Abstract
In this article, the Author provides an overview of the Italian approach towards evidence gathered abroad. In particular, he analyzes national exclusionary rules, as shaped by the Italian case law.
The major issue addressed by the Author is the respect of defence rights, as well as of the adversary principle, and critical remarks are therefore expounded concerning the features of such an approach.
Furthermore, new developing modalities of cooperation between judicial authorities are taken into consideration in this article. In this regard, the Author argues that a legislative intervention, balancing efficiency and individuals’ rights, might overcome present lacks and shortcomings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Cf. Spiezia ( 2009), p. 191.
- 2.
See for example Cass. 19 November 1993, Palamara, in CED Cass. 198237.
- 3.
Cf. Cass. 9 March 2006, Biego, in CED Cass. 234256; Cass. 20 September 2002, Monnier, in CED Cass. 222863.
- 4.
Cass. 20 September 2002, Monnier, in CED Cass. 222863.
- 5.
When the Italian legal system guarantees the accused or other parties the right to object to the use of a specific instrument in matter of evidence, the exercise of this right cannot be compromised by the fact that the evidence is to be gathered abroad. Therefore, it is sharable: Cass. (SU) 16 April 2003, Monnier, in CED Cass. 224184: “in the field of cross-border cooperation with foreign authorities, even a request for mutual legal assistance aimed at the enforcement of a seizure with evidentiary purpose (sequestro probatorio), insofar as it presupposes a (even implicit) order of the Italian judicial authority, is subject to a complaint before the domestic judicial authority, which has the exclusive jurisdiction for assessing the existence of the legal conditions justifying the adoption and continuation of this measure, except the further remedies eventually provided for by the legal system requested for legal assistance.” See also, on preventive seizure (sequestro preventivo), Cass. 29.9.2009, Sunde Kolmisoppi, in CED Cass. 245936.
- 6.
Certainly, despite some ambiguities in the normative lexicon and order, the principal way of obtaining this evidence is a rogatory letter. Cf. Valentini (2001), p. 2360. However, we will come back to this point when we address the topic of the spontaneous transmission of information between judicial authorities of different States.
- 7.
Cass. 23 April 2009, Remling, in CED Cass. 243956; Cass. 22 April 2005, Marku, in CED Cass. 234561.
- 8.
Cf. Daniele (2010), pp. 209 f.
- 9.
On the assumption that Article 238 CCP is recalled “without additional specifications” by Article 78 CCP Implementing Rules, Cass. 30 January 2003, Lodigiani, in CED Cass. 224145, states that the records can surely be read at trial under Article 512bis CCP, even without the consent of the accused (and without assessing the predictability ex ante of the impossibility of repetition).
- 10.
In all these cases—except, obviously, the case of “impossibility of repetition”—the accused preserves the right to have the witness examined at the Italian trial [Art. 238(5) CCP]. The witness can be examined in the Italian proceedings even if the records of his/her previous statements cannot be obtained. In this case, statements given abroad can be used only for the so-called “contestazioni” (that is, in order to point out possible differences between what has been said in the foreign and in the Italian proceedings) and might, as a rule, only discredit the “Italian” testimony, without counting as a proof of the asserted facts [Arts. 238(4) and 500(2) CCP].
- 11.
Cf. Cass. 22 January 2009, Pizzata, in CED Cass. 243796. See also, for a distinctive opinion, Cass. 23 January 2002, Seseri, in CED Cass 221831.
- 12.
With reference to previously gathered evidence in foreign proceedings, see for example Cass. 8 March 2002, Pozzi, in CED Cass. 222025; Cass. 1 December 2000, Rondinella, in CED Cass. 218214; Cass. 10 July 1997, Ibba, in CED Cass. 208492; Cass. 20 May 1993, Nicosia, in CED Cass. 194850.
- 13.
In the part in which it provides that the European Parliament and Council, taking into account the “differences between the legal traditions and systems of the Member States,” can “establish minimum rules” about “mutual admissibility of evidence between Member States.”
