Global Freedom of Expression

Belpietro v. Italy

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Press / Newspapers
  • Date of Decision
    September 24, 2013
  • Outcome
    ECtHR, Article 10 Violation
  • Case Number
    No. 43612/10
  • Region & Country
    Italy, Europe and Central Asia
  • Judicial Body
    European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
  • Type of Law
    International/Regional Human Rights Law
  • Themes
    Defamation / Reputation

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that Italy violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) when it sentenced a newspaper editor to a jail term after he was convicted of defamation. The court held that imprisonment was a disproportionate punishment for defamation because no exceptional circumstances justified the jail term.


Two prosecutors from Palermo took legal action for defamation against Maurizio Belpietro, the editor of the newspaper Il Giornale, after the paper published an article that claimed the prosecutors had mismanaged an inquiry into Mafia activities and contained strong accusations against them. Belpietro was initially acquitted by the District Court of Milan but was sentenced on appeal to four months imprisonment (suspended) and the payment of €100,000 for compensation and legal expenses. The Court of Cassation confirmed the sentence.

Belpietro, even though he was not the author of the article, was responsible for checking its content as the editor of the paper under Article 57 of the Italian Criminal Code. The author of the piece, Senator Raffaele Iannuzzi, could not be prosecuted because he was protected by parliamentary immunity. According to Italian law, members of Parliament cannot be held accountable for opinions expressed in relation to their public mandate.

Decision Overview

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Italy breached Article 10 of the ECHR for sentencing newspaper editor Maurizio Belpietro to four months imprisonment for the publication of a defamatory article. The ECtHR held that, although law and social necessity justified the interference with Belpietro’s right to freedom of expression, because the case lacked any elements of exceptionality, imprisonment was considered a disproportionate punishment for the crime of defamation.

ECtHR judgments become final after three months and cannot be subsequently appealed, and the judgment for Belpietro v. Italy became final on December 24, 2013.

Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

The holding in Belpietro is consistent with the ECtHR’s prior rulings regarding the infliction of severe punishments for crimes related to the exercise of freedom of expression. The ECtHR recalled the case of Cumpănă v. Romania, where it had previously affirmed the principle that imprisonment can only be considered appropriate in exceptional circumstances, and certainly not in ordinary cases of defamation.

Global Perspective

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

ECtHR judgments are binding on the parties before it.

The decision was cited in:

Official Case Documents

Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:


Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback