Disclosure of official secrets: commentary on Cass. pen., Sez. VI, Judgment, 21/11/2019, no. 4512

Judgment no. 4512 of the Court of Cassation represents an important clarification on the disclosure of official secrets, governed by Article 326 of the Criminal Code. This article, which punishes the conduct of a public official who discloses information covered by secrecy, is fundamental to protecting the transparency and integrity of public administration. The Court, with this decision, clearly distinguishes between the different types of offenses and the conditions for the concurrence of offenses, offering food for thought for jurists and legal professionals.

Types of offenses

The Court of Cassation, in its judgment, analyzes the two different configurations of the offense of disclosure of official secrets. In the first paragraph of art. 326, the public official who discloses a secret for financial gain is punished, even in cases of corruption. Conversely, the third paragraph of the same article applies when the public official exploits the economic and moral content of confidential information, without necessarily disclosing it to third parties.

The type of offense governed by art. 326, third paragraph, of the Criminal Code, does not necessarily require the disclosure of the secret to outsiders.

Concurrence of offenses and its implications

Another significant aspect addressed by the Court concerns the admissibility of the concurrence of offenses. If a public official were to disclose an official secret to third parties, this conduct would constitute a violation of both the first and third paragraphs of art. 326. This means that illicit conduct can overlap, generating a concurrence of offenses that deserves careful consideration. In this context, sanctions may be more severe due to the gravity of the violation of public secrecy rules.

Final considerations

This judgment highlights the importance of protecting official secrets in public administration and the need for a rigorous interpretation of the criminal provisions that protect them. The distinctions made by the Court of Cassation are fundamental to understanding how different conduct can lead to different criminal consequences and to reflecting on the responsibilities of public officials. Legality and transparency are essential pillars of a democratic society, and jurisprudence continues to play a crucial role in their maintenance.