judicial reports. POINT OF LAW: "The journalist was neither judged nor POLICEMAN. DIA NEWS AND SUGGESTION WITHOUT possible developments. "
"To each his own: the investigators responsible for carrying out the investigations to the court to determine the truth, the task of the journalist give notice, in the exercise of the right to inform, but not to influence the community ". In CODA's comment PERON Sabrina and the text of the award.
Rome, February 1, 2011. "To each his own: the investigators responsible for carrying out the investigations to the court to determine the truth, the task of the journalist give notice, in the exercise of the right to inform, but not to influence the community." It is the admonition of the Supreme Court, called to examine a case of defamation. According to the Supreme Court, in particular, "falls within the exercise of the right to report judicial proceedings and investigations and to report acts of censorship, from public authorities, but is not allowed to carry out reconstruction, analysis, evaluations tend to precede and complement police activity and judiciary, regardless of results of that activity. " "It is therefore in stark contrast to the right and duty to tell the facts that have already happened (...) the work of the journalist who confuse news about events that occurred and prognosis on events to come", because "in this way - adds to the Supreme Court, referring to the matter - he, independently, suggests and anticipates the evolution and outcome of investigations into key culprits, compared with no beginning and no official investigation concluded. " The case on which it is delivered in the Fifth Criminal Division concerns proceedings for defamation against the journalist Peter Gomez against the Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.
The Court of Appeal of Rome, in 2009, while declaring the extinction statute of limitations for defamation was considered grounds for arguing that the journalist in an article on alleged mafia financing of the Fininvest group, in addition to reporting the statements of an associate of justice contained in the investigation, he added, "further consideration drawn from other statements of other entities that appeared aimed to enhance the credibility of the collaborator with justice thus creating a feedback function "but it can not be a journalist but only" the judicial authority. " In the appeal to the Supreme Court asked the reporter that although the prescription was the same as the ability to exercise the freedom of the press, but the supreme 3674 trial, rejected the request. They write that the judges' interest of citizens is to be aware of possible violations of criminal laws and civil rights, know and control the progress of the investigation and the reaction of state bodies in front of the illegality in order to make assessments on the state institutions and level of law of the rulers and the ruled 'too, "is the collective right to receive information about who has been involved in any criminal or civil, especially if the players have prominent position in social, political or judicial." But the Supreme Court states, is "in stark contrast to the right and duty" of Chronicle reporter that the action of "confusing news about events that occurred and prognosis on events to come." In this case, "the reporter's statements integrated with other data source finding a match, making the investigation and evaluation function called to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court." And the article says the Supreme Court, "can not be considered an aseptic (...) but a reproduction of statements that articulate speech, including other historical data, tends to support unequivocally the truth of the contents of these 'statements, 'in front of their ongoing investigations to ascertain the truth. " (ANSA).
Supreme penale: “A ciascuno il suo: agli inquirenti il compito di effettuare gli accertamenti, ai giudici il compito di verificarne la fondatezza, al giornalista il compito di darne notizia, nell’esercizio del diritto di informare, ma non di suggestionare la collettività”.
commento di Sabrina Peron, avvocato in Milano
La cronaca giudiziaria è quel particolare ramo della cronaca che riguarda l’esposizione di avvenimenti criminosi e delle vicende giudiziarie ad essi conseguenti, al fine di consentire alla collettività di avere una retta opinione su vicende penalmente rilevanti, sull'operato degli organi giudiziari e, più in generale, sul sistema giudiziario e legislativo del Paese.
Difatti come ricordato dalla Cassazione (Cass. pen., 1 febbraio 2011, n. 3674, Pres. Calabrese, Rel. Bevere) nella sentenza che qui si pubblica l’esimente delle cronaca giudiziaria riguarda il “diritto di informare i cittadini sull’andamento degli andamenti giudiziaria a cario degli altri consociati”, dato che “è interesse dei cittadini essere informati su eventuali violazioni di norme penali e civili, conoscere e controllare l’andamento degli accertamenti e la reazione degli organi dello stato dinanzi all’illegalità, onde potere effettuare consapevoli valutazioni sullo stato delle istituzioni e sul livello i legalità caratterizzante governanti e governati, in un determinato momento storico”.
