Annexes - volume I

Document Number
19062
Parent Document Number
16644
Document File
Document

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING
.flJRISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF THE STATE
(GERMANY V. IT ALV)
ANNEXES
TOTHE
J\tiEMORlAl,
OF THE
FEDERAL REPURLIC OF GERMANY
VOLUME 1
ANNEXES 1 - 15
12 JUNE 2009
Annex 1
Annex 2
Annex 3
Armex 4
Annex 5
Annex6
Annex 7
Annex 8
Annex 9
Annex 10
Armex 11
Anncx 12
Annex 13
Annex 14
Annex 15
Volume 1
Table of Contents
Corte di Cassazione, judgment No. 5044/2044, Ferrini, 11 March 2004,
87 (2004) Rivista di diritto internazionale 539; English translation:
128 ILR 659.
Joint Declaration by the Govemments of the Federal Republic of
Gennany and the Italian Republic, 18 November 2008.
Treaty ofPeace with Italy, 10 February 1947,49 UNTS 3, No. 747, Art.
77.
Abkommen über die Regelung gewisser vermogensrechtlicher,
wirtschaf1licher und finanzieller Fragen, 2. Juni 1961, BGB l. 1963 II,
669; Treaty on the Settlement of Certain Property-Related, Economie
and Financial Questions, 2 June 1961.
Vertrag über Leistungen zugunsten italienischer Staatsangehéiriger, die
von nationalsozialistischen VerfolgungsmaBnahmen betroffen worden
sind, 2. Juni 1961, BGB l. J 963 II, 793; Treaty Conceming
Compensation for Italian Nationals Subjected to National-Socialist
Measures of Persecution, 2 June 1961.
Italian Presidential Decree No. 2043, 6 October 1963.
Corte di Cassazione,judgmem, 30 October 1986/2 March 1987.
List of al! pen ding j udicial cases against Gem1any.
Areios Pagos. Pnfecture of Voiotia v. Federal Re public ofGermany,
judgment of 4 May 2000, English translation: 129 ILR 514.
Procura Generale della Repubblica pressa la Cmie di Cassazione,
submission of22 November 2007.
Secretary-General oftbe Presidency oftbe Italian Council ofMinisters,
letter of 24 April 2008 to the Avvocatura Generale dello Stato.
Avvocatura Generale dello Stato, submission to the Cmie di
Cassazione, 28 April 2008.
Corte di Cassazione, cases of Giovanni A1antelli and Liberato Maietta,
Orders, 29 May 2008.
Military Comi of La Spezia, case of Max JosefMilde, judgment of 10
October 2006.
Military Court of Appeals, Rome, case of .Max Josef Afilde, judgment of
18 December 2007.
Certification
The Goverrunent of the Federal Republic of Genmmy hereby certifies that the
documents contained in the annexes are true copies of the original documents and that
the translations int? any official language of t~ ... ourt provided by the Government of
the Federal Republlc of Germany are accurat~-
Berlin, 13 June 2009
Annex 1
Corte di Cassazione
judgment No. 5044/2044, Ferrini, 11 March 2004
87 (2004) Rivista di diritto internazionale 539
English Translation: 128 ILR, 659
GIURlSPRUDENZA ITALIANA 539
4, Applicando i principi espressi nel precedente paragrafo, si rileva che la
decisione impugnata ha liquidato come danno non patrimoniale, causato da un giudizio
di primo grado in cui essa ha ravvisato un ritardo ingiustificato di otto anni, la
somma di L. 1.000.000. La Corte europea, in due recenti decisioni emanate il 19
febbraio 2002 e relative a ri tardi della giustizia italiana, ha determinato l' equa soddisfazione
per il danno non patrimoniale ndla somma di Euro 10.000 pet un giudizio
di primo grado che è durato poco più di otto anni (Sardo c Italia) e nella
somma di Euro 8.000 per un giudlzio che è durato sette anni ed undici mesi (Donato
c. Italia).
La dedsione impugnata ha liquidato, quindi una somma che è meno di un decime
di quella accordata in casi simili dalla Corte europea, onde si ha, nel presente
caso, un divario analogo a queHo già censurato dalla Corte europea nella citata decisione
Scordino.
La Corte di appello, a giustificazione della riparazione· da essa effettuata, ha
fatto richiamo ad altre due prommzie dalla Corte europea del 19 febbraio 1991:
qudla sul caso Manzoni in cui è stata liquidata la somma di L. 1.000.000 per un
w.mpo di oltre sene anni e quella sul caso Pugliese in cui non è stata riconosduta
aicuna somma per un tempo di oltre cinque anni (essendosi la Corte limitata al riconosdmento
dell'avvenuta violazione). Va, pero, rilevato che, come ha esattamente
osservato il ricorrente, non vi è alcuna somiglianza tra i due casi rkhiamati ·dalla
dedsione impugnata e la situazione posta a base del presente giudizio, In dett1
due casi si tratta di processi pena1i protrattisl per più gradi di giudizio ed in cui
la Corte ha emanato decisioni non recenti, mentre vanno preferite come punti di
riferimento, in linea generale, decisioni recentî della Corre europea e, con riferimento
al caso di specie, pronunce su ritardi verificatisi in giudizi non penali kome
le due decisioni del 19 febbraio 2002 che si sono in precedenza qui richiamate).
Né la liquidazione esigua puà trovare giustificazione nella entità degli « interessi
in gioco » nd processo presupposro. Tale entità puà determina re una riduzione
significativa ddl'indennizzo, ma non puà ridurlo a meno di un decima di
quanto normalmente venga liquidato dalla Corte europea in casi simili.
5. In condusione, la decisione impugnata, aven do fissato un a riparazione del
da:nno non patrimoniale in misura notevolmente ed irragionevolmente difforme
dalla normativa della CEDU, per come essa vive riella giurisprudenza della Corte
di Strasburgo, è viziata per violazione di legge, onde essa va cassata.
La causa va rinviata alla Corte di appello di Roma, che, in diversa composizione,
determinerà nuovamente l'indennizzo da corrispondere a! ricorrente per la
dpa.tazione del danno non patrimoniale deriva~te. da: m.ancato rispetto del termine
ragionevole di du~at~ ?e! pro~esso, adeguandos1 a! enter! ~dott~ti in cas~ simili dalla
Corte europea del dmttt dell uomo, pure se con un margme dt valutaztone che sia
ragionevoled. · d' · · · · ' h ll d l · d' · d' II giu tee 1 nnvm si pronunz1era a ne e su e spese _ e gm IZlo 1 cassazione.
Giurisdiûone nei c~~fronti di Stat~ es.t~ro · ~zione di dsa.rdme~to per danni caussti
nell'esercu:w deUa potesta dt rmperiO • Conven:uone (h Bruxelles del 27
settembre 1968 suUa competenza giurisdszionaJe • Diritto internazionale contnsetudinario
• Immunità deUo Stato estero · Vio1azione grave e sistematica di
diritti fondamentali · Deportazione da territoti occup~tti in guerra e assogget-
540 GIURISPRUDENZA
tamento a favori forzati . C:rimini mternazionali • Limite all'immunità dello
Stato estero ft Giurisdizione universnle.
La Convenzione di Bruxelles del 27 settembre 1968 sulla competenza
giurisdizionale e il rt'conoscimento delle Jentenze straniere non si
applica ad azioni per il risarcimento di dan ni fonda ta su /atti commessi
dalla pubblica amministrazione nell' esercizio della propria potestà di
impe rio.
Una norrna consuetudinaria internazionale, operativa nel nostro
ordinamento in virtù dell'art. 10, 1° comma, Cast., impone agli Stati
di astenersi da tf esercitare il pote re giurisdizionale nei con/ronti di
Stati esteri.
Le norme di diritto internazionale genera/mente riconosciute che
tutelano la libertà e la dignltà della persona umana come valorz· fondamentali
e con/igurano quali crimini internazionali i comportamenti
che più gravemente attentano all'integrità di tati valori sono divenute
automaticamente parte integrante del nostro ordinamento.
Costituisce crimine internazt'onale la deportazione della popo/.au
zione civile da territori occupati duran te una guerra e l' assoggettamento
dei deportati a favori forzati, Ne! corso del seconda con/litto
mondiale tale condotta rispondeva ad una precisa strategia perseguita
dalla Germania.
L1 tutela dei diritti /ondamentali della persona umana è affidota
a norme inderogabili che prevalgono su agni altra norma internazionale,
convenzionale o consuetudinaria, e quindi anche sulle norme
in tema di immunità.
Lo Stato estero non puô giovarsi delrimmunità dalla giurisdizione
in relazione a domande dirette ad ottenere il risarcimento dei dmmi derivanti
dalla commt'ssione di crimini internazionali, data che i valori tutelati
hanno carattere essenziale per tintera comunità internazlonale.
In relazione ad una azione concernente danni derivanti da crimini
internazionali la giurisdiz.ione deve essere comunque individuata se~
condo i principi della giurisdizione universale.
CASSAZIONE (sez. un. civ.), 11 marzo 2004 n. 5044 - Pres. CARBONE,
est. MARZIALE; p.m. MARTONE (concl. cliff.) - Ferrini c. Repubblica
federale di Germania.
Svolgimento del proces.ro. - 1. Con atto notificato il 23 settembre 1998, il
signor Luigi Ferrini conveniva in giudizio, innanzi al Tribunale di Arezzo, la Repub-
GIUR1SPRUDENZA IT AUANA 541
blica federale di Germania, chiedendone la condanna al risardmento dei danni, paai.moniali
e non patrimoniali, subiti per essere stato càtturato in provinda di
Arezzo,il 4 agosto 1944, da forze militari tedesche e, quindi, deportato in GermanU~·
per essere utilîzzato presso imprese tedesche quale lavoratore « forzato ». Aggiungeva
1\more che la sua permanenza in un Lager di sterminio a Kahla, dove
La Rdmagh Werke (Reich MarschaH Hermann Gering Werke) e la Messerschmitt
cO&ttuivtmo aeroplani, missili e altre armi da guern!, si era protratta fino al 20 aprile
1945,
La parte convenuta eccepiva il difetto di giurisdizione dell'autorità giudiziaria
italiana e dichiarava di non accettare il contraddittorio sul merito della vicenda .
. L1. ll Tribunale, con sentenza del .3 novembre 2000, dichiarava il difetto di
giurisdizione del giudice ital.iano, sul rilievo che la domanda avanzata dall'attore
t'f'O'Vava il suo fondamento in fatti compiuti da uno Stato straniero nell'eserdzio
ddJg sua sovranitâ e che, pertant:o, la controversia era somatta alla cognizione dello
Stlito territoriale in base al prindpio della cd, immunità ristretta fondato sul diritto
mremazionale consuetudinario.
1,2. La Corte d'appcllo di Firenze respingeva l'appello del Ferrini, ribadendo
quanto già affermato dai Tribunale e osservando, in particolare, che il riconosdtnento
della giurisdizione del giudice italiano ne11a controversia in esame non
~bhe potuto trovare fondarnento:
· - neHa Convenzione concemente la competenza giurisdi.ziona!e e l'esecuzioo.e
delle decisioni in materia civile e commerciale, firmata a Bruxelles il 27 giugno
1968 (d'or~ innanzi: Co~venzione), ess~ndo escl~se .da1. s~o ambito ~i applicazione,
secondo il costante onentamento della Corte dt gmsttz1a, le matene attinenti
ali' esercizio di potestà pubbliche da parte di autorità statali;
_ e neppure ·nella Dichiarazione universale dei diritti dell'uomo, adottata
&ill'.Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite, essendo le sue disposizioni rivohe
(non agli individui, ma) agli Stati e prive di valere precettivo immediato,
1 J, TI Ferrini chiede 1a cassazione di tale sentenza con quattro rnotivi di ricorso,
illustrat:i con memoria. La Repubblica Federale di Germania resiste.
Motivi della decisione. - 2, Con il primo motivo il ricorrente - denun-
.zUmdo violazione e falsa applicazione degli articoli 1, 5, 3° comma, e 57 della Convcnzione
sulla competenza giudsdizionale in materia civile e commerda.Ie firmata a
Bruxdles il 27 settembre 1968 (d'ora innanzi: Convenzione) censura Ia sentenza impugnata
per aver negat? la .~i~ris?izi?n~ ?el.g!udic~ ital.iano senza considerare che
ne.IJ.a. spede erano applicabili 1 cnten dt mdtV1duaztone della competenza giurisdizi_ooale
stabiliti in detta Convenzione, posto che: .
_ la controversia intercorre tra un soggetto avente il proprio domicilie in
uno Stato contr.aente (l'I~alia) nei. co~fronti d~ -~~ altro Sta~o contraente. Oa Repubblica
federale d1 Germama) e, qumd1, per deflmzmne localizzato entro 1 runbito territoriale
di applicazione ~ella. C~nvenzione; . .
_ che la pretesa nsarcttona trova fondamento m fatu avvenuti nel terrïtorio
iWhm~ che, secondo i1 diritto italiano e tedesco, anche le domande risarcitorie
noi;te nei confronti di un ente pubblico hanno natura «civile»; pro,.-
542 GIURISPRUDENZA
-- che le disposizioni contenute nella Convenzione prevalgono su11e norme
internazionali di diritto consuetudinario e, quindi, anche sul prindpio sul quale si
fonda l'immunità dalla giurisdizione degli Stati stranieri;
-- che, in base al criterio stabiHto dall' artkolo 5 n. 3, <<in materia di delitti o
quasi delitti », il convenuto domiciliato in un altro Stato contraente puô essere citata
davanti al giudice dello Stato in cui l'eventa dannoso si è verificato, anche
quando si tratti di uno Stato contraente diverso da qudlo in cui il convenuto è domiciliato.

2.1. La censura, in taH termini formulata, è palesemente infondata.
Invero, la Convenzione {i cui contenuti sono ora assorbiti, salvo che per la
Danimarca> dai regolamento CE 44/01 emanato il 22 dicembre 2000 dal Consiglio
dell'UE), non è applicabile alle controversie relative ad attività che costituiscono
espressione della sovranità dei singoli Stati, come è stato chiadto a più riprese dalle
Corte di giustizia affermando, in tema di responsabilità della pubblica amministrazione,
che Ja pretesa risarcitoria del danneggiato assume carattere «civile» (e rienrra,
guindi, neil'ambito di applicazione della Convenzione) solo se è fondata su fatti
che non si a no stati commessi dalla pubblica amministrazione « neli 'esercizio della
sua potestà d'impero» (sentenze 21 aprile 1993, causa 171191; 16 dicembre
1980, causa 814/79; 14 ottobre 1976, causa 29/76).
3. L'infondatezza, per le ragioni indicate nel precedente paragrafo, della
censura formu1ata con il primo motiva, porta a ritenere assorbito il terzo motivo,
con il quale il rkorrente - denunziando violazione degli articoli 2 e 3 del Protocolla
aggiuntivo della Convenzione - si duole che la Corte territoriale non abbis
rimesso alla Corte di giustizia CE la questione interpretativa volta a chiarire se la
domanda di risarcimento proposta nei confronti della Germania nel ricorso rientri,
o meno, neil'ambito di operatività della Convenzione medesima.
Invero, anche quando la rimessione della questione alla Corte di giustizia è
obbligatoria (ma tale non era nel casa di spede, dal memento che ia Corte d'appeHo
non era chiamata a deddere quale giudice di ultima istanza e non ricorrevano,
guindi, !e condizioni per applicare il principio posto dail'art. 234, ultimo
comma, del Trattato CE), deve pur sempre considerarsi che l'obbligatorietà del
rinvio non 'è assoluta, in quanto esso dsponde all'esigenza di assicurare la corretta
e uniforme applicazione del diritto comunitario in tutti gli Stad membri e il giudice
(anche se di ultima istanza) puè quindi astenersi legittimamente da.l sottornettere
la questione interpretativa ail' esame deUa Corte di giustizia tutte le volte che
la sua soluzione si imponga con tale evidenza da non lasciare adito ad alcun ragionevole
dubbio (Corte di giustizia CE, 6 ottobre 1982, causa 283/81; 16 gennaio
1974, causa 166/73; 27 marzo 1963, cause dunite 28-30/62; Cassazione n, 10359/
96).
4. Con il secondo e il quarto motivo, tra loro strettamente connessi, il ricorrente
- denunziando violazione degH articoli 10 e 24 Cost. - censura la sentenu
impugnata per aver ritenuto:
- che il principio della immunità giurisdizionale degli Stati stranieri ha na·
tura e valore di principio generale di didtto internazionale consuetudinario;
- che detto principio puà operare anche in presenza della violazione di
norme di jus cogem e, in particoiare di quelle che attengono al ris petto della dignità
umana e dei diritti inviolabili della persona.
GlURISPRUDENZA IT AllAN A 543
5. Contrariamente a quel che mostra di ritenere il ricorrente, I'esistenza di
una norma consuetudinaria di diritto internazionale che impone agli Stati l'obbligo
di astenersi dall'eserdtare i1 potere giudsdizionale nei confronti degli Stati stranieri
ela sua operatività, nd nostro ordinamento, in virtù di quanto disposto dall'art. 10,
1 o comma, Cost., non sono revocabili in dubbio, anche se deve riconoscersi, come
si dirâ tra breve, che la portata di tale principio (che un tempo aveva carattere aswluto,
nel senso che accordava allo Stato straniero un'immunità totale, quale che
fossero la natura e l'oggetto della controversîa, rispetto alla giurisdizione dello Stato
territoriale) è andata e va progressivamente restringendosi (Cassazione, sez. un., nn.
5.30/00; 919/96; v. altresi, infra, § 10.1).
La censura è pertanto, sotte tale riguardo, chiaramente infondata.
6. Il suo esame, sotto l'altro profilo, richiede un più lungo discorso.
Con la già drata sentenza n. 530/00, questa Corte - chiamata a giudicare
della « nocività->> per l'incolumità fisica e la salute dei residenti, dell' attività di addestramento
di velivoli alla guerra, in funzione difensiva, effettuata in base alle previsione
del Trattato NATO dagli Stati Uniti d'America sul territorio italiano -
dopo aver ribadito che l'immunità dalla giurisdizione civile puo essere riconosduta
solo liroitatamente alle attività che costituiscano << estrinsecazione immediata e direrta.
» della sovranità di uno Stato estero, ha negato che la « potenziale incidenza
nega.civa >> di attività siffatte <<sui diritti fondamentali dell 'uomo >> po tesse assumere
<61: v.alore e porta ta discriminatoria » in ordine alla loro riconducibilità «alla sfera del
diritto pubblico » e alla ]oro idoneità «alla reaHzzazione dei fini istituzionali dello
Stato », predsando che «tale dàto » avrebbe consentito soltanto di affermare che
esse erano potenzia1mente nocive sotta i profili sopra indicati, ma non avrebbe consentito
di esdudere che si trattava di attività sovrane, sottratte, in quanto tali, al
potere di giurisdizione dello Stato terri.tor~ale .. Ouest? pet:ché l'attività di addestraroento
alla guerra delle forze armate ill funz10ne dsfenstVa « rappresenta un fine
pubblico ess~nzia~e ... d~ilo Stato » e, quindi, un' attività <dndefettibUmente e ontologicamente
zure tmperu ».
6. L Nella stessa ottica sembra porsi la sentenza pronunciata il 15 dicembre
199.5 dalla Corte suprerna d'Irlanda nel caso McElhinney.
L'Inghilterra era stata convenuta in giudizio da un cittadino della Repubblica
d'Irlanda davanti ai giudici di quel Paese per rispondere dei danni subiti a causa di
. uno « shock post-traumatico » causatogll da un miHtare inglese in servizio al confine
tra la Repubblica d'Irlanda e I'Irlanda del Nord. A1 passaggio della frontiera, l'auoovettura
del sig, McElhinney aveva unato il miHtare, che aveva reagito inseguendolo
anche oltre la linea di confine ed esplodendo alcuni colpi di arma da fuoco,
tre dei quali in territorio irlandese.
Dopo avedo raggiunto, il militare gli aveva puntato contro l'arma, premendo
il grilletto, che si e~a pero ince~pato.. , . ,.
La Corte ha r!tenuto che 1 Inghilterra potesse beneflctare dell1mmunità dalla
giurisd~i~n~, osservando ch~ il mil_itare ~veva. agito n~ll.'~s~rcizio di pot.eri inerenti
all'attivtta dt controllo sulla lmea dt confme, nconductbih, 1n quanto tah, all'eserdzio
della sovranità dello Stato convenuto, Questa impostazione è stata fatta propria,
con la sen~enza 21 novembre .2001, McElhi~ney ~·. lreland, dalla Corte europea dei
diritti dell uomo (alla quale l attore aveva tatto !!corso assumendo che Ia Repubblica
d'Irlanda, dedinando la propria giurisdizione, gli aveva preduso la possibilità
di tutelare il suo diritto in via giudiziaria, vio1ando l'art. 6, par. 1, della Con ven-
544 GUJRISPRUDENZA
zione sulla salva.guardia dei diritti dell'uomo), ma sulla base di considerazioni che,
com.e si preciserà in seguito, non possono essere condivise (infra, § 10.1).
7. n problema che viene in consîderazione nel presente giudizio è profondamente
diverso.
Che gli atti a suo tempo compiuti dalla Germania, sui quali si radica la pretesa
avanzata dal Ferrini, fossero espressione della sua potestà d'impero, non è invero
revocabile in dubbio, trattandosi di atti posti in essere nel corso di opera.zioni bdliche.
n problema che si pone, infatti, è quello di accertare se l'immunità dalla giurisdizione
possa operare anche in presenza di comportamenti che, a differenza di
quelli considerati nel precedente paragrafo, assumono connota ti di es trema· gravità.,
configurandosi, in forza di norme consuetudinarie di diritto internazionale, quali
crimini intemazionali, in quanto lesivi di valori universali che trascendono gli interessî
delle singole comunità statali (v. infta, § 9).
7 .1. La circostanza che tali comportamenti si inserissero nello svolgimento di
operazioni belliche pone peraltro una questione prelim1nare.
Con ordinanza n. 8157/02 queste sezioni unite hanno infatti statuiw che gli
atti compiuti dallo Stato nella conduzione di ostilità belliche si sottraggano ad ogni
sindacato giurisdizionale, costituendo espressione di una funzione di << indirizw politico
», rispetto alla quale «non è configurabile una situazione di interesse protetto
a che gli atti in cui detta funzione si manifesta assumano o meno un determinato
contenuto ». In applicazione di detto principio è stato dichiarato il difetto di giurisdizione
su una domanda di risardmento proposta nei confronti della Presidenza
del Consiglio e del Ministero della difesa dell 'Italia per 1' awenuta distruzione,
nel corso delle operazioni aree della NATO contro la Repubblica federale di Jugoslavia,,
di un obiettivo non militare, e al conseguente decesso di alcuni civili.
E agevole pero osservare, da un lato, che Pinsindacabilità delle modalità di
svolgimento delle attività di suprema direzione della cosa pubb!ica non è di ostacolo
al1' accertamento degli even tu ali rea ti commessi nel corso del loro esercizio e
delle conseguenti responsabilità, sia sul piano penale che su quello civile (articoli
90 e 96 Cost.; art. 15 L cost. n. 1/1953; art. 30 L n. 20/1962); dall'altro, che, in
forza del principio di adattamento sancito dall'art. 10, 1° comma, della nostra Cam
costituzionale, le norme di dîritto internazionale « generalmente riconosciute » che
tutelano Ia libertâ e la dignità delia persona umana come valori fondamentali e ronfigurano
come << crimini intemazionali » i comportamenti che più gravemente attentano
all'integrità di ta!i valori, sono divenute « automaticamente » parte integnmte
del nostro ordinamento e sono, pertanto, pienamente idonee ad assumere il ruolo
di para.metro dell'ingiusdzia del danno caus~to da un << fatto » doloso o colposo altrui.