- 14.
“This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty, and any obligations incumbent on judicial authorities in this respect shall remain unaffected.” To the point, critically—but in the sense that such clause could harm the effectiveness of the interstate cooperation—Vervaele ( 2009 ), p. 155.
- 15.
Illuminati ( 2009 ), p. 15.
- 16.
Allegrezza ( 2009 ), p. 167.
- 17.
- 18.
Cf. Allegrezza ( 2009 ), p. 169.
- 19.
ECtHR, 14 December 1999, A.M. v. Italy, Application No. 37019/97.
- 20.
Cf. Daniele (2010), pp. 211 f.
- 21.
Cass. 28 April 2009, Russo, in CED Cass. 243938. See also Cass. 29 April 1993, Terranova, in CED Cass. 194901.
- 22.
Cass. 6 May 2004, Ciaglia, in CED Cass. 228241.
- 23.
Cass. 1 December 2010, De Falco, in CED Cass. 248963; Cass. 26 September 2007, Drago Ferrante, in CED Cass. 238041; Cass. 7 October 2005, Schneeberger, in CED Cass. 232701; Cass. 3 March 2003, Figini, in CED Cass. 225744; Cass. 13 July 1999, Pafumi, in CED Cass. 214338.
- 24.
In the first of the three mentioned cases, the statement does not even seem to be taken in a context in which the counsel could “exercise the power of which he/she has been invested by Italian law” [Art. 431(f) CCP]: therefore, it seems that even the minimum condition required to text the compatibility of this evidence with the fundamental principles of our legal system is missing. On the topic Daniele (2010), p. 204 ff. It is not so in the last case, as correctly pointed out by Cass. Drago Ferrante (footnote 23), since Article 431(f) CCP subordinates the insertion of the evidence in the trial file to the condition that “counsel”—and not also the defendant—was put into condition to attend the activity. It must be further pointed out that the “domestic” circulation of evidence is subordinate, under Article 238 CCP, only to the presence of counsel (and furthermore, in a trial that deals with other crimes).
- 25.
“The criminal process is ruled on the basis of the adversary principle in the gathering of evidence.”
- 26.
Cass. 28 November 2002, Acri, in CED Cass. 223202. In the same sense, among others, Cass. 28 April 2009, Russo, in matter of the taking of witnesses statements without cross-examination, Cass. Drago Ferrante (footnote 23), in matter of the taking of evidence in the absence of the defendant, and Cass. 16 May 2001, Celotti, in CED Cass. 219740, in matter of obtaining via rogatory letter of documental evidence.
- 27.
Similar remarks in Daniele (2010), p. 208.
- 28.
Cass. 28 September 1995, Baldini, in CED Cass. 203070.
- 29.
So, for example, Cass. 22 January 2009, Pizzata, in CED Cass. 243795.
- 30.
Cass. Pafumi (footnote 23).
- 31.
Cass. 22 January 2009, Pizzata, in CED Cass. 243795; Cass. 21 September 2007, Basco, in CED Cass. 238207; Cass. 22 September 2004, Cuomo, in CED Cass. 230594; Cass. 28 Novermber 2002, Acri, in CED Cass. 223202; Cass. 5 March 1999, D’Ambrosio, in CED Cass. 212981; Cass. 13 December 1996, Covello, in CED Cass. 206777.
- 32.
Cass. 3 March 2003, Acri, in CED Cass. 226069.
- 33.
Cass. 5 March 1999, D’Ambrosio, in CED Cass. 212981.
- 34.
Cass. 8 November 2007, Sommer, in CED Cass. 239193.
- 35.
Cass. (SU) 25 February 2010, Mills, in CED Cass. 246587.
- 36.
Cass. 6 July 1998, Bonelli, in CED Cass. 211301.
- 37.
Cass. Bonelli (footnote 36).
- 38.
