Global Freedom of Expression

Español

Peruzzi v. Italy

Closed Contracts Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Public Speech
  • Date of Decision
    June 30, 2015
  • Outcome
    Law or Action Upheld
  • Case Number
    39294/09
  • 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) concluded that the interference with Mr. Peruzzi’s right to freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10(2), could reasonably be considered “necessary in a democratic society” in order to protect the reputation, and maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. Therefore, the defamation conviction for baseless allegations of judicial bias did not violate his right to freedom of expression.


Facts

In September 2001, Mr. Piero Antonio Peruzzi, an Italian lawyer, complained to the Supreme Council of the Judiciary by sending a letter regarding the conduct of Judge A, sitting at the Lucca District Court. This letter was, in due course, circulated to several other judges of the same court but without reference to Judge A by name. Those circular letters explored in detail the decisions made by Judge A in the specific proceedings, as well as conveyed the opinion of Mr. Peruzzi himself, who sought to elucidate what he deemed as unacceptable conduct on the part of judges.

At first instance trial proceedings, Mr. Peruzzi was held to have exceeded the limits of his right to freedom of expression and his actions could not be justified under Article 595 of the Italian Criminal Code. On appealing, Mr. Peruzzi was once again denied justification. The appeal court noted that the circulation of a letter such as the one written by the applicant could only harm the dignity of the magistrate who was referenced in it, as well as the image of an independent judiciary. The expressions used by the applicant, outside of a procedural act, aimed to question the professionalism of Judge A. In light of these considerations, Mr. Peruzzi submitted that his conviction for defamation violated Article 10 of European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).


Decision Overview

The application was lodged to the ECtHR and the first question the Court considered was whether the criticisms in the circular letter had been directed specifically against Judge A. Despite Mr. Peruzzi’s argument that the letter was not directed against Judge A. The circular letter contained whole passages taken from the initial letter he had sent to the Supreme Court of the Judiciary complaining specifically about Judge A.

The second question the Court addressed with was whether the complaints concerning Judge A went beyond the limits of permissible criticisms in a democratic society. With regards to the first criticism that Judge A had adopted unjust and arbitrary decisions, the Court held that this speech was not excessive since it consisted of value judgments which did not have to be ascertained by any proof to be held true and were based on facts that Mr. Peruzzi had experienced.

However, the second criticism was held to have been excessive and unsubstantiated by facts. Mr. Peruzzi claimed that Judge A was ‘biased’ and had ‘willfully’ with ‘malice or gross negligence or through lack of commitment’ committed errors. His implications that Judge A had disregarded the ethical obligations accompanying his profession lacked evidence demonstrative of an element of malice. Thus, the Court held that there was no violation of Article 10, freedom of expression in this case. 


Decision Direction

Quick Info

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

Contracts Expression

In light of the recent decision in Morice v France, the decision in Peruzzi does not only come as a surprise, but it is also very regressive. The inflammatory factor here, justifying a criminal rather than a civil sanction, seems to rely solely on the fact that the victim of the defamation was a judge, as opposed to an ordinary person. This begs the question of how future freedom of expression cases will be dealt with by the Court when the victim of defamation is a judge, or whether it will stop at a judge or go further by including any high standing profession in society.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

Case Significance

Quick Info

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

Decision (including concurring or dissenting opinions) establishes influential or persuasive precedent outside its jurisdiction.

The decision was cited in:

Official Case Documents

Attachments:

Have comments?

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

Send Feedback