Continua sempre la Corte osservando come il “diritto di cronaca giornalistica, giudiziaria o di altra natura, rientra nella più vasta categoria dei diritti pubblici soggettivi, relativi alla libertà di pensiero e al diritto dei cittadini di essere informati, onde poter effettuare scelte consapevoli nell’ambito della vita associata. E’ diritto della collettività ricevere informazioni su chi sia stato coinvolto in un procedimento penale o civile, specialmente se i protagonisti abbiano posizioni di rilievo nella vita sociale, politica o giudiziaria”.
Ne segue che “in pendenza di indagini di polizia giudiziaria e di accertamenti giudiziari nei confronti di un cittadino, non può essere a questi riconosciuto il diritto alla tutela della propria reputazione: ove i limiti del diritto di cronaca siano rispettati, la lesione perde il suo carattere di antigiuridicità”.
Ciò posto, nell’ambito della cronaca giudiziaria si ritiene che sia certamente legittima l’esposizione di fatti recanti discredito all’onore ed alla reputazione altrui, purché i "fatti in questione trovino rispondenza in quanto espresso dalle autorità inquirenti ovvero nel contenuto degli atti processuali, dovendosi altresì considerare che per il cronista giudiziario il limite della verità delle notizie si atteggia come corrispondenza della notizia al contenuto degli atti e degli accertamenti processuali compiuti dalla magistratura, con la conseguenza che il fatto da dimostrarsi True, the purpose of verification of the justifications, the correspondence is only to the pleadings of the news regardless of the truth of the facts can be deduced from these "(T. Roma, 09.05.2003, in CPR, 2005, 232)
In the narration of these facts, however, necessary to observe the right of persons involved in these events, so that the view of the assembly of citizens, is formed on the news to those members who are the actual findings of the proceedings against them.
E 'therefore evident that the judicial reporting may collide with the conflicting interests of protecting the privacy of the person involved in the events covered by the judicial record. Also
(And especially) the judicial record is placed in potential conflict with the principles expressed in art. 27 of the Constitution, under which are prohibited anticipatory statements of condemnation or in any way prejudicial to the position of suspects and defendants: the rationale for the rule is intended to protect such persons against any claim that accredits them as guilty before a final determination of the case that actually recognize them as such (see Cass. pen., 21.03.1991, in RPen, 1991, 912; Trib Rome, 06.04.1988, in DInf, 1988, p. 837).
NOW, THEREFORE, on the other hand, it is also obvious that the freedom of the press (and, more generally, demonstration of thought) can not be totally sacrificed even to the principle of presumption of innocence, and this on the assumption that the benefit of the accused or the suspect is not any reason soldiers aimed at granting them protection of the reputation more than it falls to other subjects.
Against this background, we see that the judicial reporting meets the same limits as other forms of news (the truth of news, public interest in knowledge of the facts narrated, and continence), but on which specific duties were carried out.
And in fact, what the limits of truth, it is understood in a restrictive sense, since the sacrifice of the presumption of innocence should not go beyond what is strictly necessary for the information. This means that the journalist should not tell the fact to generate a conviction on a guilty not only not yet established, but then it could prove even nonexistent (see App Rome, 20.01.1989, in GPen., 1991, II , c. 519), in addition, if the news is borrowed from a court, it must be faithful to the content of the measure itself, without inferences, allusions, alterations or misrepresentations (see Cass. pen., 10.11.2000, Scalfari in CPen, 2001, p. 3045) and without reconstruction, or journalistic assumptions, individual offensive (see Cass. pen., 20.09.2000, in CPen, 2001, p. 3405). It also requires that is non-narrative aspects of suitable exonerate the accused: the facts are therefore reported in terms of concern (Court of Rome, 05/11/1991, in DInf, 1992, p. 478), clarifying opposing the prosecution's case and defense (so-called equilibrium), giving voice to the opposing parties in equal measure while not concealing important aspects of the thesis defense, in order to inculcate in the reader pronounces the conviction of an inevitable conviction. Moreover, in giving the word to suspects, defendants and their defenders, the police reporter must not collect outbursts and tirades, but evidence for the defense or prosecution, acts to make the reader form their own opinion on the facts, the criteria Management processi, sul ruolo della magistratura così da consentire il controllo diretto della collettività sull'operato delle istituzioni (L. BONESCHI, Etica e deontologia del giornalista nella cronaca giudiziaria: qualche regola da rispettare, in DInf., 1999, p. 569, ss).
