civil party, regarding which the Court of Matera issued its judgment.
13.– On the merits, the application is well-founded.
It must first be clarified that the application does not have as its object the non-accountability of the statements challenged by Saverio De Bonis, upon which the applicant Senate does not even pronounce.
The impairment of the constitutional attributions of the Senate derives, in fact, from the decision of the Court of Matera to continue with the criminal trial – and to conclude it with a judgment of conviction – despite a plea repeatedly reiterated by the defendant's defense concerning the non-accountability of the opinion expressed. The judge rejected this plea, deeming the statements extraneous to the exercise of parliamentary functions, whereas Article 3 of Law no. 140 of 2003 required him to transmit the case file to the Senate of the Republic so that the latter could rule on the matter of non-accountability.
Article 3 of Law no. 140 of 2003 is entirely clear in charting this latter course should the judge deem the plea of non-accountability unfounded. Due to its lexical clarity, the provision does not lend itself at all to the restrictive correction that the intervening third party suggests by way of interpretation, namely to allow the judicial authority to proceed where the plea appears entirely off-target. Indeed, it is not permissible to ""bend” by way of interpretation, even if constitutionally and EU-law oriented", a provision "toward a different meaning, in the face of the unambiguous wording of the rule, as read within the regulatory context in which it is embedded" (Judgment no. 129 of 2026).
Alongside this consideration, it is equally decisive to note that Article 3 of Law no. 140 of 2003, in this respect, is not subject to any doubt of constitutional legitimacy, given that it establishes a mechanism of loyal cooperation between State powers, both of which are called upon, each within its own sphere of constitutional attributions, to assess the scope of application of parliamentary immunity.
Thus, "[e]ven through ordinary-rank legislation whose contents are not constitutionally mandated", this provision guarantees "the effective and correct functioning of the parliamentary prerogative" (Judgment no. 149 of 2007), establishing that the judge, should they deem the safeguard inapplicable, is required to submit the question to the relevant House of Parliament, without prejudice to the power to bring a conflict of attribution before this Court should they disagree with any eventual resolution of non-accountability. Furthermore, Article 3, paragraph 5, of Law no. 140 of 2003 does not indefinitely paralyze the course of judicial functions, which resume in any case once the period of 90 days from the receipt of the case files by the competent House has elapsed (a period that may be extended for no more than 30 days).
Ultimately, this provision, also as regards the part relevant here, constitutes an implementation of Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution that is not constitutionally illegitimate, as it is "designed to make the provisions of that constitutional precept immediately and directly operational at the procedural level" (Judgment no. 120 of 2004).
Finally, the argument advanced by the intervener F. C. is irrelevant where he invokes Judgment no. 154 of 2004 of this Court to argue that the ordinary judge, called upon to directly interpret even constitutional norms on immunity, can independently assess the existence of the prerequisites for non-accountability under Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution.
That precedent concerns the identification of the functional acts of the President of the Republic: an aspect entirely dissimilar to the subject matter of today's conflict, both due to the monocratic nature of the organ and, above all, because no legislative procedural framework analogous to that contained in Law no. 140 of 2003 is provided for with respect to the non-accountability of presidential acts.
14.– It follows that this Court has no reason to depart from what was decided, in a case entirely overlapping with the present one, by Judgment no. 149 of 2007, in which it was clarified that the mere continuation of the trial, in the face of a plea of non-accountability, "constitutes a clear disregard of the functions constitutionally attributed" to the relevant House of Parliament "and also results in a violation of that obligation of loyal cooperation which, according to the consolidated case law of this Court, must always and in any case characterize relations between State powers".
15.– The Court of Matera therefore incurred a manifest violation of constitutional legality. Moreover, the procedure provided for by Law no. 140 of 2003 does not deprive the injured party of protection; should a resolution of non-accountability be adopted by the parliamentarian's House of belonging, the injured party may well prompt the judge to bring a conflict before this Court.
16.– Therefore, the Ordinary Court of Matera, Criminal Section, lacked the power to proceed with the trial and conclude it with a judgment, in the face of the plea of non-accountability raised by the defendant's defense. Both the orders rejecting the plea raised, the orders adjourning the trial to another hearing on February 3, 2023, as well as the adjournment orders of June 9 and December 1, 2023, and February 16, 2024, and the judgment of the same Court of March 1, 2024, no. 225, must consequently be annulled.
on these grounds
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
1) declares that the Ordinary Court of Matera, Criminal Section, lacked the power to adopt either the orders rejecting the plea of non-accountability pursuant to Article 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution, or the orders adjourning the trial to another hearing on February 3, 2023, the adjournment orders of June 9 and December 1, 2023, and February 16, 2024, or the judgment of March 1, 2024, no. 225, against the then Senator Saverio De Bonis;
2) consequently annuls the acts indicated in the preceding point.
Thus decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on September 22, 2026.
Signed:
Giovanni AMOROSO, President
Francesco Saverio MARINI, Rapporteur
Roberto MILANA, Director of the Registry
Filed with the Registry on October 13, 2026
The anonymized version conforms textually to the original