È quindi evidente che i prindpi contenuti in deua pronuncia non possono venire
in considerazione nd caso di specie.
7 2. Come si è riferito (retro, § 1), i fatti posti a fondamente della doman~
risardtoria avanzata dal ricorrente si erano concretati nella sua cattura e nella sua
deportazione in Germania per essere milizzato quale «mano d'opera non volontaria
» al servizio di imprese tedesche.
Alla stregua della ris. 95-I dell'll dicembre 1946, con la quale l'Assemble~
generale delle Nazioni Unite « confermo » i principi di diritto internazionale dello
Statuto e della sentenza del Tribunale militare internazionale di Norimberga, sia
GIURISPRUDENZA IT ALlAN A 545
la deportazione che l' assoggettamento ai lavori forzati dovevano esse re an novera ti
tta i « crimini di guerra >> e, quindi, rra i crimini di diritto intemazionale.
Nello Sta.tuto, finnato a Londra 1'8 agosto 1945, si predsava, infatti, che la
01regoria dei « crimini di guerra » comprende anche «la deportazione per costringet;e
ad eseguire l!ivori forzati » (art. 6, lett. b)).
Nd.la sentenza pronunciata dal Tribunale di Norimberga il 30 settembre
1946, si poneva in evidenza che un comportamento siffatto costituiva violazione
"".flagrante» della Convenzione relativa alle leggi e agli usi ddla guerra terrestre, sti~
pulata a V Aja il 18 ottobre 1907, il cui regolamento allegato stabiliva che servizi
agU <(( abitanti » possano essere imposti alla popolazione civile {soltanto) << per le ne-
œssità dell'esercito di occupazione» (art. 52), esdudendo pertanto che prestazioni
siffatte potessero essere richieste per fini diversi. L'applicabilità di quest'ultima disposizione
era stata con~estata dalla difesa degli imputati, la qual~ si era richiamata
alr art. 2 della Convenztone, facendo presente che tale Convenztone non era stata
sottoscritta da alcuni Stati belligeranti. L'obiezione fu pero superata dai Tribunale
osserva.ndo che nel 1939 (e, quindi, prima deil'inizio del conflitto) le « regole >> da
essa · stabilite erano riconosciute e accettate da tutte le nazioni civili ed avevano
qumdi assunto la forza e il valore di norme consuetudinarie.
7.3. La configurazione come « crimine intemazionale » della deportazione e
ddl'as.soggettamento dei deportati allavoro forzato trova confenna sia nei prindpi
di diritto internazionale adottati nel giugno 1950 della Commissione di diritto intero.azionale
delle Nazioni Unite (prindpio VI); sia nelle risoluzioni del Consiglio di
sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite 25 maggio 1993 n. 827/93 e 8 novembre 1994
n. 955194, con le quali sono stati adottati, rispettivamente, lo Statuto del Tribunale
penale internaz~onale per 1~ ex J ugoslavia {artic_oli ~ C: 5) e lo Statuto d~l Tribunale
penale intemazmnale per il Ruanda (art. 3 ); sta, mfme, nella Convenzwne con la
quale è stata istituita 1~ Cor:e pe~ale inter?~zion~Ie, sottoscritt~ a ~orna il 17 luglio
1998 da ben 1.39 Stat1 (del quali 120 ratiftcanu) ed entrata m vtgore il 1° luglio
2002 (artkoli 7 e 8).
7 A. Anche a voler prescindere da quel che si afferma nella sentenza rkhiam.sta
nd precedente paragrafo, non è quindi revocabile in dubbio che si sia al rigwil'do
formata una norma di diritto consuetudinario di portata generale per tutti
i componenti della comunità internazionale.
La gravità di tali crimini è stara del resto riconosduta dalla stessa Germania
che, prendendo atto. delle sofferenze inflitte dallo St.ato ~azista a quanti furono depo~Uti
e assoggettatl al « l~v~ro_ coatto ». e facendost can~o della relativa responsabilicl
polltic~ e mo:a!e~ ha tstlt~!to.' con il concors~) delle tmprese ~edesche che ave-
0 benefictato d1 ta11 prestazaom «non volon ta ne>>, una fondazwne, denominata
v~erooria) responsabilità e futuro», allo scopo di mantenere vivo il ricordo dell'ac-
« duto e di assicurare alle vittime un indennizzo (legge 2 ago~to 2000, Bundesgeretz-
~~tt, 2000, I, p. 1236~, subor~in~do P.e~~tr.o .l'individuazione degli << aventi di-
'tto » alla ricorrenza d! determmat1 reqmstt1 {wi, art. 11),
n Quest'ultima legge assume rilievo anche sotto un ulteriore profilo, in quanto
conferma che. i fa~t~ post.i dal ri~orrente a fondamente de~a propria pretesa non co-
'tuivano ep1Sodl 1solat1, ma rlspondevano ad una prec1sa strategta perseguita in
:dl'epoca, con ferma determinazione, dello Stato tedesco.
8. La Corte suprema di Grecia ha esduso che possa fruire dell'immunità
dalla giurisdizione civile uno Stato straniero (anche in quel caso si trattava della
546 GHJlliSPRUDENZA
Germania) in relazione ad un giudizio promosso da dttadlni gred per ottenere il
risardmento dei dannl subiti a causa di atti gravemente lesivi dei diritti umani
{erano state ucdse per rappresaglia drca duecen.to persone che non avevano alcun
rapporto, diretto o indiretto, con le operazioni militari) cornpiuti in territorio greco
dalle sue truppe di occupazione duran te la· seconda guerra mondiale (sentenza n.
11/2000, Pre/ettura di Voiotia c. Repubblica federale di Germam·a).
La Corte ha fatto anzitutto ricorso ail' art. 11 della Convenzione europea sull'immunità
degii Stati, stipulata il 16 maggio 1972, il quale nega che lo Stato possa
invocare l'immunità dalla giurisdizione civile quando sia convenuto in giudizio davanti
all'autorità giudiziaria di uno Stato straniero con una pretesa risarcitoria fondata
su un illedto cornmesso nei territorio soggetto alla sua sovranità.
Seconde qud che si affenna nella sentenza in esame, tale regola varrebbe anche
per gli illeciti cemmessi nell'eserdzio di un'attività d'impero e sarebbe espressione
di un prindpio di natura consuetudinaria, efficace, in quanto tale, anche rispetto
ai paesi che, come la Grecia, non hanno settoscritto la Convenzione.
8.1. Il richiamo a tale disposizione non è stato pero ritenuto risolutivo, in
quanto i giudici si sono fatti cariee dell'obiezione che poteva essere tratta dall'art.
31, in cui si precisa che il campo di applicazione della Convenzione non si estende
alla disciplina delle situazionl che possono determinarsî in caso di cont1itto annato.
· E hanno ritenuto di poterla superare, affermando che la violazione di norme imperative
poste a tutela dei didtti fondarnentali della persona umana irnplica rimmcia ai
benefici (e ai privilegi) accordati dal diritto internazionale, e che doveva quindi ri~
tenersi che la Germania, rendendosi responsabile di quei crimini, avesse rinunciato
implidtamente all'irnmunità.
8.2. Ma è agevole replicare che non vi è atto il quale presupponga necessariamente
una determi.nata volontà. Una rinunzia non puô quindi essere ipotizzata in
astratto, ma solo riscontrata in concreto, se i fatti accertati consentono di qualificare
un determinato contegno come « abdicativo >>. Del resto, appare improbabile che
colui che si rende colpevole di violazioni cosî gravi intenda rinundare a1 benefido
che gli deriva dall'immunità giurisdizionale, trattandosi di prerogativa che (se non
impedisce del tutto) rende certamente phi difficile l'accertamento della sua responsabilità.

8.3. Se I'argomento addotto non puo dirsi, pertanto, pienarnente persuasivo,
la condusione alla quale !a Corte greca è pervenuta merita invece di essere pierramente
condivisa, anche se per ragioni diverse da quelle appena esposte.
9. È ricorrente l'affermazione che i crirnini internazionaH « minacciano I'umanità
intera e rninano le fondamenta stesse della coesistenza inrernazionalc » (cosi,
ad es. Corte costituzionale di Ungheria, sent. n. 5311993). Si tratta, infatti, di delitti
'che si concretano nella violazione, partkolarmente grave per intensità o sistematicità
(arg. ex art. 40, 2° comma, del progetto sulla responsabilità internazionJÙ~ ~~
Stati, adottato nell' agosto del 2001 dalla Commissione di diritto intetflaiig!}~tf 4e!·
l'ONU), dei diritti fondarnentali della persona umana, la cui tutda ~ >~fûdà~~ tl
norme inderogabili che si collocano al vertice dell'ordinamento internazionale, prevalendo
su ogni altra norma, sia di carattere convenzionale che consuetudinario
(Tribunale penale per la ex Jugoslavia, 10 diœmbre 1998, Furundzija, paragrafi
153-155; 14 gennaip2000, Kupreskiê, par. 520; Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo,
GIURISPRUDENZA ITAUANA 547
21 novembre 2001, Al-Adsani c. Regno Unito, par. 61) e, quindi, anche su quelle in
tenn di immunità.
Per questo ne è stata sandta l'imprescrittibilità (Convenzione ONU del26 novembre
1968; Convenzione del Consiglio d'Europa del 25 gennaio 1974) e si è riconosduto
che ogni Stato puo reprin1erli, indipendentemente dalluogo in cui sono
stati commessi, secondo i prindpi della giurisdizione universale (sentenza Furundtija,
paragrafi 155 e 156): in alcuni casi la loro repressione è stata anzi prevista
come obbligatoria (cosi, in partkoiare, l'art. 146 della IV Convenzione di Ginevra,
relativa alla protezione delle persone civili in tempo di guerra). Per la stessa ragione,
non si dubita che il prindpio della universalitii della giurisdizione valga anche
per i processi dvili che traggono origine da tali reati.
Va poi consolidandosi il convincimento che violazioni cosi gravi debbano
comportare, anche rispetto agli Stati, una reazione qualitativamente diversa (e più
severa) di quella stabilita per gli alrri iHedti. In Hnea con tale tendenza, nella sentenza
da ultimo ricordata si afferma che gli Stati rimasti estranei all'illecito hanno il
dovere di non riconoscere le situazioni determinate daHa sua commissione {ivi, par.
15.5). E, sempre in questa prospettiva, il progetto sulla responsabilità internazionale
degli Stad, dt., « vieta » agli Stati di prestare akun aiuto o assistenza al mantenimento
delle situazioni originate dalla violazione e li « obbliga » a concorrere, con
mezzi 'legittimi, alla cessazione ddl'attività illedta (art. 41).
9.1. . 11 rkonoscimento dell'immunità dalla giurisdizione in favore degli Stati
che si siano resi responsabili di tali misfatti si pone in palese contrasto con i dati
oormativi appena ricordati, poiché detto riconoscimento, lungi dai favorire, ostacola
la tutela di valori, la cui protezione è da considerare invece, alla stregua di taU
nonne e principi, essenziale per l'intera Comunità internazionale, tanto da giustifice.re,
nelle ipot:esi più gravi, anche forme di reazione obbligatorie. E non puô esservi
dubbio che l'antinomia debba essere risolta dando prevalenza alle norme di
rango phi elevato, come puntualizzato nelle opinioni dissidenti espresse dai giudid
di minoranza (otto contra nove) allegate alla sentenza Al-Adsani (retro, § 9}: quindi,
esdudendo che, in ipotesi siffatte, Io Stato passa giovarsi dell'immunità della giurisdizione
straniera. In questa prospettiva sembra coilocarsi la sentenza Furund:t.l}a
(/oc. ult. dt.), che annovera tra gli effetti della violazione di norme di questo tipo,
operanti <~a H~eilo interstatal.e »: la. possi?ili.tà, per le vittime,. di « avviare un' azione
civile di nsarnmento davant1 a1 tnbunah d1 uno Stato stramero ».
92. Non vale opporre che tale deroga al prindpio deU'immunità non è
espressamente yrevista da aku~a norma (~osi, ad es., ol~re la sentenza Al-Adsani,
par. 61; Supeno~ Court o.f Justice - Ontano (Canada), 1 maggie 2002, Hmt.rhang
J)ouzari v. Islamrc Repu bite of Iran, par. 6.3 ).
Il rispetto dei diritti inviolabili della persona un1ana ha invero assunta, ormai,
il valore di principio fondamentale dell'ordinarnento internazionale (in t:Ù senso, oltre
alle sentenze già rkordate, Corte internazionale di giustizia, 9 aprile 1949, Regno
Unit~ c . . Albania; 27 giugno 1 ~86, A~tività :ni li tari .e ~a~amilitari i~ Nicaragua
e contro tl Ntcaragua, par. 219). E 1 emersJOne dt tale prmc1p10 non puo non rillettersi
sulla portata degli altri prindpi ai quali tale ordinamento è tradizionalmente
.ispirato ~· ~ parli~olare, di que_llo sull.a, « sovrana ugu~gli~n~a .>:> degli Stati, cui si
ricollega il nconosc1mento delia 1mmumta statale dalla gmnsdlztone civile straniera.
Le norme giuridiche non vanno infatti interpretate le une separatarnente dalle
altre, poiché si completano e si integrano a vicenda, condizionandosi reciproca-
. roenre nella loro applicazione (sentenze Al-Adsani, cit, par. 55; AicE!hinney, ciL,
548 GIUIDSPRUDENZA
par. 36). Qùeste decisioni fanno spedfico riferimento alle norme convenzioruili. Ma
non vi è dubbio che criteri analoghi valgono per l'interpretazione di quelle ronsuetudinarie,
che, non diversamente dalle altre, sono inserite iri un sistema e possono,
pertanto, essere correttamente intese solo se poste in rdazione alle altre norme che
fanno parte integrante dello stesso ordine giuridko (cosi ad es., Dichiarazione universale
dei diritti dell'uomo, adottata dall' Assemblea ONU il 10 dicembre 1948, art.
30),
10. Questa Corte è consapevole che, anche di recente, si è affem1ato die gli
Stati hanno il diritto di avvalersi deli'immunità dalla giurisdizione pur in presenza
di domande dirette ad ottenere il risarcimento dei danni derivati dalla comm.issione
di crimini internazionali. Si tratta, pero, di dedsioni che riguardano casi nci quali
l'illecito era stato commesso in uno Stato diverso da quello del foro (cos!, in particolare,
oltre le sentenze relative ai casi Al-Adsani e Houshang Bouzari, retro, § 9.2.,
la sentenza 24 marzo 1999 della House of Lords, nel caso Regina v. Bow Street Metropolitan
Stipendiary Magistrate and others, ex parte Pinochet; con particolare rife.
rimento all'opinione espressa da Lord Hutton, il quale ebbe a rilevare inddentalmente
(il giudizio riguardava i.nfatti u.na persona fisica: il generale Pinochet) che
il Cile, pur dovendo ritenersi responsabile sul piano internazionale dei crimini commessi
durante il suo regime, avrebbe potuto opporre l'immunità se la domanda risardtoria
fosse stata proposta innanzi a un giudice inglese} e, quindi, non pie.namente
coincidenti con la situazione che viene in considerazione nel presente giudi-
?Jo, caratterizzata, come si è giù posto in rilievo, dalla drcostanza che l'azione cri·
minosa era iniziata nel paese in cui il giudizio è stato instaurato e si era configurata,
già in queU'ambito territoriale, come crimine internaziona1e (retro, §§ 1, 6.2, 6.3).
Le considerazioni contenute in dette sentenze non sono comunque tali da infirmare
la validità delle condusioni esposte nei §§ 9.1. e 9.2. Esse si compendiamo,
infatti, nell'assunto (implicitamente tibadito dalla Corte di Strasburgo anche con la
dedsione 12 dicembre 2002, Kalogeropoulou e altri c. Grecia e Germania, che peraltro
aveva specifico riferimento all'immunità dalla giurisdizione esecutiva, diversa
pertanto da quella che viene in considerazione ncl presente giudizio) che solo un'espressa
previsione normativa potrebbe giustificare una deroga al prindpio dell'immunità
glurisdizionale, ma tale affermazione, per quanto si è detto, non puo essere
condivisa.
10.1. L'opinione esposta nei precedenti paragrafi deve essere quindi tenuta
ferma.
T anto più che, in tema di responsabilità da fat ti illeciti, la prassi va evolvendosi
verso l'adozione di un criterio diverso da quello fondato sulla distinzione tra
atti iure imperii e iure geslionù, la cui inadeguatezza rispetto a tai genere di contro~
versie è stata del resto segnalata in dottrina.
Cio emerge con chiarezza dalle sentenze relative ai casi Al-Adsam· e Houshang
Bouzari, pronundate rispettivamente in Inghilterra e ln Canada (retro, § 9, 9.2.). Da
esse si desume, infatti, che i giudici, pur in presenza di torture commesse d1l agenti
e funzionari di polizia su persone tradotte in carcere (e, come tali, ricondudbili all'esercizio
della potestà d'impero}, hanno att:ribuito rilievo determinante, ai fini del
rkonosdmento dell'immunità dalla giurisd.izione in favore dello Stato straniero, lllla
circostanza che in entrambi i casi l'illedto era stato commesso in uno Stato diverso
da quello nd quale il processo era st:ato instaurato.
In effetti, seconda le norme vigenti sia in Inghilterra che in Canada l'opponi·
bûità ddl'immunità dalla giurisdizione civile da parte dello Stato estero, rclativll·
GIURISPRUDENZA ITALIANA 549
mente alle controversie aventi ad oggetto domande dsardtorie per danni alla persona
o alle cose, è regolam seconda tale diverso criterio.
La sez. 5 dello State lmmunity Act of 1978 esdude, infatti, che l'immunità
possa essere opposta peri danni « caused by an act or omission in the United Kingdom,.,
Analoga è l'impostazione dello State Imtmmity Act del Canada, che del pari
nega :il beneficia dell'immunità quando la domanda risarcitoria riguardi danni « that
occurs in Canada» (sez. 6). Ed è importante rilevare che a princip! non diversi si
iipirano sia la Convenzione europea sull'immunità degli Stati, dt. (retro, § 8), entmta
in vigo re 1' 11 giugno 197 6 e ratificata fi no a questo momento da otto Stati,
tra i quali la stessa Inghilterra; sia 1e legisla:zioni interne di alcuni Paesi, tra i quali,
oltre al Canada, gli Stati Uniti d'America (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of
1976, sez. 1605,5), il Sud Afrka (Foreign States Immunity Act o/1981, sez. 3), l'Au-
5tta!ia (Foreign States Immunüy Act of 1985) che non hanno sottoscritto tale Convenzione;
sia, infine, l'art. 12 de1 progetto di convenzione suU'immunità giurisdizionale
degli Stad e delle 1oro proprietà, redatto dalla Commissione di diritto intemazronale
ddl'ONU.
Contrariamente a quel che si afferma nella sentenza pronunciata il 21 novembre
2001 dalla Corte europea dei diritti deU'uomo nel caso McElhinney, 1'orientamento
espresso dalle norme passate in rassegna non riguarda soltanto i danni derivanti
ds atti estra.nei all'esercizio della sovranità dello Stato straniero. La Corte ha
bMato il proprio convincimento su un passa del rapporto esplicativo della Commissiooe
di diritto internazionale al progetto di convenzione ONU sulle immunità, in
cui si afferma che il dtato art. 12 si riferirebbe « essenzialmente » ai d.anni « asskurabili»,
vale a dire a quelli derivanti dall'ordinada drcolazione dei veicoli (sentenza
ult. dt., par. 38). Ma tale affermazione, come viene posta in evidenza nella << opiruone
dissidente» dei giudici Callisch, Cabral Barreto e Vajié, è inserita in un
più ampio contesta, ~d qua1e si, precisa che la der?ga al pri?cipio. dell'immunit:à,
~rabilita dalla norma m esame, ncomprende anche 1 danm « mtenzwnali >> e quelli
derivsnti da reato, non esdusi l'omicidio e l'assassinio politico, aggiungendo (e la
puntuafu:zazione, ru fini che qui interessano, è risolutiva) che la distinzione tra atti
commessi iure imperii e atti posti in essere iure gestionis non assume alcun valore
rispetto alle pretese risardtorie originate da « auentati a!l'integrità fisica di una persona»,
ovvero dalla perdita o dalla 1esione di un bene « corporale ».
Dette disposizioni, come è riconosciuto anche dalla difesa della parte resistcnte
(controricorso, p. 9), denotano quindi una tendenza al superamento della
tooria dell'immunità ristretta. Amd, secondo quel che si afferma nella sentenza
Voiotia il criteria da esse espr~sso avrebbe ormai assunto il valore di una norma
consuet:udinaria (retro, § 7). E comunque ceno che la loro presenza impeclisce
che il critedo fondato sulla na tura dell' atto lesivo possa essere considera ta an cora
di portata generale,
10.2. Un riscontro ulteriore del progressive attenuarsi della rilevanza di tale
criterio rispetto alle controversie aventi ad oggetto pretese risarcitorie fondo:ue su
illeciti puô cogliersi (come rilevato nd rapporto redatto il 6 luglio 1999 dai Gruppo
di htvoro della Commissione di diritto internazionale sulle immunità degli Stati, ivi,
ap~did, S§ 9-1?) ne~'e~e~damen~o apporta~o nd 1996 al.Foreign Sovereign Immunities
Act degli Statl Umtl. Esso, mfatu, aggmnge un ultenore caso di esdusione
de.fi'jnunuriità dalla giurisdizione degli Stati stnmieri a quelli già contemplati dalla
sez. 1605 del Foreign Sovereign Immunites Act, riguardante le pretese dirette ad ottenere
il risarcimento dei danni subiti a causa di lesioni personali o della morte de-
550 GIURISPRUDENZA
terminate da «tortura, assassinio, sabotaggio di aereo, presa di ostaggi » (sez. 221,
Anti-Terrorism and Ef/ectit;e Death Penalty Act).
L'ambito di applicazione di tale emendamento è circoscritto, pokhé la de~
roga vale solo per gli Stati individuati dal Dipartimento di Stato degli Stati Uniti
come «sponsor» del terrorismo. Proprio per questo sono state manifesta te riserve
in ordine alla sua introduzione, sul rilievo che la creazione di una categoria di
Stati privi di prerogative riconosdute in favore di tutti gli ahri componenti della
comunità internazionaie (e, per giunta, su determinazione unilaterale dl un singolo
Paese) non sembra conciliarsi con il principio di «sevran a eguaglianza » degli
Stati, il quale implica che questi ultimi siano giuridicamente eguali e possano operare
nei loro reciprod rapporti in condizioni di perfetta parità, usufruendo di tutti
i diritti inerenti alla Ioro « piena sovranitâ >> (Dichiarazione ONU sulle rda.zioni
amichevoli ela cooperazione tra gli Stati, approvata dail'Assemblea ONU il 24 ottobre
1970).
Non è difficile, tuttavia, cogliere in tale norma una conferma del dlievo prioritario
che, in presenza di attività delittuose di particolare gravità, viene ormai attribuito
alla tutela dei diritti fondamentali della persona umana rispetto alla protezione
dell'interesse dello Stato al riconosdmento della propria irnmunità dalla giurisdizione
straniera anche in paesi, come gli Stati Uniti, tenaci assertori, fino ad un
recente passato, della teoria dell'imrnunitii assoluta. Tanta più significativa ove si
consideri che il prindpio in essa emmciato è stato già posto a fondamento di numerose
dedsioni: alla fine del 2001 enmo almeno dodid le sentenze di condanna
pronundate da corti degli Stati Uniti nei confronti di Stati stranieri (Alejimdre v.
Republic o/ Cuba, del 17 dkembre 1997; Flotow v. Islamt'c Republic o/ Iran dell'n
marzo 1998; Cicippio v. lslamic Republic of Iran, del 27 agosto 1998; Anderson v.
lslomi'c Republic of Iran, del 24 marzo 2000; Eùenfeld v. Islamic Republic o/ Iran,
dell'll luglio 2000; Higginr v. Is!amic Republic of Iran, del 21 settembre 2000; Sutherland
v. lslamic RepubNc of Iran, del 25 giugno 2001; Polhill v. Islamic Republic
of Iran, del 23 agosto 2001; Wagner v. Islamic Republic of Iran, del 6 novembre
2001; Mousa v. lslamic Republic of Iran, del19 settembre 2001; Jenco v. Islizmic Republic
o/lran del 2001; Daliberti v. hlamic Republic oflran del 5 dicembre 2001),
delle quali tre risalenti ad epoca anteriore alla data di instaurazione del présente
giudizio (23 settembre 1998). A tati sentenze devono essere poi aggiunte le ordinanze
prmmnziate, il 26 febbraio 1998, dalla Corte distrettuale di New York e,
il 15 dicembre 1998, dalla Corte d'appeHo del 2° drcuito che, sempre in applicazione
dello stesso principio, hanno affermato la giurisdizione dei giudici statunitensi
in relazione al caso Rein tf Ubya, relativo all'attentato di Lockerbie.
11. Un'ulüma considerazione. È armai padfico che, in presenza di crimini
internazionaH, l'immunità funziona!e degli organi dello Stato estero non puô essere
invocata.
La normativa convenzionale è, a tale dguardo, inequivoca (cos!, da ultimo,
l'art. 27 dello Stat:uto della Corte penale internazionale, che ribadisce un principio
già presente nello Statuto del Tribunale di Norimberga e in quelli del Tribunale penale
per la ex Jugoslavia e per il Ruanda, retro, § 6.3.). Per quel che dguarda la
prassi giudiziaria è suffidente richiamare .la sentenza della Corte suprema di Isracle
29 maggie 1962, sul caso Eichmann, quelle pronunziate negli Stati Uniti, il 30 maggia
1980, dalla Corte d' appello federale dd secondo circuito nd caso Ft'lartiga v.
Pefia-Irala, il 12 aprile 1995 dalla Corte distrettuale del Massachussets nd caso
Xuncax v. Gram a jo e il 18 aprile 1998 dalla Corte distret:tuale di New York nd caso
GIUIUSPRUDENZA ITALIANA 551
Cabri v. Assa.rie Guimah, tutte concordi nell'esdudere che detta immunità passa asswnere
rilievo quando siano stad commessi crimini internazionalL
L'immunità funzionale; seconda l'opinione prevalente, costituisœ specificazione
di queUa che compete agli Stati, poiché risponde all'esigenza di impedire
che il divieto di convenire in giudizio lo Stato straniero possa essere vanificato
agenda nei confronti della persona mediante la quale la sua attività si è estemata.
Ma. se il rilievo è esatto, come sembra a questa Corte, deve ailora convenirsi con
quanti affermano che se l'immunità funziona!e non puà trovare applicazione, perché
l'atto compiuto si configura quale crimine internazionrue, non vi è alcuna valida
ragione per tener ferma l'immunità dello Stato e per negare, conseguentemente, che
la sua responsabilità possa essere fatta valere davami all'autorità giudiziaria di uno
Stato straniero.
12. Tutto ciô conferma che la RepubbHca federale di Germania non ha il
diritto di essere rkonosciuta, nella presente controversia, immune dalla giurisdizionc
dei giudice italiano, la cui giurisdizione deve essere quindi dichiarata. E
che tale situazione, a livello normative, si era già determinata quando il presente
giudizio è stato ~sta~rato (~3 se~tem~re ! 998).. .
. Si è posto m evadenza che 1 fattt sw quall s1 fonda la domanda si sono verificati
anche in Itali~L Ma è appena il casa di rilevare che, essendo essi qualificabili
come crimini internazionali, la giurisdizione andrebbe comunque individuata seconda
i prindpi della giurisdizione universale (retto, § 9),
Ogni questione reiativa all'esistenza del diritto fatto valere dal ricorrente e alla
proponibilità della domanda rimane naturalmente impregiudicata (art. 386 cod.
proc. civ.).
Il ricorso deve essere pertanto accolto e la sentenza impugnata cassata, con
conseguente rinvio al Tribunale di Arezzo, che provvederà anche alla liquidazione
delle spese della presente fase,
658 ITALY (COURT OF CASSATION)
State immunity ----~ Jurisdktiona1 immunity- Claim by individual
again~tt foreign State for persona! injury- Deportation to forced
labour by German occupying forces during Second World War -
Violation of rules of jus cogens- "Whethe.r g.rave violations of
human rights preduding reiiance on State immunity under
cu.stomary international law - European Convention on
St:ate Immunitv, 1972, Artides l1 and 31- ~'hetlu::r entitlement
to .rely on imm.unity preserved for acts of armed forces- Whether
comnùssion of grave violations of human rights automatically
implying wa.iver of immunit-y by State
International criminallaw- VVar c.rimes - Deportation to forced
labour -- Article 6(b) of Charter and Judgment of Nuremberg
International Military Tribunal Provisions of Hague
Convention, 1907, and Geneva Convention, 1929 - ';;:::Thether
recogitized as dedaratory of customary international law prior to
outbreak of Second World War - Categorization of deportation
toforced labour as international crime- Confirmation in Statutes
c-f lntemational Criminal Tdbunals for Former Yugoslavia and
Rwanda and Statute of International Criminal Court, 1998
Rdationshi.p of intemational law and munlcipal law - Crimes
aga:inst international iaw - Customary international law -
]t~:risdictional immunity of foreign States for acts performed jure
impe1-ii -- International crimes involving serious violations of
· fundamental human rights -L Claims for damages hy individuals
for loss and injury arising from commission of such crimes -
VThether States entitled to rely on immunity- Practice of national
and intemational tribunals --- \Vhetber conclusive -Wh ether fact
that acts performed jure imperii relevant -----Wh ether priority now
accorded to protection of fundamental rights of indi..,iduals over
right of States to jurisdictional immunity- \Vhether any parallel
between functional immunity of State organs and immu.nity of
States
War and armed conflict - Conduct of military operations
-~ Whether choice of method of conducting hostilities
justiciable-\\lb ether nou-justiciability preventing examination of
possible commission of war crimes against individu ais- The law of
Ital y
FERRINI v, FEDERAL REI'tJBLlC Of GERMANY 659
FERRINI v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GEmvr.ANY
(Decision No 5044/2004)
lta{J~ Court of Gzssation (PLenary Session). li Mm-ch 2004
(Carbone, President)
SmvrMARY: The focts:-In 1998 Ferrini instiruted proceedings againsr d1e
Federal Republic of Gernnny before the Italian co uns, claiming d;u-nages on
accounc of his imprisonmem, deportation and forced labour at the hands
of German occupying f.:nces in 1941
1. He claimed thar he was interned in a
Nazi extermination camp and forced to work in a munitions facmry umiJ his
liberation in April 1945. Germany emered 2 plea of jmisdictional imm11niry;
At flrsr insrance and on appeal this plea was upheld and Ferrini appealed to
~:he Comt of Cassation.
He!d.-----The apDeal was ailowed. The Italia.n co uns were cntitled ro exercise
imisdiction over th~ daim and u~e cac:ev.ras remitted for a hearing on tl1e merits.
· (1) The conducr of military operations in wartime v,ras a.t1 expression of
the "political" function of the State and, as such, was not subject to judicial
review si nee the scope and exrent of securiry operations could not be determined
in advance. However, whilst the manner in vvb..ich such hosrilities were
conducted w"JIS not subject tCi scruliny, Üùs did not prevem judicial inqui.ry
into possible crimes committed dming the course of the activiües and imo
those responsible for them. Furthermore, in accordance with the principle of
adaptation enshrined in luri de l 0(1) of the Italian Constitution, r.hose "generally
recégniz,ed" norms of international law which safeguarded t:.he freedom
and dignity of the irrdividual as fùndarnemal nghts, and which characterized as
"international crimes" acrivicies consrituting a serious threat to r...f-le protection
of rhose rights, automatically becar..CJ.e an integral part of ltali:m law (pard.S.
7-7.1).
(2) The faces aJleged by che appelJam as the basis of his da.mages daim
agà.i.nst German y constiruted "deportation to forced labo m", -whicJJ. had been
detined as a -vvar crime by Article 6(b) of Ù1e Charter and Judgmem of che
International Military Tribw1al of Nuremberg and, as such, as a Ciime contrary
ro incernationaJ law. Indeed, according to rhe 1ribunal, such crimes were
recognized by all civilized nations before the ourbreak of the Second \'\ïorJd
V\lar since the provisions of the Hague Convention of 1907 and the Gene\'a
Convention of 1929 on such crimes had become accepted as dechratory of
rhe laws and customs of war prior to 1939. The caregorizarion of deportation
to forced labour as an internarional criine bad subsequemly been confirmed
by the provisions of rl1e Sratutes of the International Criminal 1ribunals fC·r
Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the Stature of the Imemal:ional Criminal
Court (pans. 7.2-7.3).
660 ITALY (COURT OF CASSATIO?,;;
(3) In a judgmem of 4 May 2000 the Greek Supreme Co un had denied
immuniry ro Germany in a civil cL:üm for darnages broughr by Greek citizens
for f!rave violations of hurnan righrs committed bv its occuoying forces in
Grc;ce during the Second W'orld War. 1 The Suprer~e Court l;ad relied principally
on Article 11 of rhe European Convention on Stare Irnmuniry, 19ï2,
which precluded Contracting States from relying on ilnmuniry in proceedings
relaiing to actions for persona! injury or damage to propeny occurring on the
terrimry of the forwn Srate. lùthough Article 31 of the Convemion preserved
immunity in relation to acrs done by the anned forces of rbe Conuacting
States on r.he rerritory of orl1er Conrsacting States, the Greek Supreme Court
had considered that the violation of mandato1-y norms of internatiomJ law
designed to protecc fundarnema1lmman rights ilnplied waiver of its 1mmunity
by rJ1e State concerned, However, rJ1e Italian Court of Cassacion disagreed and
considered thar ir could not be implied dur Germany had intended ro waive
irs immunity in the absence of evidence of a defini te intention ro do so (paras.
8-8.2).
(4) Ir had repeatedJy been ?Jnrrned by national anà international tribunals
thar international crimes were serious violations oHundamental huxnan rights.
Such righrs were protected by nonns from which no derogation was permitted
and which prevailed over all orher norms of rreaty and cusromary international
Î81v, includi.ng d:wse relarine: to State immtmity Ir was nue rhat su ch a derogation
from the principle of"Srare lmmunity w~s not expressly provided for by
a norm of international law. 1ndeecl the right of States ta rely on immuniry
agajnsr damages daims arising from rhe commission of imemarional crimes
had recenrlv been reaffirmed in severa! judicial decisions of national and international
triburrals. Bm these decisions éould be ciistinguished from the presem
daim sin ce they related to \J.I1Ja\vflll aci:s which had not been committed in u_~e
State of r,l:le forum (paras. 9-9.2),
(5) In any case, the Court of Cassation could not agree with the proposition
that only an express normative provision could justif)r derogation from
the princip le of State irnmunity. As made ckar in the dissenring opinion in
theMcElhinnq judgmem of rhe European Court ofHuman Righrs, derogation
from Srate irnmuniry exrended to cases ofintemiona1 h;;sm caused by criminai
acts such as murder and assault for political reasons, and d1e uadi.tional discincüon
becween acts performed jure imperii and jure gestioniswas not relevant
in such a case. Indeed ir was possible w find confirmation, in international
practice in respecr of particula.dv serious criminal activirv, of priori;y status
now being accorded ro the prme:ction of fundarnema.l hu;m11 ;ights ;ver ille
protection of State inrerests through recognition of jurisclictional immüniry
(paras. 10-10.2.).
1 The Co un of Cassation appr:::ars ro have oves1ooked r.he fa cr r.hat this ruhng of the Gree.k Suprerne
Coure was overrurned by a ruling of the Special Suprerne Coust (wù:h competence ro give rulings on
ma::~rs of international law) in a judgmen: of 17 Septembet 2002. These judgments v,ilJ be reponed
in a subs~c.l~tcnr voluii-rt: .of the !Jzit'f1!atioruzL L~tw Re_porrr.
F.ERRINI v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY 661
(6) Finaüy, it was now accepted in juciicial practice that the functional
immuniry of State offlcials -vvas no longer regarded as preventing rhe exercise
ofjurisdiction over imernarional crilnes. There was no valid reason to uphold
State imrnunity in similar circumstances in which t..~e acrs alleged consritured
international crimes (para. ll).
The foliowing is the text of the judgment of the Court:
Course ofthe Praceedings
1, By means of a writ filed on 23 September 1998, Mr Luigi hrrini
commenœd legal proceedings against the Federal Republic ofGermany
in the Court of Arezzo, claiming proprietary and non~proprierary clamages
on account ofhaving been ca.ptured by the German axmed forces in
the province of Arezzo on 4 August 1944, a.nd subsequemly deported to
Gerrnany where he was used by German cornpanies as "forced" labour.
The claimant maintains chat his internrnem in the extermination camp
at Kal1la, where the Re1magh \5\lerke (Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering
Werke) and Messerschmitt companies manufactured a.ircraft, missiles
and other weapons of waT, conti11ued un til 20 April 191±5.
The pany being sued objected on the basis t.b.at the Italia.\1 courts
lacked jurisdicrion to try the matter a..'ld dedared tluc it did not accept
the clairnant's contradictory version of events in respect of the
rnatter.
1 1 The Court, in its judgment of 3 November 2000, dedared thar
the matter lay beyond the juriscliction of the Italian legal system on
the basis rhat rhe daim advanced by the cla.imant originated in acts
carried our by a foreign State in the t.xercise of irs sovereign powers and
thar, as a result, r:...~e dispure feU ourside the cognizance of the territorial
State un der the princip le of State immunity, as laid clown by customary
international law.
1.2 The Florence Court of Appeal dismissed Ferrini's appeal, repeating
what had already been affirmed by the lower court and observing,
in parricular, that any suggestion chat the Italian courrs m1ghr have
jurisdiction over the dispute in question did not find support:
- eirher in the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of
Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters signed at Brussels on
27 .June 1968 ("the Convention"), the scope of which, according
to che constant guidelines provided by the European Coun of
Justice, exdudes ca.ses pertaining to the exercise of public powers
by national amhorities;
667; ITALY (COURT OF CASSATION)
or in the Universal Declaration ofHumailRights, adopted by the
General Assemblv of the United Nations, the substance of which
applies not ro incÙviduals but to States, and which is, in any event,
devoid of djrect normative applicabîlity.
1.3 Ferrini bases his appeal againsr this judgmenr on rhe four grounds
set out in the perition. The Federal Republicof Germany joins issue
with'his appeal.
Groun.ds of the Decision
2. The first ground of appeal---which alleges breach and improper
application of Articles L 5(3) and 57 of the Convention-----challenges the
judgmenr under appeal for denying rha1: the Italian courts have jmisdiction
to decide the matter whilst failing to consider vvhether the criteria
for deœrmimng jurisdictional competence laid clown in the Convemion
\V:tre applicable to the case in guestion, as follows:
the dis pure is benveen an individual dom1clled in one contracting
Sraœ (Italy) and ;mother contracting State (the Federai Republic
of Gcrmany). By definition, Ihe dispute clms falls wirhi.n the
territorial am bit of 1:he Convention;
- the daim for damages is rooted in evems which took place on
Italian soil;
under Italian and German law, damages daims brought agajnst
public eotities are charaçœrized as "civil" actions;
the provisions comained in the Convention override the norms
of cuscomary international law, induding Ibe principle of Srate
1mmunn:y;
- on the basis of the criterion laid clown in Article 5(3), "in criminal
or quasi--criminal matters", a party domiciled in a contracting State
can be sued in the courts of the State in ·which u.~e harmful event
occurred, even wh en the latter is a different comracting State from
rhat in which the pany is domiciled.
2.1 The above chal.lenge, formulared in rhe above rerms, is dearly
unfounded:
In realiry, the Convermon (tJ:Je content of which passed into the
dornestic law of alJ the EU Member States excepr Denmark under EU
Regulation 44/01, issued by the Council of the Europea_n Union on
22 December 2000) is inapplicable ta disputes involving activiries that
constimre expressions of i.ndividual State sovereignty carried out under
rhe auspices of the public administration (as has clearly been affirmed
FERRINI u FEDERAL REI'UBLIC OF GERMANY 663
by the European Court of Justice on numerous occasions). In such
circumstances a claim for daxriages is only capable of taking on the nature
of a "civil" daim (and falling 1-vithin tt~e scope of the Convention) if ir
derives from acrs which are nor undenaken by the public administration
"in the exercise of its sovereign powers" (judgments of 21 April 1993,
C.l71/91; 16 December 1980, C. 814/79; 14 October 1976, C. 29/76).
3. The invalidity, for the reasons indicated in rhe previous paragraph,
of the challenge ouclined under rhe first p·ound of appeal, is equally
applicable to the third ground of appeal, under which the appella.nt,
alleging a breacl1 of Articles 2 and 3 of the Additlonal Protocol to the
Convention, corn plains thar the domestic court did nor refer d1e matter
ta the European Court of Justice for the purpose of cbxirying whetber
the damages daim brought against Germany feil withln the operational
sphere of the Convention.
In effect, even when the domestic court is obliged to refer a marter
to the European Court of Justice it shoulci always remember that the
obligation to refer is nor. absolute (cl1ere was no obligation to refer in
this case on the basis rhat the Court ofAppeal was not functioning as a
court oflast instarlCe a..'1d was not, therefûre, bow1d by the conditions
governing rl1e application of the principle laid clown in the final paragraph
of Article 234 ofthe EC Treacy). In view of the need to ensure the
correct and uniform application of Community law in all the Member
States, even a court of last instance can legitimately elect not to refera
matter of legal interpretation for consideration by the Europe;m Court
whenever the an.swer is so evident as to be beyond reasonable doubt
(Emopean Comt ofJustice, 6 October 1982, c:::. 283/81; 16 Janual-y
1974, C. 166/73; 27 March 1963, Joined Cases 28-30/62; Court of
Cassation, 22 November 1996, No] 0359).
4. With regard to rhe second and fourrh grounds, both of which are
closely connected, the appella.nr, al.leging breaches of Articles 10 and
24 of the Constitution, talœs issue wirh the judgment undei appeal for
having held that:
·- G~e princip le of State immunity possesses the nature and standing
of a general principle of custornaTy international law;
rl1e same principle is capable of üperating even in circumstances
where the nor ms of Jus co gens have been violated and, more specificalJy,
in circumsran:r..es where such violations relate to human
dignity and che invioLable rights of the persan.
5. Contraryto rhe daims oftheappellant, the existence and operation
of a norm of customary imerna.tionaJ. law which imposes on Srates the
664 ITALY (COURT OF CASSA.TION)
duty to absram from e:œrcising jurisdictional power over other States,
enacted in our system by virtue of the provision laid dm.vn in Article
1 O(l) of rl1e Constitution, are beyond question. However, it must be
recognized that the extent of this principle (which was, at one time,
absolute, in that it conferred on the foreign State total 1mmuniry in
respecr of the territorial Srate, no matter what the nature and objecr of
the dispute) is gradually becoming more limited (Court of Cassation,
Plenary Session, 3 August 2000, No 530; 121 3 February 1996, No 919).
The appellant's challenge is, on this basis, deuly unfouncied,
6. It is now necessary to exarnine the princip le of State immunity in
more detail, from a different angle.
ln judgment No 530/2000 refened to above, this Courtwas required
to consider "the risk" posed to the physica! bealth and saJety of residents
by defence-relared training activities being carried out by US military
aircraft on Italiai:t soii under the provisions of the NAI'O ]ieaty. The
Court confirmed dut immunity from civil jurisdiction is limited to
tbose activities -vvhich constitute "an immediate :md direct manifestation"
of L~e sovereignty of d1e foreign State and, tû<ing into accoum
their relaEionship to ''the sphere of public law" and the fact thar they
are designed to "acbieve the institution al objectives of the Sene", denied
that "che potential negative eftèct'' of such activities "on bndamemal
hum_an rights" is capable of assmning "the nature and scope of an exception".
In this regard tl-Je Coun specii-1ed that it was only prepared to
declare such acüviùes to be poœntially harmful in the above circumstances,
and that it would not deny the sovereign nature of the activities
ar issue here which, as such, lay beyond the jurisdictioml power of the
territorial State" This was because tb_e militaq exercises carried out by
rhe ::umed forces for the purpose of national defence "represent an essenrial
public objective _ .. of the Stace" and, therefore, 2n activity which
is "indisputably ;md ontologically performedJure ilnperù ".
The same view seems to have been adopted in the judgmem pronounced
on 15 December 1995 by the Supreme Court ofireland in the
case oflvkElhinney. Legal proceedings were brought against the United
Kingdom by a citizen oftbe Republic of Ireland in rhe Irish courts with
reg;:m1 to darnages arising from "post-traumatic shock" caused by an
Engllsh soldier on dury at sSe border benveen r_he Republic of Irehnd
and Nonhern Ireland. \17bilsc crossing the border lvfr McElhinney's car
haci hir the soldier, who reacted by pursuing him across the border and
flring sever::d shots at him with _his gun, three of which were fîred on
Irish soiL After having caught up with him, the soldier pointed the gun
[
2 See p. 644 above_J
FERRINJ v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GER1v1ANY 665
at him ;:md pulled the trigger; however the gun jammed. The Court heJd
that the United Kingdom was able to take advantage of jurisdictional
immunity, observing that the soldier bad acted in the exercise of those
powers inherem in the acriviry of controlling u.~e border which were,
in turn, artributable w the defendant State's exercise of its sovereignry.
This formulation is confirmed in the judgment of 21 Novernber 2001
(McE'lhinneJI v. freland) of rhe Europea11 Court of Human Righrs on
the basis of considerations which will be discussed later in this judgment
(the plaintiff haci appealed on the grounds rhat, in denying itself
arly jurisdiction over the matter, the Republic of Ireland had deprived
him of his right to due process, thereby breaching Article 6(1) of the
Europes_n Convention on Human Rigl1ts).
7. The problem we are required to consider in Lhc present esse is
tot2Jly differem. The argument advanceci by Ferrini is baseci on the
premise that, although the acts carried out by Germany might have
been an expression of thar State's sovereign power, this is not really
established beyond doubt, on the basis that they were carried out in
the course of warri.me operations. In effect, the problern which must be
addressed is thar of deœrmining whether immunity from junsdiction
is capable of operating even in respect of conduct which, unlike that
considered in the preceding paragraphs, is so extremely serious that, in
the context of cuswmary international law, it belongs to thar categor;
of internacional crimes vvhich are so prejudicial to universal values that
they transcend the interests of individual States.
7.1 The circumstances in which su ch conduct might take place during
W::J.rtime operations give nse, however, ro a preliminary maner. In
Decision No 8157 of 5 June 2002, [
3
J the Plenaiy Session of this Court
held tbat acrs carried out by the State whilst conductingwartirne hostilities
which 8ll1ount to the expression of a "political" function, in
circumstances where "iris impossible to mmmt a security operation in
which the extent of che action is capable of being determined", are exempted
from any jurisdictional control. In applying this principle 1:.be
Court concluded u.~at there was no jurisdiction to hear a damages daim
broughr against rhe President of the Council ofState and the Italian Deferree
Minis ter with regard tci the destruction, in the course of NATO
air strikes against rhe Feder:J P,epublic of Yugosl:wia, of non-military
targets and the consequent deaths Df several civilians.
However, whiist it is accepted thar the rnodus operandi of such activiries
is beyond censure vvhen they a.re carried out under the supreme
direcr:ion of the public amhorities, rllis does not prevenr investigations
[
3 See p G52 above.]
666 ITALY (COURT OF CASSATION)
from being Lumched imo possible crimes commirred during the course
of the activities and into those resoonsible for sucb crimes (Articles 90
and 96 of the Constitution; /\niel~ 15(1), ConstiturionaJ L~vd\Jo lof
11 March 1953; An:icle 30, Law No 20, 25 Jaimary 1962). Funher, in
accordance with the principle of adaptation ensbrined in Article 1 0(1)
of the Ita.lian Constitution, those "generally recognized" norms of io-
[ernationallaw which safeguard, as :S.mdamenta! rights, r.he ljberty and
d.ignity of the hwnar1 person, atïd which characrerize as "international
crimes" anivicie:s that pose a serious threat to the integrity of rh ose rights,
automatically become an integral part ofltalian law. As such they cl earl y
conscitute a legitima te ;.udicial parameter in respect of harm caused by
a crimin2Jly motivated or culpable act.
lt is chas evident thar the princip les comained in the ab ove Decision
of the Court cannot be raken into consideration in this case.
7.2 As already srated, the facts which form the basis of the daJTlages
daim advanced by the appellam revolve arolilld his capture and deportation
w Germany to be usee!. as "involuntary manual labour" in the
service of German companies.
ln Resolution 95-I of ll December 1946, by which the lJ1~ Generall\.ssembly
''confirmed" the principles of imernationallaw contained
in che Charter and J udgmenc of the International Military Tribw1al
at Nuremberg, both deportation and subjection to f.::1rccd labour are
enurnerated as "war crimes" and, as such, as crrrnes under international
law. The Charter itselCsigned in London on 8 August 1945, dearly