In questo contesto la Cassazione nella sentenza qui pubblicata ha precisato che i giudizi critici manifestati su una persona coinvolta in indagini devono porsi in correlazione con l’andamento del processo, perché “rientra nell’esercizio del diritto di cronaca giudiziaria riferire atti giudiziari e atti censori, provenienti dalla pubblica autorità, ma non è consentito effettuare ricostruzioni, analisi, valutazioni tendenti ad affiancare e precedere policing and the judiciary, regardless of the results of these activities. "
The Court is therefore contrary to the "right and duty to tell the facts already occurred, without indulging in narratives and assessments" for future reference, "the work of the journalist who confuse news about events that occurred on prognosis and future events. Thus he, independently, suggests and anticipates the development and outcome of investigations into key culprits, compared with no beginning and no official investigation concluded, without being able to demonstrate the reliability of these investigations and private correspondence to historical truth of their outcome. It offers citizens a process agarantista. Dinanzi al quale il cittadino interessato ha, come unica garanzia di difesa, la querela per diffamazione”.
Conclude così la Corte: “a ciascuno il suo: agli inquirenti il compito di effettuare gli accertamenti, ai giudici il compito di verificarne la fondatezza, al giornalista il compito di darne notizia, nell’esercizio del diritto di informare, ma non di suggestionare la collettività”. (http://www.personaedanno.it/CMS/Data/articoli/020199.aspx)
E la Corte di Cassazione dà lezioni di giornalismo al Fatto Quotidiano.
Roma, 1 febbraio 2011. Il compito del giornalista è quello di dare notizie, ma un cronista non può mai suggestionare i cittadini. L’assioma sembra scontato, but these days the militant journalism takes its toll. The Supreme Court pulls the ears to the everyday occurrence. Too often, the shrine became a courtroom and offers readers "a process agarantista" before which the accused as the only guarantee of protection, the lawsuit for defamation "The High Court rejects appeal by the journalist as Peter Gomez against the sentence which the Court of Appeal of Rome had declared the prescribed criminal defamation against the prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi.
skills of journalists. The fifth section of the Supreme Criminal Court has reaffirmed, with the sentence number 3674 filed today, that "it is the right of the community receive information on who was involved in a criminal or civil trial, especially if the players have positions in social, political or judicial. " Precisely for this "falls within the exercise of the right to report judicial proceedings and investigations and to report acts of censorship, from public authorities, but is not allowed to carry out reconstruction, analysis, evaluations tend to precede and complement activities of law enforcement officers, regardless of the results of these activities. "
To each his task. In short, "to each his own," wrote the judges of Piazza Cavour. "To the investigators responsible for carrying out the investigations, the courts the task to determine the truth, the task of the journalist give notice, in the exercise of the right to inform, but not to influence the community. " In fact, we read the sentence, "is in stark contrast to the right and duty to tell the facts already occurred, without indulging in narratives and evaluations 'future memory', the work of the journalist who confuse news about events that occurred and prognosis events to come: so he, independently, suggests and anticipates the development and outcome of investigations into key culprits in the face of official investigations beginning or completed, without being able to demonstrate the reliability of these indagini private e la corrispondenza a verità storica del loro esito”.
I rischi per il cittadino. La Cassazione spiega infatti che “si propone ai cittadini un processo ‘agarantista’ dinanzi al quale il cittadino interessato ha come unica garanzia di difesa, la querela per diffamazione”. Condivisibile, dunque, osservano gli ermellini, il verdetto di giudici d’appello, che avevano escluso nel caso in esame il corretto esercizio del diritto di cronaca: “Il giornalista ha integrato le dichiarazioni della fonte conoscitiva con altri dati di riscontro, realizzando la funzione investigativa e valutativa rimessa all’esclusiva competenza dell’autorità giudiziaria” e “l’assenza di verità dei fatti narrati”, cioè di “finanziamenti di provenienza mafiosa all’ascendente manager dell’informazione e del trattenimento televisivi”, conclude la Suprema Corte, “comporta l’evidente carica diffamatoria della narrazione e la totale assenza di evidenza del corretto esercizio del diritto di cronaca giudiziaria”.
