Cassation, sez. V Penalty, Judgement 11 November 2010 - January 31, 2011, No. 3372
Done right and
PM, as a victim of the crime a civil party, appealed in cassation against the decision of 23 October 2008 by which the Preliminary Hearing Judge of Cagliari had decided not to proceed against MV, with regard to crimes under Articles. 81 com. 2 ^ and 595 com. Cp ^ 3 and 13 1. 47/48, because the crime does not exist.
appealed to the Prosecutor at the Prosecutor's Office of Cagliari and the appeal, described as an action by the Court of Appeal of Cagliari, was transmitted to the Court of Cassation.
MV was charged because he had hurt the reputation of PM, administrator of the condominium building on a site (omitted), which, as stipulated in the lobby of the building, attach them, and having written a leaflet setting out, inter alia, the following content: we have the facade of the building that is falling apart, the plaster of the balcony we fall into putting us at risk adults and children from some of you are stairs dirty, the walls are blacks, for the cleaning of the garden we must provide ourselves to call someone to do it, we pay so much of the building, but we do not have a capocondominio that should deal with this?, for those who do not remember his MP name is, if you do not remember his name, is not you who have memory problems, it is he who is in hiding, but if they take our money and how .... for what it is we want to continue on the run so to take us around, or seek a serious and responsible person? I want to personally send him away, "and I'm about other capocondomini, but it takes most of you to send him away, so if you're like me you also inquire about your knowledge of capocondomini that are serious and competent." How pleas PM deduce breach of criminal law in relation to the application of exonerating the lawful exercise of the right of criticism as the flyer had been posted in the lobby of the building open to the attendance of everyone, not just condominiums, continence expressions, as alluded to in the leaflet to the alleged inaction of the administrator and the fact that he took the money of the owners, accusing it the professional do his job seriously while pocketing the fee, the veracity of the allegations as the work of the administrator's objections were unfounded. He further claimed the illogical and contradictory reasoning on the interpretation of the term fugitive.
also appealed the PM in relation to assessment of GIP in relation to the requirement of continence of the expressions used.
the appeals inadmissible as manifestly unfounded.
fact, the trial court has correctly identified all the elements necessary to find that there the exonerating the right to criticize.
The right to criticize it differs essentially from that of the news since the first one did not materialize, as the other, in the narration of facts, but to express an opinion or, more generally, of opinion that, as that can not be required strictly objective, since the criticism, by its nature, can only be based on a necessarily subjective, facts and behavior.
in exonerating the question presupposes, therefore, unlike that of freedom of the press, has a level of accuracy more limited in accordance with the freedom of the press, including the right to criticize limit is further marked by the fulfillment of the criteria of the social significance of the news and the correctness of the expressions used (see, among other Cass., May 24, 2002, PG in proc. Trevisan, CED Cass. No 2219904).
In adherence to these principles, the trial court stated that, in this case, the defendant had put the criticism to the work of the administrator of the building, the serious lack of maintenance that the property had, inviting other residents - through the posting of the flyer - to activate their oversight of the administrator.
By such conduct the defendant has not only exercised their right of free expression of their thoughts, but also exercised the specific law, as administered by the building condominium M.. P. To control behavior of the Administrator and to report any irregularities.
criticisms were the work of the administrator as a natural destination, the other blocks and, therefore, is to comply with the limits of the social significance of the news and likely to spread this is the place where the flyer was posted.
As the profile of continence is contradictory and do not fully agree with the reasoning of the contested measure where considered critical that the terms used by the defendant did not never given free to attack the moral sphere of the individual MP, but only a complaint of activities (carried out) as administrator of the building of road (omitted). In this context the word was used in the ordinary fugitive is someone who avoids being seen to breach his order, duties and tasks for which it is responsible and paid. And that is precisely those omissions and weaknesses found that the defendant complained in the work of professional P.
PQM
The Court declares inadmissible the appeals.
0 comments:
Post a Comment