Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Italy: Statutory Nullities and Non-usability

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 20))

Abstract

In this Chapter, Professor Illuminati describes the complex interrelation which exists in Italian law between procedural “nullities”, which have played a role in Italian criminal procedure for ages, and a new statutory exclusionary rule which was introduced in the 1988 Italian Code of Criminal Procedure which lays out rules for the “non-usability” or inutilizzabilità of evidence gathered in violation of prohibitions laid out in the same code. The Chapter discusses other statutory exclusionary rules relating to exclusion or “non-use” of confessions taken in the absence of counsel or of conversations intercepted in violation of the strict Italian provisions regulating wiretapping. Unlike in U.S. law, however, the Italian courts shy away from applying the rule of “fruits of the poisonous tree” and will virtually always admit physical evidence in the form of instrumentalities or fruits of crime, or contraband, even if found as a direct result of a violation of the Italian Constitution.

Translated from the Italian by Stephen C. Thaman, with the help of Joshua Walker.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Grifantini (1993, 243).

  2. 2.

    Nobili (1990a, 381).

  3. 3.

    For this observation, Grifantini (1993, 243–244).

  4. 4.

    For this reference, Scella (2000, 96–105).

  5. 5.

    On this point, See Illuminati (1983, 144–147).

  6. 6.

    See Grevi (1972, 181–188).

  7. 7.

    Corte cost.. April 6, 1973, n 34, in Giur. Cost., 316 (1973), note of Grevi.

  8. 8.

    Grevi (1972, 341).

  9. 9.

    Grifantini (2005a, 543); See also Pierro (1992, 7–9), Scella (2000, 138–141), and Daniele (2009, 19).

  10. 10.

    Galantini (1997, 690), and Ruggieri (2010, 1835).

  11. 11.

    Nappi (2007, 189) and Grifantini (2001, 272).

  12. 12.

    Grifantini (1993, 246), Grifantini (2005a, 545), and Ruggieri (2010, 1837); Cass. ss. un. 20 November 1996, Glicora, in Giust. pen., III, 217 (1998); Cass. 12 October 1998, Aliu, in Arch. n. proc. pen., 47 (1999).

  13. 13.

    Cordero (1963, 149) and Grevi (2010, 314). See also Galantini (1992, 205), Scella (2008, 490–491), and Grifantini (2001, 278–279).

  14. 14.

    Grifantini (1993, 249–250), Ruggieri (2001, 63–70), contra Cordero (1963, 154), and Galantini (1997, 699).

  15. 15.

    On this issue, contra, Nobili (1990b, 413), Siracusano (2003, 11), and Dinacci (2008, 62–65).

  16. 16.

    Nobili (1990b, 411), Grifantini (1993, 246; 2005a, 546), and Ruggieri (2010, 1837).

  17. 17.

    Scella (2008, 484).

  18. 18.

    Cordero (1963, 70–73), and Scella (2000, 159–160).

  19. 19.

    Galantini (1992, 139–148), and Galantini (1997, 694–695).

  20. 20.

    Cass. ss. un. 13 July 1998, Gallieri, in Cass. pen., 465 (1999); Cass. ss. un. 23 February 2000, D’Amuri, in 27 Guida al dir. 58 (2000); Cass. ss. un. May 28, 2003, Torcasio, in Cass. pen., 21 (2004).

  21. 21.

    See, Grifantini (2005a, 545) and Ruggieri (2010, 1835).

  22. 22.

    Galantini (1992, 76).

  23. 23.

    Lozzi (2008, 197).

  24. 24.

    Cordero (1963, 143–144).

  25. 25.

    Grifantini (2005a, 555).

  26. 26.

    Galantini (1992, 106–110).

  27. 27.

    Grifantini (1993, 246).

  28. 28.

    Grifantini (2005a, 555).

  29. 29.

    Cass. ss. un. 20 November 1996, Glicora, supra note 13; Cass. ss. un. March 27, 1996, Monteleone, in Cass. pen., 2913 (1996).

  30. 30.

    Law of March 1st 2001, which introduced paragraph 1-bis into § 273 CCP

  31. 31.

    Cass. December 12, 1995, Falsone, in c.e.d. cass. 205649; Cass. February 11, 1998, Seseri, in Arch. n. proc. pen. 759 (1998); Cass. February 8, 2007, Firenze, in Arch. n. proc. pen. 369 (2008).