"To each his own: the investigators responsible for carrying out the investigations to the court to determine the truth, the task of the journalist give notice, in the exercise of the right to inform, but not to influence the community ". In CODA's comment PERON Sabrina and the text of the award.
Rome, February 1, 2011. "To each his own: the investigators responsible for carrying out the investigations to the court to determine the truth, the task of the journalist give notice, in the exercise of the right to inform, but not to influence the community." It is the admonition of the Supreme Court, called to examine a case of defamation. According to the Supreme Court, in particular, "falls within the exercise of the right to report judicial proceedings and investigations and to report acts of censorship, from public authorities, but is not allowed to carry out reconstruction, analysis, evaluations tend to precede and complement police activity and judiciary, regardless of results of that activity. " "It is therefore in stark contrast to the right and duty to tell the facts that have already happened (...) the work of the journalist who confuse news about events that occurred and prognosis on events to come", because "in this way - adds to the Supreme Court, referring to the matter - he, independently, suggests and anticipates the evolution and outcome of investigations into key culprits, compared with no beginning and no official investigation concluded. " The case on which it is delivered in the Fifth Criminal Division concerns proceedings for defamation against the journalist Peter Gomez against the Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.
The Court of Appeal of Rome, in 2009, while declaring the extinction statute of limitations for defamation was considered grounds for arguing that the journalist in an article on alleged mafia financing of the Fininvest group, in addition to reporting the statements of an associate of justice contained in the investigation, he added, "further consideration drawn from other statements of other entities that appeared aimed to enhance the credibility of the collaborator with justice thus creating a feedback function "but it can not be a journalist but only" the judicial authority. " In the appeal to the Supreme Court asked the reporter that although the prescription was the same as the ability to exercise the freedom of the press, but the supreme 3674 trial, rejected the request. They write that the judges' interest of citizens is to be aware of possible violations of criminal laws and civil rights, know and control the progress of the investigation and the reaction of state bodies in front of the illegality in order to make assessments on the state institutions and level of law of the rulers and the ruled 'too, "is the collective right to receive information about who has been involved in any criminal or civil, especially if the players have prominent position in social, political or judicial." But the Supreme Court states, is "in stark contrast to the right and duty" of Chronicle reporter that the action of "confusing news about events that occurred and prognosis on events to come." In this case, "the reporter's statements integrated with other data source finding a match, making the investigation and evaluation function called to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court." And the article says the Supreme Court, "can not be considered an aseptic (...) but a reproduction of statements that articulate speech, including other historical data, tends to support unequivocally the truth of the contents of these 'statements, 'in front of their ongoing investigations to ascertain the truth. " (ANSA).
Supreme penale: “A ciascuno il suo: agli inquirenti il compito di effettuare gli accertamenti, ai giudici il compito di verificarne la fondatezza, al giornalista il compito di darne notizia, nell’esercizio del diritto di informare, ma non di suggestionare la collettività”.
commento di Sabrina Peron, avvocato in Milano
La cronaca giudiziaria è quel particolare ramo della cronaca che riguarda l’esposizione di avvenimenti criminosi e delle vicende giudiziarie ad essi conseguenti, al fine di consentire alla collettività di avere una retta opinione su vicende penalmente rilevanti, sull'operato degli organi giudiziari e, più in generale, sul sistema giudiziario e legislativo del Paese.
Difatti come ricordato dalla Cassazione (Cass. pen., 1 febbraio 2011, n. 3674, Pres. Calabrese, Rel. Bevere) nella sentenza che qui si pubblica l’esimente delle cronaca giudiziaria riguarda il “diritto di informare i cittadini sull’andamento degli andamenti giudiziaria a cario degli altri consociati”, dato che “è interesse dei cittadini essere informati su eventuali violazioni di norme penali e civili, conoscere e controllare l’andamento degli accertamenti e la reazione degli organi dello stato dinanzi all’illegalità, onde potere effettuare consapevoli valutazioni sullo stato delle istituzioni e sul livello i legalità caratterizzante governanti e governati, in un determinato momento storico”.
