Disclosure of Official Secrets: Commentary on Cass. pen., Sez. VI, Judgment, 21/11/2019, n. 4512

Judgment n. 4512 of the Court of Cassation represents an important clarification regarding the disclosure of official secrets, governed by Article 326 of the Penal Code. This article punishes the behavior of public officials who disclose information covered by secrecy, and it is crucial for protecting the transparency and integrity of public administration. The Court, with this decision, clearly distinguishes between the different types of crimes and the conditions for the concurrence of offenses, offering points for reflection for legal scholars and practitioners.

The Types of Offense

The Court of Cassation, in its ruling, analyzes the two different configurations of the crime of disclosing official secrets. The first paragraph of Article 326 punishes the public official who reveals a secret for the purposes of financial gain, even in cases of corruption. In contrast, the third paragraph of the same article applies when the public official exploits the economic and moral content of the confidential information, without necessarily disclosing it to third parties.

The type of offense regulated by Article 326, paragraph three, of the Penal 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 the third paragraphs of Article 326. This means that unlawful behaviors can overlap, creating a concurrence of offenses that deserves careful consideration. In this context, the penalties may be more severe due to the seriousness of the violation of public secrecy rules.

Final Considerations

This ruling highlights the importance of protecting official secrets in public administration and the necessity for a strict interpretation of the criminal laws that safeguard them. The distinctions made by the Court of Cassation are fundamental for understanding how different behaviors can entail different criminal consequences and for 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.

Bianucci Law Firm