  32. 32.

    Grifantini (1993, 254; 2005a, 555).

  33. 33.

    Galantini (1992,265).

  34. 34.

    Cass. ss. un. June 21, 2000, Tammaro, in Cass. pen., 3259 (2000).

  35. 35.

    Cordero (1963, 181, 188). See also Illuminati (1983, 151), Grifantini (1993, 255), Scella (2000, 203), and Daniele (2009, 187–188).

  36. 36.

    Grifantini (2005a, 546).

  37. 37.

    See Cass. ss. un. May 23, 2003, Torcasio, in Cass. pen., 21 (2004).

  38. 38.

    For the system of nullities, see generally, Rafaraci (1998, 597).

  39. 39.

    Grifantini (1993, 245).

  40. 40.

    Section 10.2.2.

  41. 41.

    Nobili (1990b, 412); Grifantini (1993, 247); Galantini (1997, 696). See also Dinacci (2008, 54–60).

  42. 42.

    Cass. ss. un. March 27, 1996, Sala, in Cass. pen., 3268 (1996).

  43. 43.

    Section 10.1, above.

  44. 44.

    Daniele (2009, 6–7).

  45. 45.

    Nobili (1990b, 412) and Conti (2007, 72).

  46. 46.

    Grifantini (1993, 245–246; 2001, 303–304). See also Cass. March 25, 1991, D’Errico, in Giur. it., II, 130 (1992), referring to the unusable results of a judicially authorized wiretap declared to be a nullity due to insufficient justification.

  47. 47.

    Corte cost. September 24, 2001, n. 332.

  48. 48.

    Grifantini (1993, 253); See also Galantini (1992, 83–89), Ruggieri (2001, 137–141), and Conti (2007, 254–267).

  49. 49.

    Cass. April 24, 1991, Lionetti, in Cass. pen., 1879 (1992).

  50. 50.

    Cass. April 13, 1992, Casini, in Cass. pen., 339 (1993).

  51. 51.

    Cass. ss. un. March 27, 1996, Sala, in Cass. pen., 3268 (1996).

  52. 52.

    Cass. December 22, 1997, Nikolic in Cass. pen., 1569 (1999).

  53. 53.

    Cass. November 141997, Meriani, in Cass. pen., 1897 (1999).

  54. 54.

    Cass. November 4, 1997, Lugano, in Giust. pen., III, 660 (1998).

  55. 55.

    Cass. February 10, 2004, Mache, in Cass. pen., 3945 (2005).

  56. 56.

    Cass. April 29, 2004, Bonaiuti, in Riv. pen., 636 (2005).

  57. 57.

    Cass. March 8, 1995, Ceroni, in Cass. pen., 1876 (1996).

  58. 58.

    Cass. June 21, 1996, Sindoni, in Gazz. giur., 42, 28 (1996).

  59. 59.

    Illuminati (2010, 749–756).

  60. 60.

    Grifantini (1993, 249) and Nappi (2007, 193, 196).

  61. 61.

    Grifantini (1993, 249).

  62. 62.

    Cass. ss. un. June 21, 2000, Tammaro, in Cass. pen., 3259 (2000). For the doctrine, see Galantini (1992, 5), Ruggieri (2010, 1833), and Conti (2007, 18–25); the distinction is criticized by Scella (2008, 481–482).

  63. 63.

    Cass. April 20, 1994, Mazzaraco, in Riv. pen., 337 (1995); Cass. April 1, 1996, Toth, in Dir. pen. proc., 454 (1997).

  64. 64.

    Cass. ss. un. June 21, 2000, Tammaro, in Cass. pen., 3259 (2000). See Grifantini (2005a, 553) and Scella (2000, 194–196).

  65. 65.

    Grifantini (2005a, 553–554). Contra, Cass. February 11, 1992, Maradona in Giur. it., ii, 283 (1993).

  66. 66.

    See generally, Cass. ss. un. March 27, 1992, Di Benedetto, in Cass. pen., 2060 (1992); Cass. ss. un. September 27, 1995, Serafino, in Cass. pen., 67 (1996).

  67. 67.

    Grifantini (1993, 248; 2005a, 547).

  68. 68.

