Defamation via TV, the court of the offended person has jurisdiction

In the case of defamation committed through television, jurisdiction goes to the criminal court of the forum of residence of the offended person, whoever is the subject, public or private, called to answer for the crime. The Supreme Court, in ruling 27750, thus resolves the conflict that had arisen between the court in Monza, where the action had occurred, and the court in Taranto, where the person targeted by the investigated journalists resided. For the Supreme Court, jurisdiction should be established on the basis of Article 30, paragraph 5, second part of the Mammì law (223/1990), which indicates precisely the place of residence of the consumer.

A criterion that was not influenced by Constitutional Court ruling 150/2021, which, in line with the European Court of Human Rights, branded the penalty of imprisonment - envisaged for defamation via TV with attribution of a specific fact - as incompatible with the need not to dissuade journalists from their role of controlling public powers out of fear. A verdict that did not, however, leave any gap in protection for the possibly defamed, nor did it affect jurisdiction. And it is also in defence of the 'strong powers' that the Supreme Court endorses the thesis of the consumer forum, when the offence is committed through a medium that has a great diffusion. The territorial jurisdiction provided for by the Mammì law also has, in fact, the purpose of protecting the alleged victims from the excessive power that, in general, belongs to the radio and television concessionaires or their delegates 'of media with a high diffusive potential, regardless of whether or not they are defendants in the trial'.