The Constitutional Court annuls the parliamentary immunity of Sgarbi's statements on Facebook

The Constitutional Court has declared that it was not the prerogative of the Chamber of Deputies to deliberate on the non-accountability of the statements made by Vittorio Sgarbi, a deputy at the time, in a post published on his Facebook page on May 6, 2019, and has annulled the resolution adopted by the Assembly on May 8, 2024. The decision is contained in judgment no. 165/2026, decided on June 10, 2026, and filed in the registry on October 9, 2026, published in the Official Gazette of the Italian Republic, 1st Special Series, no. 41 of October 14, 2026.

The conflict of attribution promoted by the Court of Appeal of Ancona

The judgment arises from a conflict of attribution between state powers promoted by the Court of Appeal of Ancona, second civil section, with an order-petition filed on January 23, 2026, and registered as no. 3 in the 2025 register of conflicts between state powers. Admissibility had been declared by order no. 176 of 2025; Alex Marini, at the time a member of the Council of the Autonomous Province of Trento and a representative of the Five Star Movement, requested an intervention ad adiuvandum, which was admitted by order no. 99 of 2026.

The procedural history dates back to the judgment of the Ordinary Court of Macerata of April 6, 2021, which had rejected the claim for damages by Sgarbi against Marini for criticisms regarding his appointment as President of the MART, Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art of Trento and Rovereto, ordered by resolution of the Provincial Government of Trento of April 12, 2019, no. 509, and had instead granted the counterclaim by Marini for the defamatory statements contained in the post.

The words of the post and the missing functional link

The Consulta excluded that the statements were covered by Art. 68, first paragraph, of the Constitution. In the post, the provincial councilors critical of the appointment were described as “inept,” “spending-focused,” “paid 6 thousand euros a month to talk nonsense,” and “handsomely paid for their absolute incompetence.”

According to the judgment, the link to the exercise of the parliamentary mandate is missing:

• there is no parliamentary act by Sgarbi that is temporally concurrent and corresponding in content to the post;
• the acts cited by the Chamber’s defense (inspection acts, legislative proposals, interventions in the assembly and committees) generally concern the awarding of top positions in cultural, artistic, and scientific institutions;
• the reference to the opinion of the National Anti-Corruption Authority (ANAC) pertains to the individual circumstances of the parliamentarian;
• the expressions used are not characterized by respect for the dignity of the recipients, who are not parliamentarians.

The perimeter of non-accountability according to the Consulta

The ruling reconstructs the constitutional jurisprudence on the matter, recalling, among others, judgments no. 104 of 2024, no. 193 and no. 194 of 2024, no. 19 of 2026, no. 10 of 2000, no. 379 of 1996, and no. 115 of 2014, as well as the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of February 24, 2009, CGIL and Cofferati v. Italy.

The following remain outside the scope of non-accountability:

• insults and mere material behaviors;
• the assertion of objectively false facts or facts not supported by factual elements that are harmful to the reputation of others;
• statements that, instead of contributing to the quality of the public debate, cause its degradation.

The Court specified that any evaluation regarding the relationship between the right to political criticism and the protection of honor, which is left to the ordinary judge, remains outside the scope of the judgment.

A broader framework and the impact of the ruling

In the same issue of the Official Gazette, judgment no. 169/2026 is published, which annulled the measures of the Court of Matera adopted in the criminal proceedings against Saverio De Bonis, a senator at the time of the events. The two rulings confirm the centrality of the Consulta’s control over the boundaries of Art. 68 of the Constitution.

The judgment was decided by the Constitutional Court presided over by Giovanni Amoroso, with Antonella Sciarrone Alibrandi as the reporting judge and Igor Di Bernardini as clerk. For the readers, the effect is twofold: the civil trial before the Court of Appeal of Ancona may resume, and parliamentary non-accountability can no longer be extended to rebuttals that remain on the level of defending a personal interest, without an argued contribution to the public debate.

Constitutional Court, judgment no. 165/2026, Official Gazette of the Italian Republic, 1st Special Series, no. 41 of October 14, 2026.