CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 juin 2002

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 43 June 2002 Cordova v. Italy (no. 2) (dec.) - 45649/99 Decision 13.6.2002 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Parliamentary immunity – annulment of conviction for defamatory statements made at electoral meeting by a Member of Parliament: admissible In 1993, the applicant was a public prosecutor in Palmi. At two election campaign meetings in Palmi, S, a member of parliament, made harsh and offensive comments about the applicant. The latter lodged a criminal complaint alleging aggravated defamation. The Public Prosecutor’s Office in Palmi committed S for trial and the applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party seeking damages. S was given a suspended prison sentence and was ordered to pay the applicant damages, whose amount would be assessed in separate civil proceedings.   The judge deemed it unnecessary to stay the proceedings in order to obtain the opinion of the Chamber of Deputies because, in his view, the statements complained of had not been made in the course of S’s parliamentary duties and were therefore not covered by the constitutional guarantee parliamentary immunity (Article 68 § 1 of the Constitution). S appealed unsuccessfully against this decision, seeking to have the proceedings stayed and the case referred to the Chamber of Deputies. He relied on a legislative decree which provided that where a judge did not allow an objection raised by one of the parties regarding the applicability of Article 68 § 1 of the Constitution, he had to forward a copy of the case file as speedily as possible to the parliamentary chamber of which the person concerned was a member. The proceedings were suspended until the chamber concerned reached a decision.   S appealed to the Court of Cassation, which ordered the proceedings to be stayed and the file to be forwarded to the Chamber of Deputies. The Chamber of Deputies found that S had expressed his opinion in the course of the parliamentary duties. The Court of Cassation set aside the trial and appeal court’s decisions on the grounds that S had acted while discharging his duties as a member of parliament. It held that a broad interpretation of the concept of “parliamentary duties” encompassing all acts of a political nature, even outside parliament, had already been adopted on several occasions and was not inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution. Admissible under Article 6 § 1.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes