Italy / Court of Cassation / 4879




Italy / Court of Cassation / 4879

View full Case



Decision/ruling/judgment date

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Crime type(s) concerned/related

Incitement to violence or hatred

Related hate bias motivation

Race Ethnic origin

Groups affected

Muslims Migrants Third country nationals Black people or of African origin

Court/Body type

National Higher Court


Corte di cassazione

Key facts of the case

Two men were prosecuted for the crime of apology of fascism (promoting fascist ideology or symbols) and for being part of the group Milizia, which has among its aims, to instigate discrimination or violence on racial and ethnic grounds. They were subjected to security measures.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The Court argued that there were sufficient elements to suspect that the two men were responsible for the crime of apology of fascism and that there was a risk they would commit the same kind of crime again, considering the continuity of the illegal conduct and the crimes of the same nature they had already committed.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

It is the competence of the judicial authority and not of the administrative authority to apply security measures.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

They were subjected to security measures.

Key quotation in original language and translated into English with reference details

"Il tribunale … ha apprezzato, con motivazione adeguata e coerente scevra da violazioni della logica e del diritto, le esigenze cautelari senza invadere le competenze preventive dell'autorità amministrativa"

"The Tribunal … has established, with adequate and coherent motivation based on logic and the law, the need to adopt security measures without interfering with the competences of the administrative authority. "

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.