Cass. 18 May 2010, Mutari, in CED Cass. 247750; Cass. 19 February 2004, Montanari, in CED Cass. 228354; Cass. 27 November 1995, Staiti, in CED Cass. 204136.
- 39.
In this respect, it is worth recalling the critical considerations made about the modifications of Art. 431 CCP with Law 479/1999. Cf. Caprioli (2000), p. 295.
- 40.
Melillo (2009), p. 110.
- 41.
- 42.
Article 11(2) FD EEW establishes that “[a]ny measures rendered necessary by the EEW shall be taken in accordance with the applicable procedural rules of the executing State.” But according to Article 12 FD EEW, “the executing authority shall comply with the formalities and procedures expressly indicated by the issuing authority unless otherwise provided in this Framework Decision and provided that such formalities and procedures are not contrary to the fundamental principles of law of the executing State. This Article shall not create an obligation to take coercive measures.” On this topic, Mazza (2009), pp. 159 f.
- 43.
According to Article 8(2) PD EIO, “the executing authority shall comply with the formalities and procedures expressly indicated by the issuing authority unless otherwise provided in this Directive and unless that such formalities and procedures are not contrary to the fundamental principles of law of the executing State.”
- 44.
Cf. Cass. 27 November 2002, D’Avino, in CED Cass. 223178.
- 45.
Cf. Ferrua ( 2001 ), p. 36.
- 46.
Scella 2003, p. 365. See also Cass. Pozzi (footnote 12).
- 47.
“On the express request of the requesting Party, the requested Party shall state the date and place of execution of the letters rogatory. Officials and interested persons may be present if the requested Party consents.”
- 48.
“The requested State is free either to provide or to deny the authorization for the participation, with the only to duty to inform the requesting judges of date and place of enforcement.” In this sense Cass. (SU) 25 February 2010, Mills, in CED Cass. 246588.
- 49.
Cass. (SU) Mills (footnote 48).
- 50.
Cass. 24 October 2001, Modeo, in CED Cass. 220633.
- 51.
Cass. (SU) Mills (footnote 48).
- 52.
Vigoni (2003), p. 459.
- 53.
Cf. Melillo (2009), p. 103.
- 54.
In the opinion of Cass. 2.7.2008, Catanese, in CED Cass. 240956, “the rogatory letters concern solely, and aim at protecting, the mutual relationships between States in order to avoid undue interference in the sphere of the respective sovereignity and jurisdiction. Where a State decides to provide information relating to a ongoing criminal proceeding, there is no infringement of national sovereignity.”
- 55.
Cass. Pozzi (footnote 12).
- 56.
“The violation of the norms under Article 696(1) concerning the taking and the transferring of documents or other evidence in the execution of a letter rogatory determines their unusability.”
- 57.
Cass. Pozzi (footnote 12). In the same perspective Cass. 27 May 2009, D., in CED Cass. 244087; Cass. 20 February 2009, Gallitelli, in CED Cass. 243429; Cass. Catanese (footnote 54); Cass. 27 January 2005, Biondo, in CED Cass. 231048.
- 58.
Melillo ( 2009 ), p. 103.
- 59.
- 60.
This conclusion can be shared: even if Article 78 CCP Implementing Rules was primarily intended to govern the destiny of evidence obtained via rogatory letter (Valentini 2001 , p. 2360), there is no doubt that it also applies when the foreign evidence has been spontaneously transmitted to the Italian judge.
- 61.
Cass. Pozzi (footnote 12).
- 62.
The risk that informal contacts between Italian and foreign authorities involve a “totally discretionary selection of the results of the evidence gathered abroad” is precisely reported by Melillo ( 2009 ), pp. 103 f.