Continua sempre la Corte osservando come il “diritto di cronaca giornalistica, giudiziaria o di altra natura, rientra nella più vasta categoria dei diritti pubblici soggettivi, relativi alla libertà di pensiero e al diritto dei cittadini di essere informati, onde poter effettuare scelte consapevoli nell’ambito della vita associata. E’ diritto della collettività ricevere informazioni su chi sia stato coinvolto in un procedimento penale o civile, specialmente se i protagonisti abbiano posizioni di rilievo nella vita sociale, politica o giudiziaria”.
Ne segue che “in pendenza di indagini di polizia giudiziaria e di accertamenti giudiziari nei confronti di un cittadino, non può essere a questi riconosciuto il diritto alla tutela della propria reputazione: ove i limiti del diritto di cronaca siano rispettati, la lesione perde il suo carattere di antigiuridicità”.
Ciò posto, nell’ambito della cronaca giudiziaria si ritiene che sia certamente legittima l’esposizione di fatti recanti discredito all’onore ed alla reputazione altrui, purché i "fatti in questione trovino rispondenza in quanto espresso dalle autorità inquirenti ovvero nel contenuto degli atti processuali, dovendosi altresì considerare che per il cronista giudiziario il limite della verità delle notizie si atteggia come corrispondenza della notizia al contenuto degli atti e degli accertamenti processuali compiuti dalla magistratura, con la conseguenza che il fatto da dimostrarsi True, the purpose of verification of the justifications, the correspondence is only to the pleadings of the news regardless of the truth of the facts can be deduced from these "(T. Roma, 09.05.2003, in CPR, 2005, 232)
In the narration of these facts, however, necessary to observe the right of persons involved in these events, so that the view of the assembly of citizens, is formed on the news to those members who are the actual findings of the proceedings against them.
E 'therefore evident that the judicial reporting may collide with the conflicting interests of protecting the privacy of the person involved in the events covered by the judicial record. Also
(And especially) the judicial record is placed in potential conflict with the principles expressed in art. 27 of the Constitution, under which are prohibited anticipatory statements of condemnation or in any way prejudicial to the position of suspects and defendants: the rationale for the rule is intended to protect such persons against any claim that accredits them as guilty before a final determination of the case that actually recognize them as such (see Cass. pen., 21.03.1991, in RPen, 1991, 912; Trib Rome, 06.04.1988, in DInf, 1988, p. 837).
NOW, THEREFORE, on the other hand, it is also obvious that the freedom of the press (and, more generally, demonstration of thought) can not be totally sacrificed even to the principle of presumption of innocence, and this on the assumption that the benefit of the accused or the suspect is not any reason soldiers aimed at granting them protection of the reputation more than it falls to other subjects.
Against this background, we see that the judicial reporting meets the same limits as other forms of news (the truth of news, public interest in knowledge of the facts narrated, and continence), but on which specific duties were carried out.
And in fact, what the limits of truth, it is understood in a restrictive sense, since the sacrifice of the presumption of innocence should not go beyond what is strictly necessary for the information. This means that the journalist should not tell the fact to generate a conviction on a guilty not only not yet established, but then it could prove even nonexistent (see App Rome, 20.01.1989, in GPen., 1991, II , c. 519), in addition, if the news is borrowed from a court, it must be faithful to the content of the measure itself, without inferences, allusions, alterations or misrepresentations (see Cass. pen., 10.11.2000, Scalfari in CPen, 2001, p. 3045) and without reconstruction, or journalistic assumptions, individual offensive (see Cass. pen., 20.09.2000, in CPen, 2001, p. 3405). It also requires that is non-narrative aspects of suitable exonerate the accused: the facts are therefore reported in terms of concern (Court of Rome, 05/11/1991, in DInf, 1992, p. 478), clarifying opposing the prosecution's case and defense (so-called equilibrium), giving voice to the opposing parties in equal measure while not concealing important aspects of the thesis defense, in order to inculcate in the reader pronounces the conviction of an inevitable conviction. Moreover, in giving the word to suspects, defendants and their defenders, the police reporter must not collect outbursts and tirades, but evidence for the defense or prosecution, acts to make the reader form their own opinion on the facts, the criteria Management processi, sul ruolo della magistratura così da consentire il controllo diretto della collettività sull'operato delle istituzioni (L. BONESCHI, Etica e deontologia del giornalista nella cronaca giudiziaria: qualche regola da rispettare, in DInf., 1999, p. 569, ss).
