The Constitutional Court accepts the conflict of the Court of Milan in the Renzi case

The Constitutional Court has declared admissible the conflict of attribution between powers of the State promoted by the Ordinary Court of Milan, first civil section, in single-judge composition, against the resolution by which the Senate of the Republic declared the statements of Matteo Renzi contained in the book “Il Mostro” to be non-justiciable. The ruling is Ordinance no. 178, deliberated in chambers on October 5, 2026, filed in the registry on October 29, and published in the Official Gazette, 1st Special Series, no. 44 of November 4, 2026, with the classification “Ordinance 5 - October 29, 2026”. With the admission of the appeal, the merit phase opens before the Consulta.

The conflict arises from civil proceedings: Dr. C. F.V.B., a magistrate serving at the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Ordinary Court of Florence, filed a claim for damages against Senator Matteo Renzi and Mondadori spa for statements contained in the updated edition of the book, which were deemed harmful to honor and reputation. The Senate of the Republic, by resolution of July 30, 2025 (date indicated in the text of the ordinance), approving the proposal of the Committee on Elections and Parliamentary Immunities (doc. IV-ter, n. 12-A), qualified those phrases as opinions expressed in the exercise of parliamentary functions, pursuant to art. 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution.

The Court of Milan filed the appeal on April 9, 2026; the act is registered as no. 2 in the register of conflicts between powers of the State 2026, admissibility phase. According to the appellant, the resolution prevents the judge “from exercising their jurisdictional function with outcomes other than the declaration of exemption from liability” or the filing of the conflict itself.

Subjective and objective requirements

In this phase, the Court is called upon to decide, in chambers and without an adversarial process, on the existence of the requirements prescribed by art. 37, first paragraph, of the law of March 11, 1953, n. 87, without prejudice to any further issue.

The Court recognizes the active standing of the Court of Milan, a jurisdictional body in a position of constitutionally guaranteed independence, and the passive standing of the Senate, competent to definitively declare its will on the application of art. 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution (most recently, ordinance no. 176 of 2025). On the objective level, it considers there to be a matter of conflict whose resolution falls within its competence, due to the alleged infringement of the sphere of attributions of the judicial authority.

Functional link and European precedents

The core of the dispute is the absence of a functional link: the statements made extra moenia (outside the walls) would not correspond to any of the opinions expressed intra moenia (inside the walls) by the senator and referenced in the Board’s proposal. From this, according to the petitioner, arises “an unlawful interference by Parliament in the powers of the judicial authority.”

In support, the Court refers to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the disproportion between the guarantee of a parliamentarian’s freedom of opinion and the right of third parties to seek judicial redress:

• CGIL and Cofferati v. Italy, 24 February 2009;
• Patrono, Cascini and Stefanelli v. Italy, 20 April 2006;
• De Jorio v. Italy, 3 June 2004.

Notifications, deadlines and composition

The operative part of Ordinance no. 178 provides for:

• immediate communication of the decision, by the registry, to the Ordinary Court of Milan, first civil section;
• notification of the appeal and the ordinance, by the petitioner, to the Senate of the Republic in the person of its President and to the Chamber of Deputies, within sixty days of the communication;
• filing proof of notification in the Court’s registry within thirty days, pursuant to art. 26, paragraph 3, of the Supplementary Rules.

The involvement of the Chamber of Deputies is ordered due to the identical constitutional position of the two branches of Parliament (ex plurimis, ordinances no. 94 of 2026, no. 168 and no. 133 of 2025, no. 179 of 2023). The decision is signed by President Giovanni Amoroso and the rapporteur Filippo Patroni Griffi, with Roberto Milana as Director of the Registry; the panel comprises fifteen judges, from Francesco Viganò to Francesco Saverio Marini.

The admission of the appeal does not anticipate the outcome: the Consulta (Constitutional Court) must now determine whether the Senate’s resolution effectively encroached upon the sphere of jurisdiction. For readers, the point is concrete: it returns to deciding where immunity for a parliamentarian’s opinions ends and where the right of a third party—in this case, a magistrate—to obtain protection before an ordinary judge begins.

Official source: Official Gazette of the Italian Republic, 1st Special Series — Constitutional Court, no. 44 of 4 November 2026, Ordinance no. 178 (5-29 October 2026), pp. 1-2.