point out, although it is a specific case, but it seems to me that present many similarities and a sufficiently precise and established jurisprudence. with that which is being discussed in the city, an article published by Il Sole 24 Ore "on Monday, 1 November 2010 under the heading" Justice and Judgments. "
E 'is evident that any pronouncement of him and could probably be cited in other cases the opposite direction. The recent case law relating to libel or equivalent instruments, such as posters, I think you are directing the Double protection of rights, the right to free expression that should never be lost, but that conflicts or may intrude on the ground of defamation, trespass, which can be up to the court, if requested, consider that the encroachment has taken place or not. Matter therefore, is complex and is much less obvious and predictable in its interpretation of what at times the political debate in the city seemed ritenere.mb
DAL SOLE 24 ORE DI LUNEDI' 1/11/2010, un articolo di Selene Pascasi
"La critica politica non può diffamare il professionista
È diffamazione discreditare un professionista, denigrandone la credibilità, anche se lo si fa durante una pubblica assemblea, trattandosi di un soggetto politicamente impegnato. Il diritto di critica politica, infatti, non legittima espressioni lesive della dignità personale e professionale, non sussistendo alcun interesse a che la collettività ne venga messa al corrente. Lo afferma la Corte di cassazione, sezione V penale, con la sentenza n. 37220/10.
Coinvolti nei fatti, un sindaco e un consigliere di maggioranza di un piccolo comune. I politici, nel corso di a public meeting, had brought to the attention of the participants conduct, they say improper, held by a woman, minority counselor and advocate. According to reports from the two, she had led a national, carp good faith, to sign an administrative appeal which was brought against a building permit on a green area located in the town.
so doing, emphasized, had exploited his profession for political purposes (it was known that the attorney was actively engaged in a committee intent to prevent the urbanization of the area). Hence the lawsuit for defamation. The court, while recognizing the importance of the defamatory words used and the knowledge to put in place unlawful conduct, absolves them both. The ruling is upheld on appeal, where judges regarded the incident as a legitimate exercise of political criticism. After all, they say, was a collective interest of the means to realize "objectionable" used by the Council to object. To justify an acquittal, then, the fact that the defendants - in criticizing the act of saving - had respected the principle of "formal continence 'had censured incorrectly with which she had performed its function of opposition, while not no complaint had been addressed on a personal or professional. " The lawyer, however, does not give up and took their case to the Supreme Court. In his view, were not only distorted the results of the investigation hearing, but the reasoning of the Court of Appeal was clearly heard. In fact, there was no consistency in recognizing the value defamatory expressions used by the defendants - who had publicly denigrated his dignity - and then consider them relevant to the political statements. It is, therefore, there was a libel.
agrees to the Supreme Court, which upholds the claim of the profession. The speech of the Mayor and Councillor - note the judges of legitimacy - indeed contained defamatory statements of the "dignity and professional credibility" of the lawyer. He had Treaty, therefore, a legitimate political criticism aimed at highlighting the mistakes of the minority, but a true work of professional and personal stigma against the applicant. The citizens, at best, might have an interest to understand the political reasons of the conflict on the urban destination of the town, but not the fact "that a lawyer had acted or behaved, so wrong." On this point, the Supreme Court had already pronounced sentence no 11277/10, where - with reference to the accusation, made against a professional, he had prepared a report reflecting the meeting does not really happened - he said that this complaint (made "on purpose" therefore intentional) integrates defamation, having the ability to discredit the reputation of the recipient, struck in his professional capacity. In support, the courts had also pointed out that freedom to express one's thoughts can not justify deliberately offensive expressions, ending otherwise "no longer justifiable in a manner prejudicial to the rights of the injured party as opposed to their own privacy and reputation."
Here, returning to the concrete case, the Supreme Court annulled the acquittal decision. It is not acceptable - it is stated in the sentence - that the 'political contest to take place on the floor dell'invettiva staff, so that to obtain consents to the detriment of contradictory to a political party is allowed to spread in public considerations disparaging a particular personal or professional aspects of the opponents. "
www.ilsole24ore.com/
rules / documents
The ruling of the Supreme Court defamation
Integrate the use of phrases or expressions that may undermine the personal and professional dignity of any person, even if this occurs in the context of a political debate . The right to political criticism, in fact, legitimate expressions of public concern
no defamatory is intended only to throw
discredit opponents of a doctrine
The oldest was puzzled that the offense might be caused also to honor individui privi della capacità d'intendere e volere (Altavilla, Delitti contro la persona, in Trattato, diretto da Florian, Milano, 1934). L'orientamento oggi prevalente ritiene che persona offesa dalla diffamazione possa essere anche l'incapace o il soggetto marginale (Mantovani, Diritto Penale, p.s, Padova 2005, 191)
L'accusa rivolta a un professionista integra gli estremi dell'ipotesi
di diffamazione nel caso in cui comporti discredito
alla reputazione del destinatario
Cassazione, 11277/2010
È illecito l'esercizio di critica politica non fondato sull'attribuzione
di fatti veri, ma basato semplicemente su interpretazioni soggettive, fonte di discredito per qualcuno
Cassazione, 7419/2009"
0 comments:
Post a Comment