Territorial Jurisdiction in Unlawful Data Processing: Commentary on Ruling No. 38511 of 2024
Ruling No. 38511 of September 18, 2024, filed on October 21, 2024, represents an important step forward in defining territorial jurisdiction for crimes of unlawful data processing, particularly when such data is disseminated via social networks. The central issue concerns the impossibility of precisely identifying the location where the crime was committed, a problem that is increasingly relevant in the digital age.
The Regulatory Context
The case in question refers to the application of Article 167 of Legislative Decree No. 196 of June 30, 2003, which governs unlawful data processing. When it comes to data disclosed on the internet, it becomes complex to identify the location of uploading and where the data becomes accessible. In the absence of a general applicable rule, the ruling relies on the supplementary criteria outlined in Article 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Unlawful data processing - Dissemination via "internet" - Impossibility of identifying the place of commission of the crime - Supplementary criteria of Article 9 Code of Criminal Procedure - Applicability. The territorial jurisdiction for the crime of unlawful data processing carried out through "social networks," as referred to in Article 167 of Legislative Decree No. 196 of June 30, 2003, when the general rule of Article 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be applied due to the impossibility of identifying the place of data uploading and where they became accessible on the "web," is determined based on the supplementary criteria, considered progressively, from Article 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ultimately drawing from the residual one established by paragraph 3, which assigns jurisdiction to the judge in the location where the public prosecutor's office that first registered the news of the crime is based.
The Practical Implications of the Ruling
This ruling provides food for thought on the issue of jurisdiction in a global and interconnected context. Social networks, in fact, do not recognize geographical boundaries, and the flow of data can occur in real-time, complicating the determination of jurisdiction. Among the main practical implications of the ruling, the following can be highlighted:
- The need for greater regulatory clarity regarding territorial jurisdiction for cyber crimes.
- The importance of establishing protocols for the collection and preservation of evidence in cases of data breaches.
- A growing focus from judicial authorities on the use and protection of personal data.
Conclusions
In conclusion, Ruling No. 38511 of 2024 represents a significant step in recognizing and addressing the challenges related to territorial jurisdiction in crimes of unlawful data processing. With the continuous development of digital technologies, it will be essential for lawmakers and judicial authorities to adapt regulations and procedures to ensure effective protection of personal data and fair justice for the victims of these crimes. Only through a synergistic approach between law, technology, and the protection of fundamental rights will it be possible to tackle the challenges of the future.