    Cordero (1963, 70) and Grifantini (2005b, 529).

  69. 69.

    Grevi (2010, 310).

  70. 70.

    Grifantini (2005b, 530–531).

  71. 71.

    Voena (2010, 218).

  72. 72.

    Grosso (2005, 192).

  73. 73.

    See Sect. 10.6, above.

  74. 74.

    Cass. August 10, 1995, Calabrese Violetta, in Cass. pen., 2644 (1996), Critical comments by Fabio Grifantini, “Sulla inutilizzabilità contra alios delle dichiarazioni indizianti di cui all’art. 63 comma 2 c.p.p.”

  75. 75.

    Cass. ss. un. October 9, 2009, Carpanelli, in Cass. pen., 2428 (1997). For a criticism, see Orlandi (2002, 182).

  76. 76.

    Di Bitonto (2005a, 610).

  77. 77.

    See Sect. 10.2.1, above. See also Triggiani (2010, 2048).

  78. 78.

    Valentini (2005, 588).

  79. 79.

    Santini (2005, 594).

  80. 80.

    Ibid, 600.

  81. 81.

    Corte cost., January 31, 1992, n. 24.

  82. 82.

    Constitutional Law, November 23, 1999 n. 2.

  83. 83.

    Law of March 1, 2001, n. 63.

  84. 84.

    Corte cost. February 26, 2002, n. 32.

  85. 85.

    Corte cost. July 30, 2008, n. 305; previously, Cass. ss. un. May 28, 2003, Torcasio, in Cass. pen., 21 (2004).

  86. 86.

    See Sect. 10.7.3, above.

  87. 87.

    Di Bitonto (2005b, 617).

  88. 88.

    Corte cost. April 6, 1973, n. 34, in Giur. Cost., 316 (1973), note of Grevi.

  89. 89.

    Camon (2005, 815–816).

  90. 90.

    Ibid, 819.

  91. 91.

    Cass. ss. un., May 28, 2003, Torcasio, in Cass. pen., 21 (2004).

  92. 92.

    See Sect. 10.7.2, above.

  93. 93.

    See Sect. 10.7.3, above.

  94. 94.

    Cass. November 10, 1997, Greco, in Cass. pen., 1188 (1999).

  95. 95.

    Corte cost., April 24, 2002, n. 135.

  96. 96.

    D.l. January 15, 1991, n. 8, changed to law of March 15, 1991, n. 82, as modified by law of February 13, 2001, n. 45, “Nuove norme in materia di sequestri di persona e per la protezione dei testimoni di giustizia, nonché per la protezione e il trattamento sanzionatorio di coloro che collaborano con la giustizia” (Art. 16-quater).

  97. 97.

    Following Cass. 21 November 2002, Bertuca, in Cass. pen., 2963 (2004), the rule does not apply to witnesses.

  98. 98.

    Art. 16-quater of the special statute cited in f.n. 97, supra.

  99. 99.

    D’Ambrosio (2002, 119).

  100. 100.

    See Sect. 10.6, above.

  101. 101.

    Cass. ss. un. September 25, 2008, in Cass. pen., 2278 (2009) critical commentary by R.A. Ruggiero, “I discutibili confini dell’inutilizzabilità delle dichiarazioni tardive dei ‘collaboratori di giustizia’”.

