Criminal law

Obligation to publish acquittal judgements

The Costa Bill has been passed: the outcome of the proceedings must also be reported. The Data Protection Commissioner may intervene in the event of inaction on the part of the director

by Giovanni Negri

29 October 2026

Aggiungi Il Sole 24 Ore
ai preferiti su Google

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

Obligation to publish acquittals where the media outlet has reported on the criminal proceedings. No penalties are imposed, but the Data Protection Authority may intervene to enforce the requirement. The bill has been definitively passed by the Senate, with the opposition abstaining, the Costa Bill, which inserts a new article into the Privacy Code, has been definitively passed by the Senate.

Appropriate survey

The provision stipulates that, at the request of a person against whom a verdict of acquittal, a decision to dismiss the case or a decision to discontinue proceedings has been handed down, or against whom a decision to close the case has been made, the editor or person in charge of the newspaper, radio, television or online publication that reported on the proceedings is required to publish, at no cost to the person concerned, the news of the decisions in their favour, ‘with prominence commensurate with the space already devoted to the relevant criminal proceedings’.

The remedy for inaction

In the event of inaction on the part of the publication’s management, the person concerned may submit a complaint to the Data Protection Authority, which will reach a decision within the following five days and may also order the publication of news regarding measures favourable to the suspect or defendant.

The right to be forgotten

A law which, from a legal perspective, should be read in conjunction with the provisions laid down a few years ago by the Cartabia reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which, in 2022, regulated the right to be forgotten for individuals subject to acquittal, dismissal of charges or case closure. In particular, the request for a prohibition on indexing or for de-indexation, on the internet, of the personal data contained in the judicial order.

The pros

Enrico Costa, leader of the Forza Italia group in the Chamber of Deputies and the bill’s principal sponsor, points out that ‘every year, 500,000 citizens are acquitted or have their cases dismissed their criminal proceedings are dropped, but in the meantime many of them have been dragged through the mud in the press, with all the details of the investigations, and have seen their reputations damaged and their family and work relationships compromised’.

But, as Costa points out, ‘once their innocence has been declared, the news of their acquittal is often omitted or relegated to insignificant short articles. And that is not right. Reporting the news means telling the whole story, not just the moment of the accusation. It is a question of balance, of accountability and, above all, of truth’.

The Deputy Minister for Justice, Francesco Paolo Sisto, agrees: ‘In Italia, in fact, being involved in legal proceedings often amounts to a de facto conviction, with serious consequences for one’s reputation, professional life and personal life. It is not right that the clamour of the prosecution should be allowed to outweigh the recognition of innocence.’

The concerns

The reasons for abstaining, however, were explained in the Chamber by Ada Lopreiato of the Five Star Movement, who emphasised, on the one hand, the difficulties in coordinating the ‘right to be forgotten’ provided for by the Cartabia reform with the amendment to the Data Protection Act; on the other hand, as Lopreiato pointed out, the various ways in which proceedings may be concluded, whilst all favourable to the suspect or defendant, are not equivalent: ‘A full acquittal, when it is established that the defendant had no involvement in the offence or the non-existence of the offence, has a very clear meaning: that person is not liable. However, not every favourable outcome of proceedings amounts to a full finding of innocence on the merits; there are cases in which proceedings are concluded for different reasons: due to the expiry of the statute of limitations, because the case is not actionable, or because the evidence does not support a conviction. These decisions produce favourable legal effects, but they cannot automatically be presented to the public as if they were all the same thing’.