states that "deportation to slave labour" (Article 6(b)) falls under rl1e
definition of a ''war crime". '
In rhe Judgment handed clown by the Nuremberg Tribunal on
30 September 1946, ir is emphasized thar such conduct constitutes
a "flagrant" violation of the Convemion Respecting the Laws and Customs
~of \~ ar on Land, signed at the Hague on 18 October 1907, the
am1exed Regulations ofwhich establish that "services" can be demanded
from the "inhabirams" of tl1e civilia.n population (only) "for ul:!e needs
oftl1.e army of occupation" (Article 52), thus exduding the possibility of
such services being dema..11ded for any other purpose. The applicabili.ty
of this last provision vvas challenged by the laV>ryers for the Nuremberg
defendams, who sought ro rely on Article 2 of tl1e Convention, poiming
oat thar sorne of the belligerent States were not oarties to the Conven--
tion. This objection was~- however, overruled by the Tribunal vvhich
observed thatin 1939 (and, therefore, prior to the commencemem of
the conflict) the "rules" e,1:pressed in the Convention were recognized.
ar1d accepted by all civilized nations and had therefore assumed d1e 1 d f . . al' strengtn ar1 scope o customary lnternanon~ law norms. . ~· .
FERRINI v. FEDER.A.L REPUBLIC OF GERivlANY 667
7.3 The categorizarion of deportation and the subjection of deportees
ro forced labour as an "international crime" finds confirmanon in:
Principle VI of the Principles of International Law adopted in June
1950 by the UN Commission for International Law; .1\.rticles 2 a..fld 5
of UN Semritv Council Resolution 927i93 of 23 May 1993, adopting
the Statut; of the International Crim.inal Tribunal for the Former_
Yugoslavia and Article 3 oHJN Secmity Council Resolution 955/94 of
8 November 1994, adopüng the Statu te of the International Crirninal
Tribunal for Rwanda; ~1d Articles 7 ar1d 8 of the Convention Establishing
the International Criminal Court, signed in Rome on 17 July
1998 by 139 States (of which 120 ratified it), and whicb entered into
force on 1 July 2002,
7.ci Thus, -quire ap2rt from what was affirmed in the Nuremberg
judgrnem refeued to in t_he preœding p2ragraph, what is involved herc
is, without doubt, a custornary law nonn which extends generally to a!l
States in rhe international community.
The gravity of su~h crimes is also recognized by German y v.rhich, be-
. ing aware of the suftèring inBicted by the Nazi State on rhose who were
deoorœd ;md subjected w "slave labour'' and ralrjng upon irself moral
and political responsibility in this regard, has instiruted, 1n ~ollaboration
wir.h the German companies which benefited from such "mvolu..11tary''
services, a f~·mndation called "1v1emory, Responsibiliry and Future" w
main tain inte.rest in what actu3lly happened and provide compensation
for victims, gi:ving prioriry to the processing of specifie daims in preference
to the location of "eligible daimants" (see r\rticle 11 of the La·vi,
BGBI 2000, I, 1263, 2 August 2000). The relevant German law 2lso
cmrers anorher important aspect, in thar it confirms that the facts upon
whlch the cbimant's case is based must not consist of mere isolared
episodes, but must correspond to a precise strategy which was pursued
with resolute determination by the German Srate during that era,
8. The Supreme Court of Greece has denied thar a foreign Stare is
able to benefit from immunity from c1vil jurisdiction in relation to a
daim brought by Greek citizens against Gerrnany, seeklng damages br
grave violations ofhuma_._'1 rights commitœd on Greek soil by occupying
forces during the Second World ';xlar (the execution, by way of reprisai,
of around 200 people who had no connection, either d.irect or indirect,
witb military operations): Pr~fettura do Voiotia v. Feden:d Repub!ic ofGernan)i,
judgment No 11, 4 May 2000. 14! The Coun: relied principally on
Article 11 of the European Conventjon on State Imrnuniry, concluded
on 16 May 1972, which denies [bat aState can daim immunity from
[
4 See nore l above.J
668 ITALY (COURT OF CASSATJOI'I)
civil jurisdiction when it is required to defend 311 action in dam;wes
brought against it in the courts of a fore1gn Staœ, 31·ising from 311 °il--
legal a~t conimirted in terr1tory over which rhe latter has sovereîgmy
According co the judgment in question, this rule applies even to ille;;ral
acts cornmitted in the cxercise of an acriviry undenaken jure imp;~ii
al!d is an expression of a principle which is custom.ary in nature. It is
etfedtive, rJ-H;refore, even in respect of co un tries like Greece, which have
not signed the Convention.
_ 8.1 However, the Couds reference to this provision is by no means
deosive in the matter, because of the obiection, acknowledo-ed by the - 1 th / b JUGges, - at could have been made under Axticle 31 of the Convention,
whi~h ~learly states that it does not apply to events -which might occur
m cucumst311ces of armed conBicr. The Court considered rhat this
objection could be ove·come on the basis that the violation of man.datory
norms designed to proten fundamental human rights implies a
rcnunciation of the bene:fits and privileges accorded by international
la'Yv. Ir ought therefore ro be deerned thar Germa_ny, in commirting
these crimes, had implicidy renounced its 1mmunity.
8.2ln reply, [the present Court considers thar] rbis is not a situation
which necess31·ily presupposes a defini te intention on the parr of Germany.
A renunciation of this na.ture cannot be construed on the basis
of absuact conjecture, but must be based on concrete, ascertained facts
which disdose a definiœ intention t6 "renounce". In ~-DY event. it is
improbable L~at aState which commits serious violations imends ~orenounce
th ose benefits from which it derives immw1ity from j urisdiction,
prerogatives which make it very dif:ficult, if not altogerher impossible,
ro establish guilt. The argument upon which the judgment is based is
clearly not persuasive and tbe conclusion reached by the Greek court
must therefore be distinguished, even for reasons other tban rhose just
deah v;ri th.
9. Iris repeacedly being aJfirrned thar international crimes "tbreaten
the whole of humanity and undermine rhe foundarions of peacefuJ
internatiomJ relations" (Constitutional Court ofHungaxy, 13 October'
1993, No 53). They aie, in effect, crimes which rake rhe form of serious
violations of fundainental human rights (in terms of their imensit:y
and/or systt:matic characrer-see fu·ride 40(2) of the Drafr Declaration
on the International Responsibility of States, adopted in August 200 l by
the International Law Commission ofthe UN). Such rights are protected
by nonns, from which no derogation is perrnittcd, w hi ch lie at the heart
of cl-re international order and prevail over all other convcmional and
customaxy norms, including chose which relate to State imrnuniry (see
f'ta-un,dz:ijtt, International Crirninal Tr~bunal for the Former Yugoslavia,
FERRINI v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMJ\NY 669
10 December 1998, 153-5; Krupeskié, 14 January 2000, para. 520;
Al.,Adsani v. [.lnited Kingdom, Euro pean Court of Human Rights, 21
Novernber 2001, para. 61).
For this reason such rights a:re deemed to be inviolable (see the
UN Convention on Human Rlghts of 26 November 1968 311d the
Convention of the Council of Europe of 25 January 1974) and ir is
recognized rlut all States are perrr~itted to suppress tbeir breach, irrespective
of where such breach is committed, in accordance with the
principles of universal jurisdiction (see the I-''-urundiija judgrnent at
pp. 15-16): in some cases it is even considered that States 31·e obliged to
suppress' their breach (see especially Article 146 of 1949 Geneva Convention
Pl Relarive to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of
\'V~li). For this reason there is no doubt chat the principle of universal
jurisdiction also applies to civil actions which trace r.heir origins to such
cnrnes.
This conclusion strengthens the conviction thar such grave violations
emajl, even in respect of States, a response vrhich, in qualitative terms,
is different and more severe than rhat reser\red for other illegal acts.
In line with this œndency, it is affirmed in the Furundiija judgment
that those States not involved in d1e illegal act are under a dury not ro
recognize rhe legitimacy of those circumstances which gave rise to its
commission (see page 15 5). ln the s;;une comext, the Drafi: Declaration
on the International Responsibility of States teferred to above "forbids"
States from helping to perpetuate situations which lead to violations
and "obliges" them to use alllegitimate means w bring,an end to illegal
acr.ivities (Article 41).
9.1 The recognition ofimmunity from jurisdiction for States responsible
for such rnisdeeds stands in stark contrast to the above normative
analysis, in that such recognition does not assist, but rather impede.s, rhe
protection of those norms and principles which are considered by rhe
communiryof nations w be so cssential as w justify mandawry measures
in resoonse to serious violations. There is no doubt that a contraciiction
l;etween [WO equally binding legd norrns ought ta be resolved by
giving precedence to the norrn 'vith the highest status. This vras highlighœd
in the disseming judgment of the minoriry (eight agaJnst nine)
in Al-Adscmi, who were of the opinion that:, in such circumstances, the
offending State should not be able ro enjoy immunity from foreign
jurisdiction. The same view seems to be expressed in the Furundiija
judgment, whîch lists the possibilirj of the victim "being able ro moum
a civil damages action before the courts of a foreign State" as one of the
outcomes of a normative violation of this type being carried out "on an
interstare leve l".
670 ITALY (COURT OF CASSATION)
~ 9.2 It.is an in_va!~d objection dut such derogation from the principle
ot State rmrnunrty rs not expressly provided for in any norrn of inter~
national law (see .Al~Adsani, 61; f-Ioushttng BouzMi v. lslamic Republic
oflmn, Supreme Court ofOmario (Canada), 1 May 2002, para. 63).
Respect for ~he invio.bble rights of the human person. has rruly assume.d
cl~e ~t.atus of a fundamem~ principle of the international legal orcier (in
addmon to rhe cases already referred to, see Urzited Kingdom v. A!b11.rtia,
Interr:arional Court ofJusr~ce, 9 Aprill949; Milita~} 11.nd Pt~rami!itar}
Actzuzttes m and agt!Zn.st .iVzcaragua, International Court of Juscice, 27
June 198?, para. 219). 1r is rmpossible for su ch princip les not ro be
reflecred m_ the scope of rhe orher princi.ples which rraditionally lie at
the heart or rhe international legal order, especially the principle of the
"sove:re.ign equ:-liry" ofStates, which incorpora tes the recognition of one
State's rmmunH:y from the civil junsdiction of orher States.
In realiry legal norrns are ne~rer interpreted separately fJ~om one ao--
other, in dur d1ey clarif}r and complement one anoth.er, and are made
mutu~y conditional upon one another in tenns of rheir application
AL-Adsmû, para. 55; J11cflhnney, pau. 36). The latter decisions
mah: specifie rdèrence to treaty-based norms, but there is no doubt
thar analogons criteria apply ro Ü1e interpretation of cusromarv norms
which, like treaty-based norms, form oart of a leg:al sy· stem' and are "' ..L 0 ._
~onsequenrly onl):' capable of being imerpreted correcdy when placed
m u.1e comext ot the other norms whi.ch make up an integral part
of that system (see Anicle 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rjghts, adopred by the T)N Gener31 .A.ssembly on 10 December
1948).
lCl. This Courr is aware mat the righr of States ro take ad vanta <Te of - . - b
unmumty hom jurisdiction in respect ofdamages daims ;;xising from
the commission of international crimes has recencly been aHinned.
However, the judgments in question relate ro cases învolving illeg;:J]
acts commined in a Stare other than rhat in which the matter was
,being tried (in addition ro the judgmems in Af-Adsmzi and Houshang
Bouzari, see R v. Bow Street Jl.fetropolitan lv!tJgi.Jtrate and others, ex part~
Pinochet, House of Lords, 24 March 1999, with panicular reference
to the ôpinion expressed oblter dicta by Lord Hutton tl1at Chile, whilst
deemed internationa1ly responsible for Üte crimes committed during rbe
Pinochet reg1me, would have been able to daim immunitv from anv
damages daim brought against ir in the English courts). Th~y therefor~
deal with a different situation from Ü1at currently under consideration.
On che comrary, as has already been established, tl1e present situation
is characterized by circumstances in which tbe criminal act v,ras commenced
lrl rhe country in which the l~gal proceedings have since been
FERRINI v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMI\NY 671
brought, and in which the criminal act was deemed to be an international
cru-ne.
Thus, cl1e deliberations comained in these _iudgrnents do not invalidate
the conclusions already reached above. In effect, they can be
summed up in the proposition (implicitly assenc:_d by the ~uropean
Court of Hu.man Rights in Kalogeropoulou Uther.r v. Cireece tmd
Gernur.nv, 12 December 2002, in which specifie reference was made to
immuniry from executive jurisdiction, as distinct from that being considered
i~ the present case) rhat only an express normative provision
would be able to justify derogation from the principle of Stare irnmu--
niry. However, DO maner how often ir is repeated, this proposition is
one wiû.\ which this Court caonot agree.
10.1 The opinion expressed in the preceding paragr~p~~ is ~hu~ ~·eaf~
i1rmed. Furtl1ermore, the general approach ~,? respons1b1hry tor ~lleg~
acts is evolving tluough the adoption of a di.fierent test fr_om ~lat. base~
on acts ;ure imperii and jure gestiOJm~ the inadequacy of wl:uch 1s well
documented wirh reg~ud to t..Ï,is type of dispute. This cle;:uly emer~es
from rhe judgmerns in Al-AdJmn and HouJhang B~u:::.ari, bo0- of wh1eh
involved acts of torture committed by police oHicers agamst people
in prison (and, as such, were attribmable to the .exercise of sovereign
power). However, in both cases Ü1e courts recogmzed tl1e foreign State
as immw1e from jurisdiction on the basis that che illegal act was cornmitted
in a different State from thar in which cire proceedings were l con1menceo.
In practice, according to rhe norms a~plicable. in Eng~and and
Canada, clK ability of a foreign State to res1st an actwn seeking com~­
pensation for personal injury or d~m1age to proper:y o.n Ù1e basrs or
immunity from civil jurisdiction is regulated by clus alrernauve test.
Section 5 of the State Immunily Act 1978 pro vides that imnmnity does
not constitute a defence ta a damages daim for hdxm "'caused by an
act or omission in the United IGngdom". By analog)S section 6 of the
State Immunirv Act of Canada 3Jso deprives a foreign State of the ben~
dit of immunfty in respect of a damages clairn for harm "û.1.at occurs
in Canada". h is importdllt to bear in mind thar the same principles
underlie:
The Europe;m Convemlon on State Immunity, v1hich eprered
imo force on 11 June 1976 and has presendy been rarmed by
eir:ht Srares, including Ù1e United Kingdom;
The domesric legislaùon of cenain other countries which are not
signataries ta rhe above Convenùon and include, besicles Cauada,
d;e United States of America (section 1605(5) of the Foreign
672 lTALY (COURT OF CASSATIÜNÎ
Sovereign Imrnunities An 1976), South /l.frica (section 3 of the
Foreign States Immunity Act 1981) and Ausrralia (Foreign States
lmmunity Act 1985);
Article 12 of the Draft Convention on the T urisdicrional Immunities
of States and their Property, drawn up by the Internatioml
Law Commission of the UN.
Contrary to what L~e Europea..'1 Court ofHuman Rights states in its
judgment of~l November 2001 in the case of lvfcELhimzey, the express
onentation or rhe norms under examination does not merely exrend to
hann v,rhich derives from acts rnuelated to the foreign State's exercise
of its sovereigmy: The Court has based its assertion on a passage in the
Explanatory Report cornpiled by the International Law Commission to
the UN Draft Convention on the Turisdictional Imrnuniries of States and
their Properry, in which iris a..ffir~ed that Anicle 12 relates "essentially"
to "insurable" d;unage, such as thar which occurs in the context of road
t~a..+fic incidents (see paxa. 38 of the judgment). However, as is made
dear in the "disseming opinion" ofJudges Caf:!isch, Cabral, Barreto and
Vajic, this affirmation is inserted imo a very broad context in which iris
dear thac dero~ation from the princip le of State immunitv. based on the
norms under ~amination, extends even to "imentional" }~~rn and harm
caused by criminal acts including homicide and political assassination,
adding (by way of a clarification which is conclusive for our purposes)
thar the distinction bervveen acts performed jure imperii :md acts caiTied
out Jure gestionis assumes no relevance in respect of damages daims
arising fi-om "ass:mlts on the physicalintegrity of a person" o~ from loss
or darnage of a "bodily" nature.
As recogniz.ed by the la·wyers for the defendant at page 9 of rheir sub-·
missions, -ul:lese sratements are th us indicative of a tendencv to override /
the theory of restricted immuniry. Further, according to the judgment
handed clown in TliJiotia, the s;une test has now assumed the level of
a custorna1y norm. In view of this, it is certain that the test based on
the nature of the harmful act can no longer be considered generally
applicable. '
10.2 A funher confirmarion of che progressive decline in the relevance
of tb.îs test ro disputes ar1sing from compensation claJms based
on illegal acrs (referred to in the Repon of the State Immunity \Vorki.ng
group ofthe International Law Commission, drafœd on6 July 1999, see
Appendices 9 a.nd 10) lies in the a.mendment made to the US Foreign
Sovereign Imrnunities Act 1976. This adds a f..trther situation, besides
tho se already contempla ted in section ] 605 of the Acr, in wbich foreign
States are prevented from relying on irnmunity from jurisdicrion. The =-··
FERRIN1 v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMA:NY 673
amendment specifically excludes immunity from jurisdiction in respect
of dain1s for damages 3.1·ising from death or personal injury caused by
"torture, murder, aerial sabotage and hostage-taking" (section 221 of
the A.nti-Terrorism and Effective Dea th PenaJry Act).
The applicable scope of this àmendment is iimited, in thar derogation
is only valid in. respect of those States singled out by d1e US State
DepaJ·tment as "sponsors" of terrorism. As a result, its introduction was
greeted wirh sorrie reservations on the basis dut the creation by the
unilateral decision of a single country, of a category of States which are
deprived of a prerogative which is extended to ail other States wirhin
the international cornrnunitv, does not seem to confom1 to the pnnciple
of rhe "sovereign equaÎiry" of States, which presupposes that a.ll
States are legally egU21 and able ro conduct the ir mutual dealings und er
conditions of perfect pariry whilst enioying all the righrs inherent in
their "sovereignry'' (UN Declaration on Friendly Relations and ColJaboration
between States, adopted by the l.Jl\1 General Assembly on 24
October 1970). -
It is not difficulr to locate in tbe above nor rn confirmation of the priority
status which, in respect of particülarly serious crim.inal acüviries,
now attaches w the protection of fundarnental human rights over and
above the protecüon of State interests through r.he recognirion of 1m··
munity from foreign jurisdiction. This is even true of coumries like the
United States which, until recemly, doggedly subscribed t0 the d1eory
of absolute immuniry. This becomes even more meaningful when one
considers thar the same principle aJreàdy forms the basis of numerous
JUdici;_;j decisions: at the end of 200 l t.he US courts had pronounced
at least tweh;e judgments against foreign States (Al?jandre v. Republic of
Cuba, 17 December 1997; Fl11.toz.u v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 11 March
1998; Cicippio v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 27 August 1998; Artder.ron :~·
Tslamic Republic of Iran, 24 Marcb. 2000; Elsenfold v. Islanzic Repubüc
of iran, ll July 2000; Higgins v. Islamic Republic of!rctn, 21 Sept~m~er
2000; Sutherland v. ùlamic Repub!ic oflran, 25 June 20CJ1; Poihilf v.
ùlamic Repub!ic oOvan., 23 August 200 1; VC0gner v. Llamic Republic of
han. 6 Novembe~ 2û0 1; A1ousa v. Is!.ctmic Revublic o{lnm, 19 Septem- , -la . 'f. "r. -·tao 1 r~·· l . ;.. . r· 1 . ber 2001; }en co v. Js .mzc Repuo zc of 1!"-a!l, w ; .[L . oll/t:rtl v. JSf.aJn[C
Reoublic of!raa, 5 December 2001), L~ree of ·which belong to the era
prior to rhe coinmencemem of the present proceedings on 23 September
1998. 'Io the above judgrnenrs must also be added the directions
issued on 26 Februarv 1998 bv the New York District Court and on
15 December 1998 b)' the AppeaJ Court of the Second Circuit which,
applying the same principle, affirmed the jurisdiction of the US co uns
in relation to Ul<: v. Lib)1a, the Lockerbie bomb case.
G74 ITALY (COURT OF CASSATION)
11, There is one finaJ consideration. It is now obvia us that the Jimctional
immuniry of foreign State organs cm ncJ longer be involœd in
respect of international crimes. 1reaty-based provisions are ;ur1biguous
m rhis reg;u·d (Article 27 of the Statute of the International Criminal
Co un reinforces a principle already present in d1e Statu tes of the International
Military Tribunal at Nuremberg ;u1d of the Criminal Tribunals
for tbe former Yugoslavia and Rwanda). However, wit.h regard to Judicial
pracrice 1t is sufficient ro recaU the judgmem of the Supreme Court
ofisrael of29 May 1962 in the case of Eichmann, the judgment handed
down b:y the US Federal Appeal Court of rl1e Second Circuit on 30 May
1980 in the case of FiLzrtiga -v. Pnuz-Jraùz, rbe judgment pronounced
on 12 April 1995 by tbe l'v:[assacbusetts District Court in the case of
){uncax v. Gramajo, and thar handed dovm by tbe !'kw York Disu·ict
Court on 18 April 1998 in rbe case of Càbiri v . .Assasie Gym.zh, all of
which concluded thar State immuniry is no defènœ to the commission
of an international crime.
According w prevailmg opinion, functional immuniry constitutes a
sub--species of State immunity, in that it answers tne demand to stop
State immunity from bei..11g frustrated by litigants being able to bring
proceedings against the persan through whom me State's activities are
c;u:ried out. However, if it is correct, as it would seem to mis Court,
thar functional immunity does not apply in circumstances in which
rl1e act complained of constituees an international crime, there is no
valid reason, in me same circumstances, to uphold State immunity and
comequently to den y that one, State's responsibility for such crimes can
be ev;:>Juated in rhe courts of another State.
12. /IJJ this confirms mat, in the presem case, the Federal Republic
of Germanv does not bave rhe rifr,hr to be declared immune from the
iurisdicrio; of the Ttalian courts, ~nd thar su ch jurisdiction must dïerefore
be affirmed. Furrher, in normative terms, this was already the case
when L~is action was commenced.
lr has been brought to the Court's anention that the actions upon
which this chirn is ba.sed happened in Italy. However, as such actions
fall witbin the category of international crimes, jurisdiction would, in
emy event, be determined in accordance with the princip] es of universal
iurisdicrion ...
' The Court of Cassation allows [be appeal and confirn1s the jurisdiction
of the Iralian courts. The judgment is ovenurned and the matter
remitted to the Court of Are7"zo.
[Report: RD/2004, p. 540 (in Italian)J
FERRINI ''·FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY 675
NoTE.---A cricical commem21y on the above judgmem, "\V;u: Crimes ;md
State Inmmnir_y in t.be Ferrini Decision", by Andrea Gattini, 1s primed in
the. journal of International Criminal jusrice 2005, p, 224. See Jlso "Denying
Foreign State Immunity for Commission ofinternational Crimes: The Ferri12i
Decision", by Carlo Focardli, in 54 ICLQ (2005), p. 951.
Annex 2
Joint Declaration
. by the Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the !ta lian Republic
18 November 2008
Dichiarazione Congiunta
ltalia e Germania condividono gli ideali di riconci!iazione, solidarietà
ed integrazione che sono alla base del processo di costruzione
deii'Europa, al cui avanzamento entrambi i Paesi hanna conferito e
continuano a conferire il !oro convinto contributo e per il quale svo!gono
un ruolo propulsore.
ln tale spirito di collaborazione ltalla e Germania stanno affrontando
insieme anche le dolorose vicende della seconda guerra mondiale;
assîeme all'ltalia, la Germania riconosce pienamente le gravissime
sofferenze inferte agli italiani in particolare ne!le stragi e agli ex-lnternati
Militari ltaliani e ne conserva la memoria.
Con questi intendimenti il Vice Cancelliere e Ministro degli Esteri
Steinmeier, accompagnato dai Ministre degli Esteri Frattini, si c recato
oggi - con un gesto dl alto valore morale e umanitario - alla Risiera di
San Sabba per rendere omaggio alla memoria dei Militari italiani d1e vi
transitarono prima della deportazione in Germania e di tutte le vittime
che questo luogo emblematicamente rappresenta.
L'lta!ia rispetta la decisione tedesca di rivolgersi alla Corte
lnternazionale di Giustizia per una pronuncia sul principio dell'immunitf
dello Stato. L'ltalia, anche come parte contraente, come la Germania,
della Convenzîone Europea sulla compostztone pacifica delle
controversie del 1957, e come Paese che fa del ris petto del diritto
internazionale un cardine della propria condotta, considera che la
pronuncia della Corte lnternazionale suil'immunità dello Stato sia utile al
chiarimento di un a complessa questione.
Gemeinsame Erklarung
Italien und Deutschland teilen die Ideale von Versëhnung, Solidaritat
und Integration, die das Fundament des europaischen Aufbauprozesses
bilden, an dem beide Lander mit Überzeugung mitgewirkt haben,
mitwirken werden und den sie vorantreiben.
ln diesem Geist der Zusammenarbeit befassen sie sich gemeinsam
auch mit den schrecklichen Ereignissen wahrend des Zweiten
We!tkriegs; zusammen mit Italien erkennt Deutschland uneingeschrankt
das immense Leid an, das ltalienern insbesondere bei Massakern und
ehemaligen itaiienischen Militarinternierten zugefügt wurde, und erhait
die Erinnerung daran aufrecht.
ln dieser Absicht hat der Vize-Bundeskanzler und
Bundesau!Senminister Steinmeier mit einer Geste von hohem
moraiischen und menschlichen Wert die "Risiera di San Sabba" in
Begleitung von Au!Senminister Frattini besucht, um der italienischen
Militarinternierten zu gedenken, die sich vor ihrer Deportation nach
Deutschland iii diesem Durchgangslager aufhielten, sowie aller Opfer,
für die dieser Ort steht.
Italien respektiert die deutsche Entscheidung, den lnternationalen
Gerichtshof anzurufen, da mit dieser sich zum Prinzip der
Staatenimmunitat au~ert. Italien, wie Deutschland Vertragspartei des
Europaischen Übereinkommens für die fried!iche Bei!egung von
Streitigkeiten von 1957 und ais Land, das im Volkerrecht einen Drehund
Angelpunkt seines Verhaltens sieht, ist der Ansicht, dass die
Entscheidung des lnternationalen Gerichtshofs zur Staatenimmunitat
hi!freich fllr die Herbeiführung einer K!arung dieser komplexen Frage
sein wird.
Translation
Joint Declaration
ltaly and Germany share the ideals of reconciliation, solidarity émd integration, which form
the basis ofthe European construction that both countries have contributed to with conviction,
will continue to contribute to and drive forward.
In this spüit of cooperation they also j ointly address the painful experiences of vV orld W ar II;
together with Italy, Gennany fully acknmvledges the untold suffering inflicted on Itahan men
and women in paxticular during massacres and on fonner ltalian military internees, and keeps
alive the memory ofthese terrible events.
With this in mind, Deputy Chancellor and Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs
Frank-Walter Steinmeier, accompaniecl by Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, visited the
Risiera di San Sabba in what can be considered a gesture of great moral and humanitarian
value to pay tribute to the Italian military internees who were kept in this transit camp before
being depmied to Gem1any, as well as to all the victims for whom this place stands.
Ital y respects Gern1any's decision to apply to the IntemationaJ Court of Justice for a ru ling on
the principle of state immunity. Italy, hke Gennany, is a state pa1iy to the European Convention
of 1957 for the PeacefuJ Settlement of Disputes and considers intemational law to be a
gui ding princip le of its actions. ital y is th us of the view that the ICJ's ruling on state immunity
will he1p to clarify this complex issue.
Annex 3
Treaty ofPeace with Ita!y
10. Febmary 1947
49 UNTS 3, No. 747, Art. 77
Treaties and international agreements registered
or filed and recorrled with the Secretariat
of the United Nations
VOLUME 49 1950 I. No. 747
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
Treaty registered on 15 March 1950
No. 747. Union of Soviet Socialist Repuhlics, United Kingdom of
Great Brita.în m:::d Northenl Ireland, United States of
America, France, Anstralia, etc.:
Treàty of Peace with ltaly. Signed at Paris. on 10 February 194-7
(For. maps annexed to Treaty, see Volume 50)
Page
3
Traités et accords internationaux en:registrés
ou. classés et inscrits au répertoire au Secrétari,at
de l'Organisation des Nations Unies
VOLUME 49 1950 l. N' 747
TABLE DES M.t\.TŒRES
I
Traité enregistré le 15 mars .1950
Nl) 747. llnion des Républiques socialistes soviétiques, RoyamneUni
de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du N.,r'.d, EtatsUnis
d'Amérique, Fnmee, Australie, etc.:
Traité de paix avec l'Italie. Signé à Paris, le 10 février 1947
(Voir cartes annexées au Traité, %'olnme 50)
Pu ge
160 United Nations - Treaty Series 1950
6. The provisions of this Article shall not be deemed to affect the
nwnership of submarine cables. which, at the outhreak of the war were . ,
O\>,ued by the Italian Govemment or Italian nationals. This paragraph shaH
not preclude the application of Article 79 and Annex XIV to submarine
cab les.
Article 77
1. From the coming into force of the present Treaty property in Germany
of Italy and of Italian nationals shall no longer be treated as enemy
property and ali restrictions based on such treatment shall he removed.
2. Identifiable property of Italy and of Italian nationals removed hy
force or duress from Italia.n territory to Germany by Gemian forces or
authorities after September 3, 1943, shall be elig:ible for restitution.
3. The restoration and restitution of Italian property in Germany shaH ~ . be effected in accordance with measmes which· will be detennined by the
Powers in occupation of German y.
4. Witlwut prejudice to t1ese and to any other di.spositious in favou.r of
ltaly and ItaJian national:; hy the Powers oceupying Germany, Jtaly waives'
on its ovm behalf and on behalf of Italian nationals aU daims against
German y and German œtionals outstanding on May 8, 1945, except. those
arlsing out of contracts and other obligations entered into, and rights acquired,
before September l, 1939. This waiver shall be deemed to illdude
debts, aD inter-govemmental claims in respect of arrangements P..ntered into
in the course of the war, and ali daims for loss or damage arising dming
the war.
5. Italy agrees to take all necessary measures to facilitate such hansfers
of German assets in Ita1y as may be determined by those of the Powers
occupying Germany which are empowered to dispose of the said assets.
PART VII
PROPERTY, RIGHTS AND INTERESTS
SECTION !-UNITED NATJONS PROPERTY IN ITA.LY
Ar-ticle 78
l. In so far as Italy has not aheady doue so, Itaiy shall :restore aU legal
rights and interests in Italy of the United Nations and their nationals as
.;:.
!1
1950 Nations Unies --- Recueil des Traités 161
they existed on June 10, 1940, and sha1l return all property in Italy of the
Un]ted Nations ~nd thei..r nationals as it now exists.
2. The Italian Govemment lmdertakes that aD property, rights and
interests passing und er this Article shall be restored free of all ®cmuhrances
and charges of any ki.'ld to which they may have beeome subject as a result
of the war and without the imposition of any charges by the Italian Government
in. coi.mection with their retnrn. The Italian Govemrnent shall nullify
ali measures, includ.ing seizures, sequestration or control, taken hy it against
United Nations property between June 10, 1940, and the coming into force
of the present Treaty. In cases wl,wre the property has not been returned
within six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, application
shaH be made to the Italian authorities not later thau twelve mouths
from the coming into force of the present Treaty, except in cases in whieh the
claimant is able to show that he could not iile his application within this
period.
3. The ltalian Government shall ·invalida te trànSfers involvin-g property,
rights and interests of any description helonging to United Nations
nationals, whe~e such transfers resulted froin force or du:ress exerted by
Axis G~vemments or their agencies during the waL
4. (a) The Italian Govemment shaH be responsible for the restoration
to complete good order of the property retmned to United Nations nationals
wtder paragraph 1 of this Alticle. In cases where pToperty cannot be re·
turned or where, as a result of t._'.]e war, a United Nations national has suffered
a loss hy reason of injury or damage to property in Italy, he shaH
receive from the ltalian Government eompensation in. lire to the extent of
two-thirds of the sum necessary, at the date o:f payment, to purchase sinülar
property orto make good the loss suffered. In no event shall United Nati~ns
nationals receive less favourable treatment with respect to compensatwn
than that accorded to Italian nationals.
(b) United Nations nationals who holà, directly or indirectly~ o_vm·
ership interests in corporat.ions or associations which are not United Natr~ns
nationals within the meaning of paragraph 9 (a) oi this Atticle, but wh1ch
have suffered a ioss by reason of injury or damage to property in Italy, shaH
receive compensation in aecordance with suh-paragraph (a) ahove. Tiüs
42 United Nations- Treaty Series 1950
6. Les dispositions du présent a1ticle ne devront pas être considérees
comme affectant les droits de propriété sur les câbles sous-marins qui, au
début de la guerre, appartenaient au Gouvernement italien ou à des
ressortissants italiens. Ce paragraphe ne fera pas obstacle à l'application
aux câbles sous-marins de l'artiCle 79 et de l'annexe xrv.
Article 77
1. A dater de l'entrée en vigueur du présent Traité, les biens en
Allemagne de l'Etat et des ressmtissants italiens ne seront plus considérés
comme biens ennemis et toutes les resh·ictions résultant. de leur caractère
ennemi seront levées.
2. Les biens identifiables de l'Etat et des ressortissants italiens gu.e
les forces armées ou les autorités aUemandes ont enlevés, par force ou par
·contrainte, du territoire italien et emportés en Allemagne après le 3 septembre
1943, dom1eront lieu à restitution.
3. Le rétablissement des droits de propriété ainsi que la restitution
des biens italiens en Allemagne seront effectués conformément allX mesures
qui seront arrêtées par les Puissances occupant 1' Allemagne.
4. Sans préjudice de ces dispositions et de toutes autres qui seraient
prises en faveur de l'Italie et des ressortissants italiens par les Puissances
occupant l'Allemagne, l'Italie renonce, en son nom et au nom des ressortissants
italiens, à toutes réclamations contre l'Allemagne et les ressortissants
aUemands, qui n'étaient pas réglées au 8 mai 1945, à l'exception de celles
qui résultent de contrats et d'autres obligations qui étaient en vigueur
ainsi que de. droits qui étaient acquis avant le 1" septeml-Jre 1939. Cette
renonciation sera considérée comme s'appliquant aux créances, à toutes
les réclamations de caraetère intergouvernemental relatives à des accords
conclus au cours de la guene et à toutes les réclamations portant sur des
pertes ou des dommages survenus pendant la guerre.
5. L'Italie s'engage à prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires pour
faciliter les transferts des biens allemands se trouvant en Italie, qui pour·
ront être décidés par celles des Puissances occupant l'Allemat:,'!le qui ont
· .... :_ ;~~ ri;"n"""'r des i;.i.:::n~:; allemands se trouvant ·:·:r: halie.
1950 Nations Unies- Recueil des Traités 43
----------------------------------------~-----~
PARTIE VII
BIENS, DROITS ET INTERETS
SECTION I-BIENS DES NATIONS UNIES EN ITALIE
Article 78
L Pour autant qu'elle ne l'a pas déjà fait, l'Italie rétablira tous les
droits et intérêts légaux en Italie des Nati~ns Unies et de leurs ressortissants,
tels qu'ils existaient au 10 juin 1940, et restituera à ces Nations
Unies et à leurs ressorti~sants tous les biens leur appartenant en Italie
dans l'état où ils se tTouvent actuellement.
2. Le Gouvernement italien restituera tous les biens, droits et intérêts
visés au présent article, libres de toutes hypothèques et charges quelconques
dont ils auraient pu être grevés du fait de la guerre, et sans que la restitution
donne lieu à la perception d'aucune somme de la part du Gouvernement
italien. Le Gouvernement italien annulera toutes mesw:es, y compris
les mesures de saisie, de séquestre ou de contrôle, prises par lui à l'égard
des biens des Nations Unies entre le 10 juin 1940 et la date d'entrée en
vigueur du présent Traité. Dans le cas où le bien n'aurait pas été restitué
dans les six mois à compter de la date d'entrée en vigueur du présent
Traité, la demande devra .être présentée aux autorités italiennes dans un
délai maximum de douze mois à compter de cette même date, saul dans les
cas où le demandeur serait en mesure d'établir qu'il lui a été impossible de
présenter sa demande dans r;e délai.
3. Le Gouvernement italien annulera les transferts portant sur des
biens, droits et intérêts de toute natu.re appartenant à des ressortissants
des Nations Unies, lorsque ces transferts résultent de mesures de force ou
de contrainte prises au cours de la guerre par les Gouvernements des
Puissances de l'Axe ou par leurs organes.
4. (a) Le Gouvernement italien sera responsable de la remise en
pariait état des biens restitués à des ressortissants des Nations Unies en
vertu du paragraphe l du présent article. Lorsqu'un bien ne pourra être
restitué ou gue, du fait de la guerœ, le ressortissant d'une Nation Unie
aura subi une perte par suite d'une atteinte ou d'un dommage causé à un
biën en Italie, le Gonvemement italien iJJdemnïsera le propriétaire en
versant une somme en lires jusqu'à concurrence des deux tiers de la somme
Annex 4
Abkomrrien über die Regelung gewisser vermogensrechtlicher, wirtschaft!icher und
finanzieller Fragen, 2. Juni 1961, BGBI. 1963 II, 669
Treaty between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Italian Republic on the Settlement
of certain Property-Related, Economie and Fïnancial Questions, 2 June 1961
Nr. i9- Tilg der Ausgabe: Bonn, den 26. Juni 1963 669
Abkommen
zwischen der Bunclesrepublik Deutschland
und der Ita1ien1schen Republik
über die Rege1ung gewisser vermogensrechtlicher, wirtschaft.licher
und finanzîeller Fragen
Accorda
fra la Repubblica Federale di Cermania
e la Repubblica Italiana
peril regolamento di alcune questioni di carattere
patrimoniale economico e finanziario
DJE BUNDESREPUBUK DEUTSCHLAND
und
DJE lT ALlENJSCHE REPUBLTK
lm G~:iste der zwismen den heiden Liindern beslehenden
herztid!en Frcund~chaft
halwn folgendes n:re!nbart:
TEIL!
vVlr!sLilaHilclle fragen
Artikel 1
(!) Die Sund,::-rcpu!Jiik Deutschland zahlt an die llalienische
Rr=pul!lik wr E!1edi9ung sdnvebender wirlsdwfllicher
Pwaen einen Betrag von 40 Mil!ionen Deutsche
Mark.
(2] ll1eser 13etrag wird in zwei Rillen von je 20 Miilwnen
Dunlsclle Mark gezahlt, von denen die erste Hale
einen Mvnnt und die zweite Rate ein Jahr nach dem
Inkrufll rel en dies es Abkommcns au! das bel. der Banca
Nazionale del Lavoro zu eri\f!nende Konto des ita!ienischcn
Schillzministeriums überwiesen wird.
Artikel 2
(1) Die ildlienische Rr.gierung ~rkliirl, du[l alle An-
~prüthe und Forderungen der !talienisd1en Republik oder
von italienischPn nilliirlichen oder juris!isdwn Personen,
die gegen die Rundesrepublik Deutschland oder geuen
deutsd1e natürlidte oder juristische Personen nom sch1ve~
ben, erledigt sind, sDfem sie au[ Red!le und Tnlbesliinde
zurückoehen, die in der Zeit vom 1. September 1939 bi~
8. Mai Hl45 enlslanclen sind.
(2) Die it<Jlienische Rer;ierung w:rd die BunrJesrepublik
Deutschlnnd und die deutscllen nalür!ichen oder jurlsti·
sdwn Personen we!Jen jeder evenluellen gerich!lichen
oder jeder sonstH]Cn lnan;;pruchnahme seitens italienischer
natürlicher oder jurislisd1er Personen in bezug auf
d!e oben gen<Jnnten Ansprüche und Fordenmgen schadJos
ha!ten.
Artikel 3
Dieses Abkommen lallt die Mater!e der âulleren Resll·
lutlonen und der entzogenen Güter unberiihrL
Artikel 4
{1) Dieses Abkommcn finue! auch keine Anwendung
auf die Konlen von ehe:na!igen Kriegsgefan0encn, Depor·
t!e1'[en und Fremdarbeitern in der BunJosrepubtik
LA REPUBBLlCA FEDEHALE Dl GERMANIA
e
LA REPUBBUCA !TAUANA
nello spirito della cordiale amiciz!a esistente fra i due
Pa es!
hanna convenulo quanta appresso:
PARTE!
Question! economlche
Artïcolo l
(1) La Repubblica Federale di Cermania versa alla
Repubblica Italiana, a definizione delle questioni economiche
pendenti, la somma di 40 milioni di marchi tedesdîi.