Bibliography

  • Camon, A. 2005. Art. 271. In Commentario breve al codice di procedura penale, ed. G. Conso and V. Grevi, 814–21. Padua: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conti, C. 2007. Accertamento del fatto e inutilizzabilità nel processo penale. Padua: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordero, F. 1963. Tre studi sulle prove penali. Milan: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Ambrosio, L. 2002. Testimoni e collaboratori di giustizia. Padua: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniele, M. 2009. Regole di esclusione e regole di valutazione della prova. Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Bitonto, M.L. 2005a. Art. 197. In Commentario breve al codice di procedura penale, ed. G. Conso and V. Grevi, 609–14. Padua: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Bitonto, M.L. 2005b. Art. 197-bis. In Commentario breve al codice di procedura penale, ed. G. Conso and V. Grevi, 614–18. Padua: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinacci, F.R. 2008. L’inutilizzabilità nel processo penale. Milan: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galantini, N. 1992. L’inutilizzabilità della prova nel processo penale. Padua: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galantini, N. 1997. Inutilizzabilità (diritto processuale penale). In Enciclopedia del diritto, I Aggiornamento, Milan: Giuffré, 690–709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grevi, V. 1972. Nemo tenetur se detegere. Interrogatorio dell’imputato e diritto al silenzio nel processo penale italiano. Milan: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grevi, V. 2010. Prove. In Compendio di procedura penale, 5th ed, ed. G. Conso and V. Grevi, 293–385. Padua: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grifantini, F. 1993. Inutilizzabilità. In Digesto delle discipline penalistiche, Vol. VII, Turin: Utet, 242–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grifantini, F. 2001. Il segreto difensivo nel processo penale. Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grifantini, F. 2005a. Art. 191. In Commentario breve al codice di procedura penale, ed. G. Conso and V. Grevi, 543–55. Padua: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grifantini, F. 2005b. Art. 188. In Commentario breve al codice di procedura penale, ed. G. Conso and V. Grevi, 528–35. Padua: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosso, D. 2005. Art. 63. In Commentario breve al codice di procedura penale, ed. G. Conso and V. Grevi, 192–95. Padua: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Illuminati, G. 1983. La disciplina processuale delle intercettazioni. Milan: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • Illuminati, G. 2010. Giudizio. In Compendio di procedura penale, 5th ed, ed. G. Conso and V. Grevi, 747–830. Padua: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lozzi, G. 2008. Lezioni di procedura penale. Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nappi, A. 2007. Guida al codice di procedura penale, 10th ed. Milan: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nobili, M. 1990a. Il ‘diritto delle prove’ e un rinnovato concetto di prova. In Commento al nuovo codice di procedura penale, vol. II, ed. M. Chiavario, 381–88. Turin: UTET.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nobili, M. 1990b. Art. 191. In Commento al nuovo codice di procedura penale, vol. II, ed. M. Chiavario, 408–14. Turin: Utet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlandi, R. 2002. Dichiarazioni dell’imputato su responsabilità altrui: Nuovo statuto del diritto al silenzio e restrizioni in tema d’incompatibilità a testimoniare. In Il giusto processo, ed. R.E. Kostoris, 153–95. Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierro, G. 1992. Una nuova specie di invalidità: l’inutilizzabilità degli atti processuali penali. Naples: ESI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafaraci, T. 1998. Nullità (diritto processuale penale). In Enciclopedia del diritto, II Aggiornamento, Milan: Giuffré, Milan, 597–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggieri, F. 2001. Divieti probatori e inutilizzabilità nella disciplina delle intercettazioni telefoniche. Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggieri, F. 2010. Art. 191. In Codice di procedura penale commentato, 4th ed, ed. A. Giarda and G. Spangher, 1832–53. Milan: IPSOA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santini, S. 2005. Art. 195. In Commentario breve al codice di procedura penale, ed. G. Conso and V. Grevi, 590–606. Padua: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scella, A. 2000. Prove penali e inutilizzabilità. Uno studio introduttivo. Turin: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scella, A. 2008. Inutilizzabilità della prova (diritto processuale penale). In Enciclopedia del diritto, Annali. Milan: Giuffré, 479–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siracusano, D. 2003. Prova: (III) nel nuovo codice di procedura penale. In Enciclopedia giuridica, Vol. XV, Rome: Treccani, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triggiani, N. 2010. Art. 200. In Codice di procedura penale commentato, 4th ed, ed. A. Giarda and G. Spangher, 2038–52. Milan: IPSOA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentini, E. 2005. Art. 194. In Commentario breve al codice di procedura penale, ed. G. Conso and V. Grevi, 584–91. Padua: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voena, G.P. 2010. Atti. In Compendio di procedura penale, 5th ed, ed. G. Conso and V. Grevi, 169–291. Padua: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Scienze Giudidiche, Università di Bologna, Via Zamboni 27/29, 40126, Bologna, Italy

    Giulio Illuminati

Authors
  1. Giulio Illuminati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giulio Illuminati .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , School of Law, Saint Louis University, Lindell Boulevard 3700, St. Louis, 63108, Missouri, USA

    Stephen C. Thaman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Illuminati, G. (2013). Italy: Statutory Nullities and Non-usability. In: Thaman, S. (eds) Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 20. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5348-8_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation