Defamation by Press and Preliminary Investigations: The Limits of the Right to Report in Ruling 19102/2025

The right to report is one of the highest expressions of freedom of thought, a fundamental pillar of any democratic society, enshrined in Article 21 of the Italian Constitution. However, the exercise of this right is not unlimited, especially when it intersects with the delicate sphere of criminal justice, particularly during the preliminary investigation phase. In this context, the protection of the reputation and the presumption of innocence of the investigated or accused person is of paramount importance. It is precisely on this delicate balance that the recent ruling no. 19102 of 15/04/2025 by the Court of Cassation intervenes, destined to serve as a beacon for information operators.

The Right to Judicial Reporting: A Delicate Balancing Act

Judicial reporting has the essential task of informing public opinion about matters of criminal relevance, contributing to the transparency of the judicial system. However, when dealing with cases still under investigation, where no definitive responsibility has been established, the journalist is called upon to proceed with extreme caution. Jurisprudence has long identified three fundamental criteria for the legitimate exercise of the right to report: the truth of the facts, the social relevance of the news, and expressive restraint. Ruling 19102/2025 focuses particularly on the criteria of truth and restraint, applying them to the specific context of preliminary investigations.

Ruling 19102/2025 by the Court of Cassation: Clarifying the Boundaries

The case examined by the Court of Cassation (President R. P., Rapporteur M. C.) involved D. M., accused of defamation by press. The ruling, annulling without referral a previous decision by the Court of Appeal of Milan, reiterated key principles for investigative journalism. The Supreme Court precisely delineated the boundaries within which the right to report can be legitimately exercised when referring to facts subject to preliminary investigations, emphasizing the need for an objective account that respects individual dignity.

In matters of defamation by press, for the correct exercise of the right to report concerning the preliminary investigation phase, the criterion of truth requires the necessary coherence of the disseminated news with the content of the judicial authority's acts and measures within the overall investigative context, with an aseptic account, without emphasis or undue anticipation of responsibility. Journalists are not permitted to make a priori choices or to lean towards the prosecution's hypothesis, capable of generating easy suggestions in the reader, in disregard of the constitutional mandate of the presumption of innocence of the accused and, "a fortiori," of the investigated person until a final judgment.

This maxim is of fundamental importance. The "criterion of truth," in this context, is not limited to the mere factual correspondence of the news but requires rigorous "coherence" with the judicial authority's acts and measures. This means that the journalist must scrupulously adhere to what emerges from official documents, avoiding personal interpretations or speculation. The "aseptic account, without emphasis or undue anticipation of responsibility" imposes an objective narrative, devoid of sensationalist tones or premature judgments. "A priori choices or leaning towards the prosecution's hypothesis" are not permitted, as such attitudes can "generate easy suggestions in the reader," undermining the public perception of the presumption of innocence. This principle, guaranteed by Article 27 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), is an indispensable bulwark of our legal system.

Presumption of Innocence: A Pillar of the Judicial System

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental right that protects every individual until a final conviction is pronounced. In the preliminary investigation phase, this presumption is even stronger, so much so that the Court of Cassation speaks of "a fortiori" for the investigated person. This means that any disseminated news must respect the non-guilty status of the person involved, avoiding presenting them as already responsible for a crime. Ruling 19105/2025 clarifies that the journalist has the duty to:

• Maintain absolute neutrality in reporting facts.
• Avoid any form of anticipation of guilt.
• Base the narrative exclusively on the elements contained in the judicial documents, without additions or personal interpretations.
• Respect the dignity of the investigated person, even in the absence of a final ruling.

These requirements are aimed at preventing "media lynching" and ensuring that the trial takes place in a serene atmosphere, without external influences that could prejudice the impartiality of the judgment or the reputation of the person.

Conclusions: Towards Responsible Reporting

Ruling no. 19102 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation is part of a complex normative and jurisprudential framework, reinforcing the need for judicial reporting that is both free and responsible. It represents an important warning to all information professionals, reminding them that the pursuit of truth and the dissemination of news must always be combined with respect for the fundamental rights of the individual, primarily the presumption of innocence. The balance between the right to report and the protection of the person is fragile, but essential for the credibility of the judicial system and for safeguarding human dignity at every stage of the criminal proceedings.