Italy: MP's chat seizure request rejected over judicial oversight concerns

Pietro Pittalis, a rapporteur from Forza Italia, staunchly defended the parliamentary committee's decision to reject a request for the seizure of MP Andrea Delmastro's chat messages. Pittalis, speaking to Corriere della Sera, dismissed opposition claims that the move was a "get out of jail free card" for Delmastro.

“

What safe conduct! I reject the instrumental claims of the opposition exponents. We have acted taking into account constitutional principles, current norms, and rulings from the Constitutional Court and the Court of Cassation. As well as what the European Court of Justice establishes.

He asserted that the committee's actions adhered to constitutional principles, existing laws, and rulings from both the Constitutional Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Pittalis questioned the opposition's selective invocation of European principles, noting their use in immigration matters but not in this instance.

“

How ridiculous. First of all, the request was transmitted directly by the Prosecutor's Office. That is, without passing through the review of a judge for preliminary investigations or another judging body, third party to the authority conducting the investigation.

The core of Pittalis's argument centers on procedural grounds. He explained that the request from the Public Prosecutor's Office bypassed a preliminary investigations judge, which he deemed unacceptable. Citing recent European and national case law, Pittalis emphasized that accessing data from devices like mobile phones requires adherence to principles of "necessity, legality, and proportionality." This, he argued, necessitates oversight by a "judge or an independent administrative body."

“

In simple terms, the person conducting the investigation cannot also be the controller of the legality and proportionality of the access.

Pittalis further elaborated that the request to access "all communications" between Delmastro and a restaurateur, Mauro Carroccia, was too broad and did not meet the constitutional standard of "minimum indispensable sacrifice" of parliamentary function. He also pointed out that Delmastro is not currently under investigation, which, while not prohibiting the seizure, increases the burden on the judiciary to justify the necessity of such an action.

“

Asking for access to 'all communications' as the Rome Prosecutor's Office does in Delmastro's case is not compatible with the constitutional parameter of the 'minimum indispensable sacrifice' of parliamentary function.