(2) Ouesta somma sarà lrasferita su un conlo, da
aprirsi al nome del Minis!.ero del Tesoro ilalinno presso
la Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, in due rate ciascuna di
20 milionî di marchl tedeschi: la prima ra!a sarà versata
un mc se e la seconda ra til un un no do po l'eni rata in
vigore del presente Accordo.
Artlcolo 2
(!) ll Governo I!aliano dkhiara che sono ddinile lulle
le rivendicazionî e richleste della Repub'o!ica I\a!!ana,
o di persane fisiche o giuridittJe italiane, ancora pendenti
nei conlronll della !tepubblica Federale di Germania o
nei confron ti di persane fi siche o giur\didle lede'iche,
purd1è dcrivanli da dirHU o ragioni sortl ne\ periodo
tra il ! 0 setlembre 1939 e 1'8 maggio 1945.
(2) U Governo ltaliano terrà indenne la Repubb!ica
Federale dl Gennania e le persane fisiche e <Jiuridime
tedcsd1e da ogn! even!uale azione o altra pretesa legale
da piHte di persone fisidle o giurid!che italiane pcr le
rivendicazioni e richles!e suddetle.
Articolo 3
Il presente Accorda non rlguarcla la ma.leria delle restitm.loni
esterne e del hen.i asportali.
Artico!o 4
(Il Il presente Accordo non riguarrJa. inollre, i conti
aperli su ordine delle Autorità di occupirzione alleate,
come qnelli di Hastalt, Amburgo e Duesseldorf ed even-
-~ -~- ···.-----------------------------····· ... --------~----. ----·' --------------------~~~~ -·---·-·--------·············--------··~-----__._-~~~~---~·.
670 Bundesgeselzblatt, Jahrgançr 1963, Teil II
Deutsd1land, wie sie auf Anordnung der Besalzungsbe·
hôrden in Rastatt, Hamburg, Düsseldorf oder etwa in
anderen Stiiàlen errichtet worden sind.
(2) Flinsichtlich dieser Konten werden die italienlschen
Berec:."Higten in der gleid1en Weise behandelt wle die
Staatsnngehorigen der anderen Staaten, mit denen hier-
über eine Regelung getroffen worden ist.
TElL Il
Frelgabe deutscher Vennogenswerte ln Italien
Arlikel 5
(l) Deulsche Vermogenswerte in Halien werden zum
Zweck der Liquidation nicht mehr erfaflt und nicht mehr
verauilert.
(2) Die italienischen Sonderbestimmungen hinsidlllid:J
der Beschlagnahme und Liquidierung deutscher Ver·
mëgenswerte werden ilufgeboben.
Ar!ikel 6
(!) Die besdllagnahmten, aber nom nichl liquidierlen
Vermi:igenswerte werden den Beredltiglen zurückgegeben.
Als nom nicht liquidien gelten auch cliejenigen Vermi:igenswerle,
für die zwar vor dem 29. Miirz !957 die
Liquidation angeordnel, jedoch noch nicht oder nirn!
vollstandig durcllgeführl worden lst
(2) Für die Verwallung der beschlagnahm!en Vermilgenswerte
und für die Durchführung des f'refgabever·
fahrens werden Gebühren oder sonstige Kos!en den Beredltigten
nur soweil in Rechnung gestellt, als sie aus
den wiihrend der Beschlagnahmezei! aufgelau!enen Er~
tragnissen der einzelnen Vermogenswerte geùeckt wer-
àen konn'cn.
(3l Die itctlienische Regierung wird die freigaben innerha!b
elnes Jnhres nach lnkrafltrelen dieses Abkommens
clurchführen.
Artikel 7
So'.Veit dooulscne Vermi:iqenswcne unter der Auflage
ver<iunerl worden s;nd, dai1 sie nidlt an deutsche nalürliche
oder jurislische Pt~rsonc•n über!ra.gcn werden dürfen,
slelll elie itcllienischc Regierung die Erwerbcr von
diesei r\uflclQ€ llicrrnit frei.
Artikcl 8
(1) Die itolirmische Regic·rung wlrd den lkrcchtioten
auf Antrag Erliise der vor dem 29, Miirz !957 J:quirlierlcn
Verméi,Jenswerle crstatten, soweit sic:h erweist, da!\
Rus rechllichen oder talsiid1lid1Pn Gt·linclen hierzu ein
Anlafl gegeben ist.
(2) Die Geouche um Uberprlifung dc:r in Belracht kommenden
fiille sind über die Botschoft der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland in Rom Lei der wstandigcn italienisd1en
Behërde lnnerhalb etncr Aussdlluûfrist von sechs Monatcn
nach [nkr,lf!lreten d!cscs Abkcmmens einzureichen
(3) Die Verpflichtung de-r i\alienischùn Regierung gemiiil
Absatz ! !Jesd;r:inkt sicll .:nil elncn l3ctrag von ins·
gcsamt 300 Millionen Lire. Fdlls dieser Betrag nid>l ausreithl,
um allen ais begrOndet anzuschenùen Gesuchen
vo11 zu entsprechen, wird die zusUindlge ilalienioche Behërùe
im Benehmen mit dc,r Bot=chaft der Bundesrepublik
Deulslhiùnd in Rom den BetrJg anteilm!if\ig an die in
Betracht kommenden Persom~n verleilen. \Nenn von dem
Bctrag nach Ablouf von dreî Jahren nach Inkrafttreten
des Abkomrnens noch ein Rest verfügbar bleibl, wird
dieser der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutsd1land
für die Vnterstülzung hilfsbedlirlliger Deutscher in Italien
zur Verfügunq ge>lellt.
tualrnente di a!lre cit!â, a favore di ex-priuionier! dl
gnerm, deportati e operai stranieri nella Repubblica
Federale di Germania.
(2} Per delti conti gli aventi diritto Ha!iani godranno
dello slesso lràlli.Hnento conccsso al hltadini dei Paesi
con i quali è slnlo raggiunlo un accordo in materia.
PARTE ll
Dissequestro del ben! !edeschi in Hal!a
Articolo 5
(1] I beni ledeschl in [talia non saranno più sequeslralt
o venduti a scopo di Uquldazione.
(2) Le disposizioni speciali ilal!ane per il sequestre
e la liquidazione dei beni tc-deschi sono abrogate,
Articolo 6
(l) I beni tedeschi sequestrati, ma non a m-ora Hquidati,
verranno restituitl ag!i aventi diritto. Sono considerali
beni non ancora liquidati anche i beni la cui liquidazione,
benchè disposta prima del 29 marzo 1957,
non sla s!a!a aitua!a o por!.a!a a compiment.o,
(2) Gli onerl inercnli all'amministrazione dei beni sequestraU
e all'altUilZione dell;; procedura di dissequestro
verranno arlrlehilati all'avenle dirl!to soltanto nei limili
in cui possano essere coperti dai provenU delle s!ngole
gestion! accumulatisi duranle il periodo di sequestra.
(3) Ji Covmno ltaiictno provvederâ al dissequestro
entra un ,tnno dall'entrola in vigore del presente Accorda,

Arlicolo 7
Per i casi in cui beni tedeschi siano slali venduti a
contlizione di non eSS(,re trasferiti a persane fisiche o
giuridid1e ted.-sche, il Covemo lli!liuno libera con il presente
Accorda ~;Il ucquircnt! d; tali beni dall'oLlbligo di
ossen·arc delta condizione.
Artlcolo8
(1) !! Governo ftaliano restituirà a ridlies!a agli avent!
dl; illo i provenU dei beni liquidati prima del 29 rnilrzo
!957, qualora risutli d1e !ale restituzione sia giuslificùla
da mo!ivi giuridicl o di fnlto.
(2) Le domande di riosame dei r<"loUvi casl dovran.no
essere prese1Hate JU'A .. mminbtrw:!lone cornpctcnlc italianil
pcr il tramile dell'Am!Josciuta della Repullblica
Fecler<1le di Gcnnanla in Roma entra ii termine perentorio
dl mesi sei cla!l'ontrata in vigore del presente Accordo,

(31 L'obbligo di rimborso da parte del Governo Haliilno
di cui nl pilr. l è limilato alla somma complessiva
di trecento milioni di lire. Ove tale importa non dovcsse
risultare suificiente per soddisfare intcgralmente le richiesle
rilenuk giusti fi cale, l'Am mi nistraziooe ilaliana
com~'elenle si consulterà con l'Ambasciata della Repubblica
Fed0rale di Cenmmia a Roma per una dislr!buzione
pro-quota detlïmporlo. medesimo tra ! vari inlc·ressatl.
Qualora, invece, dopa tre annl dall'en!rata in vîgore
del pr8senle Accorde s[ avesse un residuo disponibile,
questo verra messo a disposizione del Governo delia
Repubblica Federale di Germania per assislenza a favore
dl ciltadini tedeschi bisognosi in !talla.
----------------------------······-··--·--····-----~ --·-······-------------------------····
Nr. 19 ----· Tag der Ausgabe: Bonn, den 26. Juni 1963 671
Artikel 9
Soweit die in Arlikel 6 genannten Vermogenswerte
und die in Arlike! 8 erwiihnten Betrcige den Bered1ligten
nicht ~usgefolut werden ki:innen, werden sie einem von
der l:iundusrepublik Deulschlnnd zn benennenùen Treuhander
übergeben.
Artikel 10
Die zusUindigen italienischen !3ehi:irden werden auf
vVunsch den zusti:indigen d8ulsdum Behorden Auskiinfle
über die !lesd1lagnahme und Liquidierung der deutsd1en
Vermiigenswerle ertei!en.
A rtl kel 11
Die Forderungen deutsd1er Gliiubiuer, die durch Grundpfûndredlte
an in der Bundcsrcpublik Deutschland einschlieP.,Jich
des Li:mdes Berlin belc~Jcnen Grundsti\cken
italicnischcr Eigentümer gcsicllert sind, gehürcn nich! zu
den Vcnnriqcnswcrlen, die au! C>runù der blsher in !talien
ueltemJ-en FcinùvermügcnsojCSCilQellUllQ ln Anspruch
gcnommen wcrcl~n konnten.
TElL III
Deuhche Fabrlk- und Handelsmarken ln !!allen
Art!kel 12
(l) Die vor dcm 16. Septcmber l947 in ltolien hinterlenten
und irn ital!enischen Marf;enwaisler eingelragenen
deulschen filhrik- und l-Iimclclsmilrken sowie die deutschen
F<obrik- und Hondnlsmarkcn, die vor diesem leilpunkt
uomciiJ dr:om M<~clridcr A!JkommPn vom 14. April
1801 ln dem inlcrnationalen Mùrkenrcuister einlJelrsuen
si11d, stehen, sofern sie auf den Namen deutscher natürHcher
odc•r juristisd1er Personen einuç;tragen sind, diesen
Personrèn oder ihren "Rechtsmn:hfo!uern weilerhin zur vollen
Verfiiaung,
(2) Solern jclloch die im vorstehenùen Absntz bezeichnetcn
Mr.rkcn lm illllicnist.hen Mlukenn,gisler oder im
intcrnntion<1len Mcnkcnregislcr auf den Nnrnen ver. in
ltaliPn beslehendf.'n, lrüller ùeulsch~lwntrollierten Unlernehmcn
eingelrilgcn sind, werden sie denjenJ(Jen deutsd1cn
niltürlic1wn oder jurislischen Persomm, auf d0rcn
Nam en diese M<Hken iu i:lcr \1\'in"nzcichenrolle des Deutscll0n
Piltentamts ein[Jelraucn sind, oder dcren Re.chtsn
achfol<Jcrn über lragen_
(3) Die in den nacilfolgenclen Artikeln gelroffenen Be.
· stimmungc·n bleiben in jedem Fâlle vorbehalten.
Artikei 13
(1) f-linsichllich deutscher fabrik- und Handelsmark~n.
die in cler Zcit zwisdwn dem 1:1. Oktober Hl43 unù ùern
29. M<irz 1957 von frülwr cleutsch-kontrolliertcn Unlerneh!nen
für in Italien heracstcllte Erzeuunisse reùit·
mti3ig benulzt wordcn slnd und im Zeilpunkt des lnkrofllretcns
dieses Abkomrnens durch diese Unternehn,cn
noch redllrnctlilg bcnulzt wcnlcn und für die besondcre
Voraussctzuogen vorlicgen, die es anuezeigt erschemcn
lassen, die Rikk.gulle an den ursprünglichen deutsdlcn
lnhaber oder die Uberlragung des Eigentums an die deutsdte
nalürliche oder juristische Persan, auf deren
Namen elie Marke in der Warcmzeichenrolle des Deutsdlen
Pillentamts eingelrngen ist, oder an deren Rechtsnachfolger
vorzunehmen, wcrden ùie Inleressen der Pcrsonen,
an die das Unternehmen verauBert worden ist,
dadurm gewahrt, dall fiir diese Personen eine Zwangslizenz
für !lalleu er!eiit wird.
(2) Sofern es den pr!vrden Beteiligten, die sich zu diesem
Zweck der gulen Dienste der beiclen Regierungen
berlionen konnen, nic.ht qelin(Jt, sich über die Gewilhrung
Articolo 9
Qua lora l beni di cui al precedente art. 6 e gli im·
port! di cul al precedente art. 8 non poss<Jno esscre
messi a disposizione degli aventi dirltto, saranno couseunaU
ad un fiduciario da desinnars! dalla Repubb!ica
Federale dl Gormania.
Artico!o 10
L'Armninistwzione Jlc1liana competente fomirà, a ri·
d1iest11, alle Aulorità competent! tedesche inlormazloni
sul sequestre e la liquidazione di beni tedesd1i.
Arlicolo!!
! diritti di creditorl tedeschi, garanti!J da ipoteme o
simili privilegi su beni irnmobili sili in Germnnia, ivi
cornpreso il Land EJer!ino, dl proprietà dl ciltùdini ilil·
lian!, non costituiscono beni ncmici sequeslraoili a91l
effet! i delle disposizioni di guer ra vi(lenti in !lill la,
PARTE III
Marchl d'lmpresa tedesch! in Halla
Ar!icolo 12
(1) J marchi di fabbrica e dl commercio tcdcsrhi depositati
in Ita1ia ed iscrilli nel reulslro italiano dei marchi
d'impresa prima del 16-.setlemlne 1947 ed i màrchi di
ft1bbrica e di commercio ledeschi iscrltli, prima dl tale
data al sensi e per gll elfelti dell'Accordo di Madriù
del 14 aprile 1891, nel rerJistro internazionale a nome
di persane fi.siche o giuridiche ted.:~sdw, reslano nellil
p;cnil rllsponlbililà di delle persane o dei lora successori
od av·enti causa.
(2) Se i mard1i cli cui al comma precedente risullnno
invece isnifli nei registra italiano dei mardli dïmprcsél
o nel registre lnlernm:ionale a nome di ditte esistcnli
in lti'\lia, già conlrollate da capitale teclesco, i mMdli
slessl verranno !filsferiti alle persone fisidw o giuridiche
tcdesche al cui nome risullino reuistrnti ncl re-gislro dei
mardli di fabbrica e di commercio dell'Ufflclo Brevclli
9crmanico o ai !oro successori od aventi cilusa.
(3) Sono fntte salve, in ogni caso, le disposizioni dcgli
articoli segnenti.
Articolo 13
[1) Per i mard1i di fabbrica e di cornmercio lcclt•sc1li
conccrnenti merci fabbricate in ltalia, legiltirnamenl"
usuU da ditlc già controllale da capitille tedesco drd
13 oltobre 1943 al 29 marzo !957 ed ancora !t•~Jlllimamente
usati dalle stesse dit.te allil data di enlrata. in viuore
del presente Accorda per i quall sussislilrlO speciali condizioni
-che ne consigiino la res!ituzione all'oriuin,uio
titolilre ledcsco o il lrasferimento in proprietà alle per-.
sone fiskhe o giuriàlche ledesdle, al cui nome il marchio
rlsui.li registralo ne! registro dei marchi dl !abbrica e dl
comrnercio del!'Ufflclo Brevetti uermanico od ai !oro
succcssori od avent! causa, ull interessi delle persone
a cui la ditta fu venduta saranno salvaguardati con la
conccssione a ta!i persane di un diri\to di licenza ob\Jligaloria
per l'Jtalla.
(2) Nell'lpotes! d1e le parti private interessate, dw
potranno a!l'uopo avvalersi dei buoni uffici dei due
CovernL non r!usclssc~ro od accordarsi sulla stipulazione
6'72 BundesgesetzblaU, Jahrgang !953, Teil li
vertwglicher Lizenzen >!U e\nigen, werden die Bedingungen
der Zwangslizenz von den zustândigen Stellen der
italienischen Regierung in angcmessener Vv'eise unter
Benlcksichligung der beredltigten lnlèressen cler privaten
Ueleiliglen lest.gesetzt.
(3) fn den BedinDungen der Zwang~!i·;:en~ kann für den
deulschen Markeninhf!ber elie Befugnis VOi'.(l:BSehen werden,
mit. der lvlinke versehene \'Vw:rc:n 8\riiilführen, falls
der Lizr·nznehmcr die Bedürfnisse des ita!îèni~chen Marktes
nldH befriedigt.
(4) Die Edüllung der Dedingung&n ùet Zwangslizenz
durch den Lizenznehmer wird von de:n zuslândlgen Ste!-
lcn der ilulienischcn Hegierung ühcrwacht; rliese <>md
berechtiyt, die ZwangsHzenz aufznht\l:i~r• und: über An"
lrage der privaten Beleiligten au( Andenmg der Beùingungen
der Zwangslizenz zu en!srneidcn
{5) Gegen die Maflnahmen der zustii:nilJgen italieni"
:;chen Behorclen hinsichllich der FeQ!setzung der Bedinuungen,
der Andenmg der Bedlngungen und der Aufbebung
der Zwangsllzcnz lwnn von den privaten Betei"
liglen bel den llalienischen Gerid1ten ein Redltsmit!el
e!ngelegt werden.
Artike! !4
(1) Die itn1ieniscbe Regierung wîrd innerhalb elnes
Jàhres nach lnkrafllreten dieses Abkommens keine Entsdwidungen
über die un vorstehenden Artikel <Jenannten
Harken lre!ten.
(2] ÜE'n deutschen und italienischen Beleiligten bleibt
ea überfassen1 innerhalb dieses Zcitraurnes eine Verein~
bonmq Uher das Eigenlum an cler Marke oder liber die
flenulzung der Marke zu treffen. Zu diesem ZweŒ kônnen
sidl die Beteiliglen auch der guten Dlenste der beidca
Re~ierungen bedicnen.
(3) Komm! eine Vereinbarunq zustandc, wird von den
in Arlikel t:l vorgcsehenen ZwungsmaGn11hrnen aiJgesGhen.

Artikel 15
f'ür die v or dem ln kr afUreten dieses Abkomrnens von
den privaten Beteiliglen getroffenen Vereinbctrungen
.über die in Artikel 13 bezeichneten Marken gi!t folgendc:s:

a) Vereinbarungen, die eine Beslimmunq ddrüber enlhalten,
daB sie aud1 bei Abschluil efnes Vertr"ges
über diese Frage dtnch die heiden Reg!erunqen
gi.\llig bleiben sollen, bleiben unbcrührt.
b) Vercinbdrungen, die keine derartige Bestimtnung
darüber enthalten, bleiben cbcnfdlls un1Jerührl 1 wcnn jedodr eine soldw Vereinbanmg von rlea
riNtlschen Ileteilii]len ohne berechligten Grund vor
Abl<Ju[ von zwei Jahr2n nilch dem lnkraltlJelen
dicses i\bkommens gekündigt wud oder inncrhalb
clieser f'rist endet, werdcn die !nleressen des ital!enischen
Beteiligten cliu:lurch gewahrt, clafl für 1hn
eine Zwangsli>.enz für Italien erteilt wird. Arlikel 13
Absùlz 2 ist anzuwendcn mit der 1v!ai3gabe, dafl die
l:lcdingungen der Zwangslizcn·L für beide Bete!IIÇ-
t.en nidH ungünstiger sein dürfen ais elie Betlinqungen
cler bis d~hln geltendcn privaten Vcrcinburungcn.

c) Vereinbanmgen, ln denen au,drücklich voroesehen
isl, ela il sie bei Absch]u[l eines Vertril~JeS ub~r ù1ese
f'rage durch die l.JeiJŒn Regierunr:wn 1hre Wirkung
vcrlieren, werden clurch dicscs Abkommen n:d1t
ver!;\n9ert.. S0!ern zwlschen d~n privùlen BeleJliglcn
nicht nene Vereinbarungen al.Jgesch!ossen wer·
den, sine! die Bestimmungen des Arlikels 13 anzuwcnden.

di Hcenze contraltuali, le condi:ûoni della licenza obbligaloria
saranno equamente fissate dai cornpetenti organ!
del Governo [tallano, lenuti presenti i giusti interessi
delle parti private.
(3) Tra le condizioni della liœnza obbligat.oria po!rà
essere prevlsla la facoltà del titolare del marchio ledeseo
d: inlrodurre le merci contraddistintc con il marchio
nel caso chn il licenzialario non soddisfi il iahbisngno
del rnercato italiano.
(4) Il conl.rollo sull'adempimento da parte del licenzlatarlo
delle condizioni della licenza ol.Jbligaloria verrà
esercilalo dcd competenti organ! del Govemo [laliano,
che avranno polere di wvoca ed a cui dovrà essere demandata
dalle parti private interessate ogni modificazione
delle condizioni della liccnza obbligalorla.
{5) Avverso i provvedimenti degli organi competenli
italiani relativi alla fissazione delle condizioni della 11-
cenza obbligatoria, alla modificazione delle conùiLioni
od alla 1evoca le parli private interessale potranno ril:orrcre
all'Aulorilà giudiziaria italiana.
Articolo !4
{1} Per il pèri0do di un ann0 dall'enlrala in vigore
del presente Accorda il Governo llal:ano non prenderil
alcuna decisione in menlo ai marchi consideri.lli nel pre·
cedente articolo.
(2) Duranle lille perioclo le parti lnl.eressale tedcsca
e ilaiiuna potr,lnno rilg[iiungere un 'ln lesa sulla pmp1 :rel à
o sull'uso del marchio, avvalendosi a ta! fine andu= dei
buoni uffici dei due Governi.
Pl ln caso clïntesa non si fippllcheranno le misure
coercitive pleviste at precedente arl. 13.
Articolo 15
Per le lntcse rigunrdanti i marchi di cui all'art !3,
ecmcluse fra le parll priva te interessale prima dell'enlrata
ln vigore del presente Accorda, vale f]uanto segue·
a) Restano ferme le intese conlenenli una dispuslzione,
secondo la quale le intese medesime resleranno
in vigore anche ne! caso di conclusione di
un accorda fra 1 due Governi in questa materia.
h) Restano villide and1e le inlese che non conlcngono
una dio,posizione del genere: se tultavia una intesa
di qucsta specie viens denunciata dallïntercssato
tedesco s0nza giustificalo motiva prima della scadenzcl
d! due anni dopo l'cnlrala in \'i~rore dol p:eA
sente Accorào o se lïntcsa viene a scilderc cntro
questo termine, g\i inleressi dellil parte i\aliana
venanno tulelali conccdendole una liccnza obl.Jligatoria
per l'ltalia. L'art. !3 par. 2 sar.'l applicalo
in modo d10 le condizioni dt'lla licenza obbligatoria
non debbmo, pcr nessuna delle p~rii inl.erc:osale,
essere rncno favorevoll delle cond1Zioni deilc :n·
tese priveie vigcnti sino a tol n1omcnto.
c) Le intese, che prevedano esplicitamente la cessa·
zione della !oro valtdltil all'a\lo de::a conclus:one
di un accorda ln rnerlto tra 1 due Governi, non ven.~
gono proror;atc con il presente Accortlo. Saranno
conseguenlemente uppliŒte le dispasizioni del-
!'<Jrt. 13, salvo che vengano stipulute nuove intesG
fra le parti priv2.te inleressûte.
--·----------...... .,., _________ -------------------------------------------------
N1. 1 g - Tag der Ausgabe: Bonn, den 26. Juni ! 963 673
Artikel 15
Wenn sîd! einer der privaten Betelligten der guten
Dienste der beiden Regierungen bedienen wlll, kann
jeder der Vertragss!aaten den anderen Verlrilgsstaal um
das Zusammentreten einer alsdann zu ernennenden 96-
misdllen Regierungskommission crsud!en, welche die
Au!gabe hat, den Bele\ligten behilflich z.u sein, eine gütliche
Einigung herbeizulühren.
A.r!ikel 17
Die Rüdcgabe der Marken an die deutschen fnhaber
lii.Ilt die Red\le derjenigeu natürlichen und jmistischen
Personen unberührt, die diese Marken ver dem 16. Seplem
ber l!J47 rcclümJI3ig b"nulzt haben.
Ar!ikel !8
Soweit Uzenzgebühren für die Benulzung von FabrikUnd
Handelsrnarken im Sinne des Arlikels 12 auf ein
Konto bei einer italienisdJen Banlç eingezahlt woulen
sind, werden sie mit der Unlerzetdmung dieses Abkomrnens,
jedoch spiiteslens mit dem [nkraftlreten dieoes
Abkommens zugunsten der ursprünglid!en deulscbr:m lnhaber
oder ihrer Rechl~nachfolger ohne andere Beschrankungen
als die Entrid1lung für diese Lizenzgebühren nach
italienischem Recht etwa geschuldeler Sleuern freigegebcn.

i\rtikel 19
Die ilalienisc:he Regierung behiilt sich vor, im patentamllichen
Markenregisler diejenigen deulschen Fabrîkund
Handelsmarken zu l6schen, die in Deuls(h!imd dur ch
die Alliiertcn Müchle flir nirhtiq erklart worden srnd,
und di~jenigen deutsd1en Fabrik-' und Hanrle!smarker. ln
Holien denselben Beschriinkungen zu unterwerfen, tienen
diesc Marken auf Gnmd der in Krafl befindiichen Gesetw
in der Bundesrepublik Deutsd-lland unlerworlen
sind,
Ar ll k e! 20
Der Zeitraum, der nach Arlikel 7 des Abkommens zwl·
schcn der Bundesrepuh!ik Deutschland und der !talrEnischcn
Republik auf ùcrn Gebiet des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes
vom 30. April 1952 für die Berechnung der Fris\
uullcr Belrâchl bleibt, die für die Renutzung e!ncr Mnrke
dun:h die ilaliimlsd1e Geselzgebung vorger.ehcn isl, wrrd
für die dcutsd1en Fabrik- und Hnndelsmarken im Sinne
des Artikcb 22 dieses AIJkommens bis zum lnkrafltrctc·n
dieses i\blwmmcns verlângert.
Artikel 21
Die Rückgabe der deutschen Fabrik- und Hcwdelsmarken
an die ursprünglichen deu!schen Jnhaber und die
ubertr~gung des Eigentums der deutschen Fabrik- und
Hanùelsmarken an die deulsd1en natürlidlen oder juns!'ischen
Personen, auf deren Nnmen die Marken ln der
WMcnwlchenrolle des Deutschcn Pc1lentamts eingetrauen
sind, oder auf deren Rechtsn,<cll(o!qer wird ohne <mdHre
Einschr~nkunocn, als in dirsc~m Abkornmcn vcrgesehen
sind, und frei von Stc'uern und sonstigen Ahgaben vor·
genommen.
Artikel 22
Der Aus,dmck ,ù<eutcche Pabrik- und }lanclelsmark!,n",
der in d<:n vurherucLH~nden Artikeln verwc~nclet word8n
ist, um!afH:
a) Markcn, die auf den Namen von nntürlid1en Personen
cinuctrtlgcn sind, d:c Deutsche im Sinne des
Artikels 115 Absdtz 1 des Grunrlgesetzes für die
Bundesrepubllk Deutschland vom 23. Mai 1949 smd,
Articolo !6
Se una delle parti private !nteressate vuol servirsi
dei buoni uffici dei due Governi, ognuno degl! Stati contraenli
puo chicdere all'altro Slalo contraente di convccare
una Cornmissione misla governatlva, d1e dovrà essere.
subilo nominata e d1e avril il compila di aiutare
le parti inleressate a raggiungere un'intesa amlchcvole.
Articolo 17
La rcstlluziohe dei mardli ai lilolari ledesd1i non pregiudica
i rliritti delle persane !isiche e oiurirlidle, che
abbi2nu fatto legittimo uso dei mard1i stessi anterior,
mente al 16 se:l.'"mbre 1947.
Articolo 113
Qualora l'importa dl canon! per l'uso di marchi di
fabbrica e di commercio di cui al precedente art. 12 sia
stato versato in un conto pressa un lstilnto di credito
italiano, esso verrà messo a disposizione, senza al!re
limilazionl che la percezione di imposte evenlua]m..,nle
dovute seconda il dirilto italiano per questi canoni. dcgli
originari titolari o dei lora successorl od aventi causa al
momento della firma o al più tardi del!'entra!R in vigorc
del presente Accordo.
Artlcolo 19
Il Gcverno Italiano si riserva di radiare dai registro
dei marchi dïmpresa i mard1i di fabbrica e di commcrcio
tedeschi annuHati in Germania dalle Poleme A\leate e
di soltcporre ad analoghe restrizioni in Ttalia l marchi
di fabbrica e di commerciu tedeschi, il cui uso sia slalo
soltoposto a restrizion\ al sens\ delle leggl in vigoro
ncllJ Repubblica federale di Germania.
Ar li coi o 20
Il periode me, in virtü dell' art. 7 dcll'Accordo concluso
Ira la Repubblica Federale di Germania e la Repubblicd
Italiana in materia di protezione de! diritti di proprietil
indus\riale del 30 ap:ile 1952, non viene preso in considerazione
ne] computa del tempo cntro il quale un mardlio
deve essere utilizzalo a termini della legislazione
ilaliana, viene prorogato sino all'entrata in v!gore del
presente Accorda per i marchi di labbrica e dl commercio
tedeschl di cui al successivo art. 22.
Articolo 2!
La rest\tuzione dei marchi di labbrit:a e di commercio
tedeschl agli origloari lito!ari tedeschi ed il trasferlrnenlo
in proprletà dei mardli dl fabbrica e di comrnercio tede-
'schi a persone fisimè o glmidiche tedesche al cui nome i
mnrctd risultano regïstrati ne! regislro dei rr.ard1i di fBb·
bdca e Ji commercio dell'Ufficio Breve!li germanico od
ai loro successori od aventi causaj sarnnno effettuati
senzo alcuna limilazione ollre quelle previsle nel presen:e
Accordo e suranno esentl da tasse cd imposte.
Art i coi o 22
L'e:;pressione "marchi dl fabbrica e di commf'rcio !cdeschi"
usata nci precedent! atlicoli conlplemle:
a) marchl d'impresa, i cui titolarl si~no pcr.sone fhirl"'
di cltli'ldinanza tetlesca ai scnsi del!'arL 116, pût. 1
del "Grundgeseh. • de\ 23 maggio !9~9 della Repu\.lblica
Federale di Germania, e persone giurldiche il
614 Bundesgesetzblalt, Jahrgang 1953, Teil II
und juristische Personen, die nath deutsdwm Recflt
bes!ehen, wenn sie ihren Wohnsitz oder Sitz in der
Bundesrepublik Deutschland einschl!eBlirn des Landes
Berlin oder anflerhalb Dentsch\ands ln einem
Staat llaben, der in der Bundesrepubllk Deutschland
eine Vertretung unterhiilt, oder in dem eine solche
der BundesrepubHk Deutschland besteht oder der
nam übereinstimmender Erkliirurrg der Vertrags·
slaaten elnem solchen Staat gleichgestellt wird.
h) Marken von natürlichen und juristischen Personen,
die ihren Wohnsitz oder Si!z im sowjetischen BesatzungsÇfebiel
Deutsd1lands haben, sofem di<ésa
Mnrken in der Warenzeichenrolle des Deutschen
Palentamts an! den Namen einer natürlichen oder
jurisllschen Persan im Sinne der Bestimmungen des
vorhergehenden Buchstabens a) eingelragen sind
Diese Elntragung wird dun:t1 eine BesdleinigHng
des Deutschen Patentamts nachgewiesen, die von
jeder Legalisicrung befreit ist.
lm Fal!e einer Rückgabe von Marken auf Grund
dc'r vorhergehenden Artikel wird anf Anlrag die
Ubertragung der Marke auf den Namen der Pe,son,
die in der vVanmzeichenrol!e des Deutslhen Patentaml.s
als lnhaber eingetragen ist, in das italienl'iche
pa!en!omlllche Markenregister eingetragen.
c) Marken, die ilalieni.schen juristiscnen Personen gehi:iren,
die am 8. Mai 1945 von deulsdJem Kapilal
kontrolliert waren,
TEIL IV
A!lyemelne und SchluBllestlmroungen
1\ r ti k el 23
(Il Die ùeulsd;en Vermôgenswerle in rtalien werden
den deutsc-hen Bered1tigten in dem Zusland zurlickgege·
ben, in dem sie sich im Zeitpunkt. der Rüc.kgabe befinden,
soweit in diesem Abkommen nichls anderes bestirnmt isL
(2) Etwaige An~préid1e aus SchJdnn, Verlusten und
sonstigen Veriinderungen an ihnen, die durch Handlungen
oder Unlerldss1mgen ôffentlicher oder privater, mit
der Verwaltung beauftrag!er Organe verursacht worden
s[nd, konr.en von der Bunde·srepublik Deutschland oder
von den Eigenliimern dieser Vermogenswerte nidl! geltend
gemadlt werden.
Art i k e 1 24
Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland betrad1tet die in diesem
Abkommen gelroffene Regelung als abschlief.lende,
Sie und ihre Stadtsangehi:irigen werden im Zusammenharr•J
mil der Beschlagnahme und Liquidation der deutsdlen
Vermôgenswerte in Halien und der Ma!lnahmen
binsichtlich deutscher Fabrik- und Handelsmarken in
ltallen keine weileren Ansprüme und Rechte gegen die
ltalienische Repub!ik geltend machen,
Art i k el 25
(1) Streiligkeiten über die Auslegung oder Anwendung
dieses 1\bkommens sallen, soweil. mciglich, durch die Regierungen
der be;den Vertragsstaaten beigelegt werdEn,
(2) Kùnn eine Streiligkei! auf diese Weise nidtt beigelegl
werden, so isl sie auf Ver!angen eines rler beiden
Vertragsstaaten einem SdlieclsgeriCht zu unterbreiten.
(3) Das Schiedsgrmmt wird von Fall zu Fall gebildet,
inclem jeder Vertragsstaat ein M!tglied beste!H und beide
Mitglieder sich auf den Angeh6rigen eines dritlen Staanorma
del diritto genuanico, !n quanta ahbiano
domicilia o sede ne! territorio della Repubblica Federale
di Germania ivi compreso il Land Berline o,
al di fuori della Germania, in uno Stato il quale
abbia una rappresentanza nella Repubblica Federale
di Gennania o in cui esisla una rappresentanza
della Repubblica Federale di Germania, oppure
parificato Il tale Stato in base ad una concorde
dichiarazione deali Stati contraent.L
b) mardli d"impresa di persane !isid1e e giuridiche
aventi domicilio o sede nel territorio di- occupazione
sovietlcd in Germania, che siano stati regi"
s!rali ne! registro del marchi d! fabbrica e dl commercio
dell'Utficio Breveltl germanico a nome di
una persona fisica o giuridica rientranle nelle categorie
conlemplale nella precedente Jettera a).
La prova di tale regis!ra·Lione deve essere famita
n mezzo di una attest.azione dell'Ufficio Brevetti
germanico, non soggetta a legalinazione.
ln casa di restil.uzione di marchl d impresa ai sensi
dei precedent! artico!l sarà trascritto, su doma.nda,
nel Registra italiano dei brevet!i per marchl d'impresa
il trasferimento del mard1io al nome della
persona che ne risulti tito!are ne! registra dei
marchi di fabbrica e di commerclo dell'Ufficio Ilrevetll
aermanico,
c) marchi dïmpresa i cui Utolari siano persone giuri·
diche italia.ne controllate da capitale tedesco alla
data de\1'8 maggie 1945.
PARTE IV
Disposlz!onl generall e iinal!
Articolo 23
(!) l beni ledeschl ln !talla saranno restituili agil
aventi diritto tedesdti neilo slato ln cui si trovano al
momenlo della restiluzione, salvo disposizionl 'diverse
del presente Accordo.
(2) Eventuali rivendicazioni per danni, perdite o modi·
flme davu!.i nd azioni od omissioni degli orgnni preposli
alla !oro arnrninlsnazlone, pubblici o privati, non po-
!ranno essere fatle valere da parte della Repubblica
Federale di Gcrrnania o dei proprietari dei beni medesimL

Ar li co 1 o 24
La Repubbllca Federale di Germania considera la regolamentazione
previsla da! presente Accordo come
definiUva. Essa e i suo1 ciitadini non po!ranno far valere,
nei confronti delle Repubblica Italiana, altre preleoe e
diritti relut.ivi al sequosiro, alla liquidazione dei beni
tedesdli ln ltalia e alle misure adot!ate in meri!O ai
marchi di fabbrica e di commercio tedesdli in l ta!ia.
Articolo 25
(1] Cont.roversie circa l'inlerprel.azione o l'applicazione
del presente Accordo devono essere, nella misura
del possibi!e, rlsolle dai Governi dei due Stati contraenti.