Abbreviations
- Cass.:
-
Court of Cassation
- Cass. (SU):
-
Joint Sections of the Court of Cassation
- CCP:
-
Code of Criminal Procedure
- CISA:
-
Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement
- Const.:
-
Constitution
- ECMACM:
-
European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters
- ECtHR:
-
European Court of Human Rights
- EUCMACM:
-
Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union
- FD EEW:
-
Framework Decision on the European Evidence Warrant
- FD JIT:
-
Framework Decision on Joint Investigation Teams
- PD EIO:
-
Proposal for a Directive on a European Investigation Order
- SAP ECMACM:
-
Second Additional Protocol to European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters
References
Allegrezza S (2009) L’armonizzazione della prova penale alla luce del Trattato di Lisbona. In: Illuminati G (ed) Prova penale e Unione Europea. Bononia University Press, Bologna, p 161 ff
Allegrezza S (2007) Cooperazione giudiziaria, mutuo riconoscimento e circolazione della prova penale nello spazio giudiziario europeo. In: Rafaraci T (ed) L’area di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia: alla ricerca di un equilibrio fra priorità repressive ed esigenze di garanzia. Giuffré, Milano, p 691 ff
Caprioli F (2000) Il processo penale dopo la “legge Carotti.” Artt. 25-26. Diritto penale e processo 295 ff
Daniele M (2010) Il contraddittorio “impossibile” nell’assunzione delle testimonianze penali all’estero. Rivista di diritto processuale: 204 ff.
Ferrua P (2001) Rogatorie: una legge che smentisce la riforma del giusto processo. Documenti giustizia 36:36 ff
Illuminati G (2009) L’armonizzazione della prova penale nell’Unione Europea. In: Illuminati G (ed) Prova penale e Unione Europea. BUP, Bologna, p 9 ff
Mazza O (2009) Investigazioni, prove e cooperazione giudiziaria su scala europea. In: Processo penale e giustizia europea. Atti del XX Convegno dell’Associazione tra gli studiosi del processo penale. Giuffré, Milano, pp 149 ff
Melillo G (2009) Tecniche investigative speciali e squadre investigative comuni. In: Illuminati G (ed) Prova penale e Unione Europea. Bononia University Press, Bologna, p 93 ff
Perduca A (2009) Prove, investigazioni e cooperazione giudiziaria su scala europea. In: Various Authors, Processo penale e giustizia europea. Atti del XX Convegno dell’Associazione tra gli studiosi del processo penale. Giuffré, Milano, pp 347 ff
Scella A (2003) L’inutilizzabilità delle prove raccolte all’estero mediante rogatoria. In: La Greca G, Marchetti R (eds) Rogatorie penali e cooperazione giudiziaria internazionale. Giappichelli, Torino, p 349 ff
Spiezia F (2009) Le linee evolutive della cooperazione giudiziaria penale in ambito europeo. In: Aprile E, Spiezia F (eds) Cooperazione giudiziaria penale nell’Unione Europea prima e dopo il Trattato di Lisbona. Ipsoa, Milano, p 191 ff
Vervaele JAE (2009) Il progetto di decisione quadro sul mandato di ricerca della prova. In: Illuminati G (ed) Prova penale e Unione Europea. Bononia University Press, Bologna, p 153 ff
Valentini C (2001) Commento all’art. 78 disp. att. CCP. In: Giarda A, Spangher G (eds) Codice di procedura penale commentato, vol II. Ipsoa, Milano, p 2360 ff
Vigoni D (2003) Dalla rogatoria all’acquisizione diretta. In: La Greca G, Marchetti R (eds) Rogatorie penali e cooperazione giudiziaria internazionale. Giappichelli, Torino, p 459 ff
Vitale A (2010) Le squadre investigative comuni. In: Filippi L, Gualtieri P, Moscarini P, Scalfati A (eds) La circolazione investigativa nello spazio giuridico europeo: strumenti, soggetti, risultati. Cedam, Padova, p 67 ff
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Caprioli, F. (2013). Report on Italy. In: Ruggeri, S. (eds) Transnational Inquiries and the Protection of Fundamental Rights in Criminal Proceedings. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32012-5_30
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32012-5_30
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-32011-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-32012-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)