In questo contesto la Cassazione nella sentenza qui pubblicata ha precisato che i giudizi critici manifestati su una persona coinvolta in indagini devono porsi in correlazione con l’andamento del processo, perché “rientra nell’esercizio del diritto di cronaca giudiziaria riferire atti giudiziari e atti censori, provenienti dalla pubblica autorità, ma non è consentito effettuare ricostruzioni, analisi, valutazioni tendenti ad affiancare e precedere policing and the judiciary, regardless of the results of these activities. "
The Court is therefore contrary to the "right and duty to tell the facts already occurred, without indulging in narratives and assessments" for future reference, "the work of the journalist who confuse news about events that occurred on prognosis and future events. Thus he, independently, suggests and anticipates the development and outcome of investigations into key culprits, compared with no beginning and no official investigation concluded, without being able to demonstrate the reliability of these investigations and private correspondence to historical truth of their outcome. It offers citizens a process agarantista. Dinanzi al quale il cittadino interessato ha, come unica garanzia di difesa, la querela per diffamazione”.
Conclude così la Corte: “a ciascuno il suo: agli inquirenti il compito di effettuare gli accertamenti, ai giudici il compito di verificarne la fondatezza, al giornalista il compito di darne notizia, nell’esercizio del diritto di informare, ma non di suggestionare la collettività”. (http://www.personaedanno.it/CMS/Data/articoli/020199.aspx)
E la Corte di Cassazione dà lezioni di giornalismo al Fatto Quotidiano.
Roma, 1 febbraio 2011. Il compito del giornalista è quello di dare notizie, ma un cronista non può mai suggestionare i cittadini. L’assioma sembra scontato, but these days the militant journalism takes its toll. The Supreme Court pulls the ears to the everyday occurrence. Too often, the shrine became a courtroom and offers readers "a process agarantista" before which the accused as the only guarantee of protection, the lawsuit for defamation "The High Court rejects appeal by the journalist as Peter Gomez against the sentence which the Court of Appeal of Rome had declared the prescribed criminal defamation against the prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi.
skills of journalists. The fifth section of the Supreme Criminal Court has reaffirmed, with the sentence number 3674 filed today, that "it is the right of the community receive information on who was involved in a criminal or civil trial, especially if the players have positions in social, political or judicial. " Precisely for this "falls within the exercise of the right to report judicial proceedings and investigations and to report acts of censorship, from public authorities, but is not allowed to carry out reconstruction, analysis, evaluations tend to precede and complement activities of law enforcement officers, regardless of the results of these activities. "
To each his task. In short, "to each his own," wrote the judges of Piazza Cavour. "To the investigators responsible for carrying out the investigations, the courts the task to determine the truth, the task of the journalist give notice, in the exercise of the right to inform, but not to influence the community. " In fact, we read the sentence, "is in stark contrast to the right and duty to tell the facts already occurred, without indulging in narratives and evaluations 'future memory', the work of the journalist who confuse news about events that occurred and prognosis events to come: so he, independently, suggests and anticipates the development and outcome of investigations into key culprits in the face of official investigations beginning or completed, without being able to demonstrate the reliability of these indagini private e la corrispondenza a verità storica del loro esito”.
I rischi per il cittadino. La Cassazione spiega infatti che “si propone ai cittadini un processo ‘agarantista’ dinanzi al quale il cittadino interessato ha come unica garanzia di difesa, la querela per diffamazione”. Condivisibile, dunque, osservano gli ermellini, il verdetto di giudici d’appello, che avevano escluso nel caso in esame il corretto esercizio del diritto di cronaca: “Il giornalista ha integrato le dichiarazioni della fonte conoscitiva con altri dati di riscontro, realizzando la funzione investigativa e valutativa rimessa all’esclusiva competenza dell’autorità giudiziaria” e “l’assenza di verità dei fatti narrati”, cioè di “finanziamenti di provenienza mafiosa all’ascendente manager dell’informazione e del trattenimento televisivi”, conclude la Suprema Corte, “comporta l’evidente carica diffamatoria della narrazione e la totale assenza di evidenza del corretto esercizio del diritto di cronaca giudiziaria”.
0 comments:
Post a Comment