TRAVAGLIO v. ITALY
Inadmissible
Aleš Pejchal;Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano
1. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Turin. He is represented before the Court by Ms Caterina Malavenda, a lawyer practising in Milan. 3. The applicant is a journalist. On 3 October 2002, he published in the weekly magazine L’Espresso an article whose title was “Heinous agreement between the Mafia and Forza Italia” (“Patto scellerato tra mafia e Forza Italia”). 4. The article in question stated that between 1993 and 1994 a secret agreement was supposedly reached between an Italian political party, Forza Italia, and the Sicilian Mafia. The applicant reported that one of the most important political figures within the party, Mr D.U., was suspected of having promised the adoption of more lenient legislative measures favourable to individuals accused of membership of mafia-type criminal organisations, as well as the adoption of other measures beneficial to their economic interests, in exchange for votes from the areas under the Sicilian Mafia’s control. 5. In the article in question, the applicant contended that the existence of such a secret and illegal agreement had been revealed to colonel R. of the carabinieri by Mr I., a prominent member of the Sicilian Mafia who had close connections with some of the most influential figures within the criminal organisation. 6. In his article the applicant alleged that colonel R. and Mr I. had met a number of times from 1993 onwards, and that the former persuaded the latter to become a pentito (a former mafioso who has decided to cooperate with the authorities). In March 1996, Mr I. finally became a pentito and entered the witness protection programme. In this connection, he met with a carabinieri general and the anti-Mafia prosecutors at the headquarters of the Raggruppamento Operativo Speciale (Special Operations Group) in Rome. Following that meeting, a first official interrogation was scheduled by the prosecutors. However Mr I. was assassinated before it could take place. 7. The article went on to report that colonel R. had been questioned by the prosecutors of the Florence District Court in December 1998, in a set of related proceedings. Colonel R. gave an account of the above events and his statements were officially recorded on 21 December 1998 in the context of the latter proceedings. The magazine article suggested that, in subsequent years, colonel R. had been questioned on other occasions by the Florence District Court prosecutors and that his statements had been recorded. In drafting the impugned article, the applicant had relied largely on these statements. 8. The applicant mentioned that criminal proceedings had been instituted against Mr D.U. for aiding and abetting a mafia-type organisation from the outside (concorso esterno), mostly in relation to the events described above. 9. The article continued by providing an account of a meeting that took place in March 2001 in the office of Mr T. (a lawyer and politician active within Forza Italia) involving Mr T., Mr D.U., colonel R., and a co-accused of Mr D.U. In the meeting, Mr D.U. allegedly sought to persuade colonel R. to modify his testimony in the above-mentioned trial (see above paragraph 8) and to withhold the fact that Mr I. had told colonel R. about the involvement of Mr D.U. in the negotiations between Forza Italia and the Mafia. 10. Quoting part of a sentence extracted from the recorded statements made by colonel R. to the Florence District Court prosecutors, the applicant concluded his article by suggesting that another prominent figure of Forza Italia – Mr P. – had been physically present on the premises when the meeting occurred. The quotation in question reads as follows: “On that occasion, as on others, Mr P. was also present in the chambers of Mr T.”. 11. On an unspecified date following publication of the article, Mr P. pressed charges against the applicant (as well as against the editor in chief of the magazine) for defamation through the press (diffamazione a mezzo stampa). He alleged that, by quoting the above-cited statement, the applicant had implied that Mr P. was actively involved in the meeting described (see paragraph 9 above). Mr P. further argued that such an allegation, which he claimed was false, had damaged his reputation, due to the illegal purpose of the meeting in question. 12. On 15 October 2008, the Rome District Court delivered its judgment. The court first noted that, by placing the sentence between quotation marks, the applicant generated in the reader the understanding that it was an accurate representation of colonel R.’s recorded statement. However, the District Court also noted that the statement had not been quoted in its entirety. The complete statement, as replicated by the District Court in its judgment, reads as follows: “On that occasion, as on others, Mr P. was also present in the chambers of Mr T. Mr P.’s presence was, however, due to other reasons, linked to their common political activity and he was not present when the position of Mr D.U. in his criminal proceedings was discussed.” 13. The District Court found that, read in conjunction with the rest of the article, the incomplete quotation acquired a clearly defamatory character. The District Court further noted that this way of mentioning the fact that Mr P. was present on the premises was “unequivocally insinuating” (“indubbiamente insinuante”), thereby generating in the reader a suspicion as regards the role played by Mr P. and suggesting that he was involved in the above-mentioned meeting. 14. The District Court held that the applicant could not rely on his right to impart information (diritto di cronaca) as a justification for his conduct. The District Court reiterated that the application of such a right is dependent on the precondition that the imparted information is accurate. Based on the above arguments, the District Court found that the information conveyed was not correct and that it accordingly lacked the requirement of veracity. 15. The District Court further observed that the applicant’s conduct had breached his duty, as a journalist, to disseminate accurate and fair information, and that he had done so despite being aware of the harm that he would cause to Mr P. 16. The District Court found the applicant guilty of defamation through the press and sentenced him to eight months’ imprisonment (enforcement suspended), payment of a fine of 100 euros (EUR), payment of 20,000 EUR in compensation (to be paid, jointly, with the magazine’s editor in chief), and to bear Mr P.’s courts costs. The Court ordered that the conviction should not appear on his criminal record. 17. On an unspecified date, the applicant lodged an appeal against his conviction. He claimed that the impugned article had not been defamatory of Mr P., and that quoting the whole of colonel R.’s statement had been unnecessary. He further contested the penalty imposed. 18. In its judgment of 8 January 2010, the Rome Court of Appeal upheld the reasoning of the District Court. In particular it reaffirmed that the contested passage in the article had clearly been of a defamatory nature, and that the applicant’s conduct had been deliberate. It added that the applicant should either have refrained from mentioning Mr P. at all or should have quoted colonel R.’s statement in its entirety in order to give an accurate account of the facts as related by the original source. The fact that the applicant chose to refer to Mr P.’s presence without quoting the statement in its entirety proved his malicious intent. 19. The Court of Appeal thus reaffirmed the applicant’s criminal liability. However, it found the penalty imposed by the District Court excessive, as regards the suspended prison sentence, and therefore replaced it with payment of a fine of 1,000 EUR. In all other respects it upheld the sentence imposed by the District Court. 20. The applicant filed an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation, claiming that the Court of Appeal’s judgment had lacked adequate and logical reasoning. 21. The Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible in its judgment of 28 March 2014, finding that the reasons put forward by both the District Court and the Court of Appeal were sound and sufficient.