(2) Se una conlroversia non potesse essere risolla ln
tal modo, css a do v rà, a rich iesl a di un a dei due Sta 1 i
contraenti, esscre solloposla ad un Tribunale Arb1!rale.
[3) Il Tribunale Arbitrale sara coslituito di volta in
voll.a; ciascuno degli Stali contraenti nominerà un membro
e i due membri cosi nominati si metteranno d'ac-
............. " .. -~--
Nr. 19--- Tag der Aus9abe: Bonn, den :26. Juni l8b:J 615
tes als Obmann einigen, der von den Re~Jierunçren der
belden Verttagsstaaten zu beste\len ist. Die. Mitglieder
sind innerhalh von zwei Monaten, der Obmann innerhalb
von drel Monaten zu hestellen, nad1dem der eine
Ver\l'agss\aat dem anderen miigelellt hat, dnfl er elle
Streitigkei! einem Sdtiedsge1icht unterbreiten will.
(4) Werden die in Absatz 3 genannlen Frlsten nich!
eingehalten, so kann in Ermangelung einer anderen Verelnbarung
jeder Vertragsst.aat den Prasidenlen des Ge·
richtshofes der Europiiiscben Gemeinsma!ten bitten, dia
erforderlimen Ernennungen vorzunehmen. Besitzt der
Priis[denl die Staetsangehërigkelt eines der beiden Ver·
tragsstaaten oder lst er aus einem anderen Grund ver·
hinder!, so sol! sein Stelivertreter die Ernennungen vor·
nehmen.
(5) Be3i\zt auch der Stellvertreter des Prasidenten die
Staatsangehiirigkeit eines der beiden Vertragsstaa\en
oder ist audJ er verhlndert, so soll das im Rang n1khslfolgenrle
Mitglled des Gerimtshofes, das nid1t die Staals·
angehiirigkeit eines der beiden Verlrausslaaten bes\tzl,
die Ernennungen vornehmen.
(6) Das Sdilcdsgericht enlscheirlet mit Stimmenmehrhcit.
Seine Entscheidungcn sind bindend. Jer:lcer Verlr~(JS·
slaat lragt die Koslen seines Mitgliedes sowie seiner VertrelUn<J
in dem Verfahr1'n vor dem Schiedsgerlcht; die
Kostcn des Obmannes sowie ùie sonsl.igcn Koslen we(l.
den von den beiden Vcrtragssluaten zu gleid:en TeiiP.n
gelragen. Dus Schi<èdsueridll kann eine andere Koslenregelung
treffen. lm Gbrigcm regelt das Schiedsgericht
sein Verfahren selbst:
Art1kel 25
Die !ta!ienisch~ Republik wird nach lnkwîtt.re!en di,~scs
AbkommPns dem Abk0mmcn ülwr cleutsche Auslanrlssthulclen
vom 27. Februar 1951 beitrelen.
Ar ti k el 27
Diescs Abkommen gilt auch für das Land Berlin, sofern
nid1t die Regleruna der Bundesrepub\ik Deutschland
gegeni1ber der Regierung der Tl.alienisdH?n Republik in·
nerlwlb von dre! Monalcn nach Jnkrafttreten dieses Ab·
kommens elne gegenleHige Erk.ltiru119 <1bg1bl.
Art i k <' l 28
Dieses Abkommen tri!t einen Monat nach dem Tag in
Kraft, an dcm die Renierui"•gen der beiden Verlrags,taaten
einander rni\\eilen, dall die innerstaatlimen Von:usselzungen
für das lnkrufllreten des Abkommens erfilltt
sind.
GESCHEHEN zu Bonn am 2. Juni 1961 in vier Urschri!-
ten, zwei ln deutsmer und zwei in italienischer Sprame,
wobei jeder \Nortlaut gleichermallen verbindlîd1 is!.
corda per la scelta del Presidente su nna persona appar-
!enente ad un lerzo Stato, la quale sarà nomina!a dal
Govern! dei due Slal.l conlraenli. ! membr\ devono es·
sere nominati entro due mesi, il Presidente entro tre
mesi, dopo che uno degll Statl contraentl avrà informato
l'altro d1e des\dera sottoporre la r:ontroversla ad
un Trlbunale Arbitrale.
(4) Se ! !ermini menzlonati al par. 3 non sono mantenutl,
ln mancanza di allra inlesa, ognuno degll Stal! con·
traenli puo pregare il Presidente della Corte delle
ComunHà Europee, di procedere alle necessarie nomine.
Se il Presidente ha la nazionalitâ dl uno dei due Sla!l
contraentl o se è lmpedito per a!tra ragione, il suo sostituto
procedera alle nomine.
(5) Se andle il sostituto del Presidente ha la naziona-
!ità dl uno dei due Stali contraenti oppure se anche egli
è lmpeàito, il membro della Corte, successivo in rango,
che non abbic1 la nazlonalltà di uno dei due StAil con·
traenti, procedcrà alle nomine.
(6) li Tribunale Arbitrale decide a maggioram:a. Le
sue decisioni sono vincolanli. Ogni Sta1o contraen!e soslîene
Je spese del suo arbitïo e quelle risullanti dillla
sua rappresen!anza nella causa davantl ùl Tribunale
Arbitrale; le spese per il Presidente nonchè le allrt'
spese saranno sopportate in parli U'éJUilli dùi due Siali
conlraenti. Il Tribunale Arbitrale puô slabilii'e diversa·
mente circa le spesc. Per tl resto la procedura è stabilit.a
ela! Trlbunale Arbitrale.
Art i co 1 o 26
Dopa l'entrata in vigore del preocnte Accorda la Rcpubb!ica
!taliana aderirtt ali'Accordo sui debiti esleri
!edescili del 27 febbraio l 953.
Art 1 co lo 27
n presente Accorclo vale anche per il Land Berlino. a
mena che entro !re mesi dall'enfra!il in vi<Jore dell'Accordo
slesso il Govemo della Repnllbl\ca fNleraie di
Germania non faccla al Governo della Repubbiica ltaliilna
una cornunicazione contraria,
Art. i col o 28
ll presente Accorda fontreril in vigore un mese dopo
che i Govemi del due Slati conlraenli si saranno reel,
procarnente comunicaU J'avvenuto adernpimento di
quanto previslo dalla rlspeHiva legislazione interna per
l'entrata in vlgore dell'Accordo.
FATTO a Bonn il 2 U1ugno 1951 in quattro copie originull,
due in lingua i!aliana e due in lingua tedesca; i
lest! nelle due lin[Jue faranno ugualmente lede.
Für rlie Bundesrepublik Deutschland:
Per la Repubblicd Federale cli Gerrnania:
Carstens
West rick
Für die !talienische Repub!ik:
Fer la Repubblica ltaliana:
P. Quaroni
676 Bundesgesetzblatt, Jahrgang 19(13, Teil IT
Brtefwemsel
Der Staatssekrelâr ltalienisme Botsd1aft
des Auswartigen Amts
Bonn, den 2. Juni 196! Bonn, rien 2. Juni !961
llerr Botsdlafter, Herr Staatssekretàr,
im beehre midJ, unter Bezugnahme au! Arlike! 3 des
heule unterzeichnelen Abkommens zwisdwn der Bundes·
ll:pub!ik Deutsd1land und der l!alicnischen Repub!ik über
die Regelung gewisser vermogensrechtlicher, wirtsd1aftlicher
und finanzieller Fragen in folgendem die beider·
>elllge Ubereinslimmung festzustellen:
Arîikel 3 des genilnri!en Abkommens ist lediglidJ dahin
zu verstehen, dafi dieses Abkommen den weiteren
Verlauf der von der Sd1iedskommission !ür Gùter, Recht.e
und lnteressen in Deutsch!anr! in Koblenz, vor dem ~llmdesamt
für au!lere Restitulionen in Bad Homhurg unù vor
•IPutsdJen Gericnten schwebenrlen Streiligkeiten in kciner
\Veise und in keiner Hinsidü prajud;ziert. G!eid1falls !ëillt
t1,1s genannte Abkommen die f'ragen cler Rückgabe der
un lzo~Jenen Kultur~]Üler unberührt.
Gcnelunigen Sie, Herr Botsd1after, ùen Ausclruck meiner
ausgezeichnelen Hochachtung.
Carstens
Seiner F.x.zel!enz
d:'m ltalienischen Bolsd1after
:!cr rn Dr. Pietro Clu il r on i
ich beehre mich, den Empfang Ihres Briefe~ vom heut!-
gen Tage zu beslàtigen, der in Ubersetzung wie folgt
!autet:
.!ch beehre mid1, unter Bezugnahme auf Arlikel 3
des heule unterzeichneten Abkommens zwisdJen der
Bundesrepub!ik Deutsdlland und der ltalienisd1en Republik
über die Rege!ung gewls>er vermôgensrecb!-
licher, wirtsmaftlirner und finanzieller Fragen !rn fo!-
genden die beiderseitige Uberf'instirnmung festzuslellen:

Ar!!kel 3 des genannten Abkommens lst lediglirn
dahin zu verstehen, dai.\ dieses Abkommen den weJteren
Verlauf der vor der Smiedskommission für Giiter,
Hechte und !nleressen in Deutschland in Koblenz, vor
dem Bundes<nnt für auOer<e Restitulionen in Bad Homburg
und vor ùeutsd1en GeridJten schwebenden s:reitigkeilen
in kemcr \.\'eise und in keiner HinsidJ! priijudizierl.
Cilelcl1falls laflt das gcnannte Abkommen die
Fragen der Rückgabe der enlzogenen Kul!urgüter unberi.Jhrl."

Irn Namen melncr J(c<jierung erkliire :th mich mit dern
Tnhalt !hres Briefes einvcrslanrlen.
Gcnehmi!Jcn Sic, H~rr SliJillssckreL:ir, den Ausdruck
meiner auS(Jezeichneten HochadJiun<J
Cluaroni
Seiner Exzo:;llenz
dem Slaalssekrelilr des Auswiirtigen Amls
Herm Professor Dr. Karl Cars te n s
Nr. 19-- Tèlg der Ausgabe: Bonn, den 26. Juni 14iiJ 677
Der Staatssekreliir
des Auswiirligcn Amts
ltalienischc Bulsch,lfl
Bonn, dE'n 2. Juni 1061. 13r.nn, rlerr l Jun; JfJGI
l--len Bol,cllafter, Hcn StadtssekrelLir,
ich beehre mich, unter Bezugnahme auf Artikel !Il des
heute unlerzeldmeten Abkommens zwischen der Bundesrepublik
Deutschlnnd und der Itillienischen Repuhlik über
die Regelung gewisser vermôgensrechtlicher, wirlsrhaft-·
licher und finanziel!er Fragen Jhnen im Namen memer
Regierung mitzutellen, dil!1 melne RqJierung es begrü!3cn
wurde, wenn die ilalienisdJe Regierung alle erforderlichen
Mallnahmen ergreifen würde, um einen sofortigen
Trans! er der in Artikal 18 genannten Bctrage in die BundesrepubUk
Deutschland oder eine Ubertragung dieser
BetrciiJe auf ein frei transfl'rierbares AusiMnderkonlo
sidwnustellen.
Genehmigen Sie, Herr BotsdJafter, den Ausdruck rne1ner
aUS•Je1.eidmelen Hodliiehlung.
Carstens
Seiner Exzellenz
dem !ta!icnismen Bolschaftcr
Herm Dr. Pietro Q u il • on i
ich be·:;hre mich, den Empf.1!lQ l!n<>s Bnclc:~ VP\11 i-,en-
!igen Tage zu bestiitig<'n, der in Ubersetzung wi" fo!gt
Jaulel:
.ldl beehre mich, unler Bezugnah11w aul Arlil:e! !Il
des heutQ unterzeichneten Abkommci~~ Z\Visl..ht'n der
Bundesrepublik DeèJtsmland und dê:r ltcdioJJis~.I\,.;:J Republ!k
ilher die Re~jelurrg gewisscr v"J :>1:ïy:t1sr~d1t·
licher, w!rtsdJaftlid1er und !incmzicllro F!"n:J211 !hnen
lm Namen melner Regieruna mi!zuteiicn, àiill mclne
Regierung es be(lrüflen würde, wcrr1 die il,l!ienische
Regierung alle erfordcrlichen M:d):,ahnen en)rei!en
würde, um einen sofortigen Tram;[ er der in Ar! ikel 1 !l
genannten Betri:ige ln die Bunclesrepub!!k Dièui,chland
oder eine Ubertragung dieser Betr2.gc ilUf ein fre! lr,ms·
ferlerbares AusHinderkon!o slchenustclkn."
Im Namen rneiner Regienmg erkliirf! ich mic~1 mit dcm
Inhalt Ihres flriefes einverstanden und versid1ere llmen,
daJl die Halienische Regierung elle erford8rlld1en Mi111·
nahmen ergreifen wird, um einen sofortigen Transfer der
in Artikel 18 des Ablwmmens, auf das skh dieser Bridwedtsel
bezleht, genannten Betrage in die Bundesrepublik
Deutschland oder eine Uber!mgung dieser Betrage
auf ein frei transferlerbares Ausliinderkonto siche!ZU·
s!el!en,
Genehmigen Sie, Herr Slaa!ssekretiir, den Ausdruck
meiner ausgezeidJnelen Homach!ung.
Quaronl
Seiner Exzellenz
dem Staatssekreliir des Auswiirtigen Amis
Herrn ProfeS"or Dr. Karl Cars te n 5
Translation
From the Bundesgesetzblatt (Gen11an Federal Law Gazette) 1963, PartH, pp. 669-677
Treaty
between the Federal Repu bUc of Gennany
and the Halian. Republic
on the settlement of certain property-related, economie
and finandal questions
THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
and
THE ITALIAN REPlJBLIC
in the spilit of the cordial fiiendship existing bet\:veen the t\:1/o countries
have ag:reed as follows:
PARTI
Economie questions
Article 1
(1) For the purposes of settling outstanding questions of an economie nature the Federal
Republic of Gennany sha11 pay to the Italian Republic a sum of 40 miŒon DeutscheMark.
(2) This sum shall be paid to an account to be opened in the name of the Italian Treasury
with the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro in two instalments of 20 million Deutsche Marle: the
first instalment shaH be transferred one month and the second instalment one year after the
entry into force of the present Treaty.
- 2-
Aliicle 2
(1) The Italian Government declares all outstanding daims on the paTt of the Italian
Republic or Ita1ian natural or legal persons against the Federal Republic of Gennany or
German natural or legal persans to be settied to the extent that they are based on 1ights and
circumstances which arose during the pe1iod from 1 September 1939 to 8 May 1945.
(2) The Italian Govemment shaH indemnify the Federal Republic of Gennany and Gennan
natural or legalpersons iàr any possible judicial proceedings or other legal action hy Itallan
naturals or legal persans in relation to the abovementioned daims.
Article 3
The present Treaty shall be without prejudice to the issues of external restitution and removed
property.
Aliicle 4
(1) Nor does the present Treaty apply to the accounts opened on the arden; of the Occupation
Authorities in Rastatt, Hamburg, Düsseldorf or any other cities for former prisoners of
war, deported persans and foreign workers in the Federal Republic ofGermany.
(2) In relation to those accounts, Italian beneficiaries shaH be treated in the same manner as
nationals of other States with which agreements have been reached on this matter.
[page 676]
The State Secretary ofthe
Federal Foreign Office
Éxceilency,
Exchange ofLetters
Bonn, 2 June 1961
I have the honour to refer to Article 3 of the Treaty signed today between the Federal
Republic of Germany and the Italian Repub1ic on the settlement of certain property-related,
economie and financial questions and to note that mutual agTeement exists as follo\vs:
.Article 3 of the said Treaty is to be understood simply as stating that the Treaty does not
prejudice in any mmmer or respect the further course of disputes pending before the
Schieclskommission ffu Güter, Rechte und Interessen in Deutschland (A.rbiti;ation Commission
for Property, Rights and Interests in Gennany) in Koblenz, before the Bundesamt flir
auJ3ere Restitutionen (Federal Office for Extemal Restitution) in Bad Homburg and before
German courts. Likewise, the saicl Treaty is without prejudice to questions conceming the .
retum of removed cultural property.
Please accept, ExceJlency, the assurance of my high consideration.
His Excellency
Dr Pietro Quaroni
Italian Ambassador
Carstens
- 4 -
Italian Embassy
Bonn, 2 June 1961
Excellency,
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of today's date, the text of which in
translation reads as follows:
"1 have the honour to refer to Article 3 of the Treaty signed toda y· between the Federal
Republic of Gem1any and the Italian Republic on the settlement of certain property-related,
economie and ±lnancial questions and to note that mutual agreement exists as fo11ows:
Article 3 of the said Treaty is to be understood simply as stating that the Treaty does not
prejudice in any manner or respect the further course of disputes pending before the
Schiedskonmüssion für Q[iter, Rechte und Interessen in Deutschland (Arbitration Commission
for Prope1iy, Rights and futerests in Gennany) in Koblenz, before the Bundesamt fùr
auJ3ere Restitutionen (Federal Office for Extemal Restitution) in Bad Homburg and before
Gennan courts. Likewise, the said Treaty is without prejudice to questions conceming the
retum ofremoved cultural prope1iy."
On beha1f of my Government, I agree to the contents ofyour letter.
Please accept, Excellency, the assurance of my high consideration.
His Excellency
Professor Karl Carstens
State Secretary of the Federal Foreign Office
Quaro ni
[page 677]
The State Secretary of the
Federal Foreign 0±1ïce
Excellency,
- 5 -
Bonn, 2 June 1961
I have the honour to refer to Article 18 of the Tretay signed today between the Federal
Republic of Germany and the Italian Repubiic on the settlement of certain property-related,
economie and financial questions, and to infonn you on behalf of my Govemment that my
Govenunent would consider it a welcome development if the Italian Govemment were to take
all necessary me as ures to ensure the immediate trans fer of the smns specified in Article 18 to
the Federal Republic of Gennany or the payment of those sums into a non-resident account
from which the funds are freely transferable.
Please accept, Excellency, the assurm1ce of my high consideration.
His Excellency
Dr Pietro Quaroni
Italian Ambassador
Carstens
-6-
Italian Emhassy
Bonn, 2 June 1961
Excel1ency,
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of today's date, the text of which in
translation reads as foUows:
"I have the honour to refer to Article 18 of the Treaty signed today between the Federal
Republic of Gennany and the Italian Repub lie on the settlement of certain property-related,
economie and financia1 questions, and to inform you on behalf of my Govemment that my
Government would consider it a welcome development if the Itahan Govemment were to take
ali necessary measures to ensure the inm1ediate tr·ansfer of the sums specified in Article 18 to
the Federal Republic of Gennany or the payment of those sums into a non-resident account
from which the tùnds are freely trans ferable."
On behalf of my Govemment I agree to the contents of your letter and assure you that the
Italian Govemment will take all necessary measures to ensure the immediate transfer to the
Federal Republic of Germanyof the surns mention cd in Article 18 of the Treaty to which this
ex change of letters relates or the payment of tho se sums into a freely transferable non_;resident
account
Please accept, Excellency, the assurance of my high consideration.
His ExceHency
Professor Karl Carstens
State Secretary ofthe Federal Foreign Office
Quaro ni
Annex 5
Vertrag über Leistungen zugunsten italienischer Staatsangehbrîger, die von
nationalsozialistischen Verfolgungsmai3nahmen betroffen worden sind
2. Juni 1961, BGBl. 1963 II, 793
Treaty Concerning Compensation for ltalian Nationals Subjected to National-Socialist
Measures of Persecution, 2 June 1961
-------- ------ --- -----·-·---·------
Nr. 22 --- Tag der Ausgabe: Bonn, den 5. Juli 1953 793
Ver!.rag
zwischen der Bunde~:;republik Deutschland
und der Italienischen Republik
über Leistungen zu~Junsten italienischer Staatsangehoriger,
die von nationalsozialistisclien Verfolgungsma.5nahmen betroffen worden sind
Accorda
tra la Repubblica Feàerale di Germani.a
e lé! Repubblica Italiana
circa gli indennizzi a favore del cit!.adini italiani
che sono stati colpiti dEl misure di pers(~cuzione nazionalsocialiste
DIE BUNDESREPUBUK DEUTSCHLAND
und
DIE IT ALlENISCHE REPUBUK
HABEN FOLGENDES VE!ŒlNBART:
Ar! ikel 1
{!) Dle Bunùesrcpublik Deutsd1!and verpflichlet sich,
an die l!alienische Republik vit,nig Millinnen Dcu!sche
Mark zu zahlen zugunsten der aus Crüm\en der Rasse,
des Glaubens oder der WeltiinsdJauung von nationalBozialislisdlen
Vertolgungsmaanahmen be1roffencn llalien:schcn
Slaats.:wgellërigen, cliè durd1 diese VerfolgungsmaBnahmen
Frcllleitssdüiden oder Gesundhcitsschad\gungcn
erlillen 11aben, soWi-0 zugJms!en der Hinterblicbenen
der inlolDe dicser Verlolgungsmaflnahrnen
Um()ekomnl'enen.
{2) Die Art der Verwendung des Iletragcs zugunslen
des vorbPzeichnelen Personenkri:ises blcibt dcm Ermessen
der Regieruna der ltalienischen Repuhlik überlassen,
Artikel 2
Die Bundesrepuhlik Deubchland stellt der ltalienische.n
Republik den vorgenannten Betrag einen Monat nnch JnJcrafllreten
ùicscs Vertraçjes zur Verfügung,
Artikel 3
Mit der in Artikel bezoid1neten Zahlung sind
zwischen der Bundcsrepublik Deutschland und der llulienisthen
Rcpnblik, unbesdladet etwalgN An.sprüche
ilalienisdrer Slaol.sungehëriger auf Grund der deutsd1Cn
'A'icdcrgo!machunrJsuesetze, alle Fragen, die Gegcns!and
dieses Vertrages sind, abschliellend 9eregell.
Art!kel 4
Dieser Vcrlmg <Jill auch für àas Land Berlin, sofem
nicht die Regicnmg der Bundesrepublik Deu!sd1land
gegenûber der Regienmg der llalienlsr:hen Repub\ik
lnnerhalb von drel Mom1ten nad1 lnkrafllreten dieses
Vcrtrages eine gcgPnlcllige Erklbruna abgibt.
Artikel 5
(1) DicsC'r Vertrug beùiJYl der Rotifil,ation. Die Ratifikationsurkuoden
sallen so baltl wie moolich in Rom
au~getauscht \verden.
(2) Dieser Vertray tritl arn Taae nach dem Austamch
d<:it R.atifikil!ionsurlumtlen in Kraft.
LA REPUBBL!CA FEDERALE DI GERMANJA
e
LA REPUBBLJCA lTAUANA
HANNO CONVENUTO QUANTO SEGUE:
Articolo 1
(l) La Repubblira Federale dl Germania si impegna a
versare alla Repubblica llaliana 40 milionl di DM il
favore di cittadini italiani i quul; p.er ra~Jione di rmza,
fede o idcologia siano slati o!]getto di misure c\i persecuzione
nuzional.socialiste e che a causd dl tali rnisnre
abbimw sofler\o priva·lloni dl ltvertà o rlanni ai!a siilute,
noochè a fovore dei superslil.i di colora che sono dcccduti
a causa di queste persecuzloni.
(2) !1 modo di ulilizzare tale somma a fiwore rkl\(,
cate9orie suindicate è rimesso alla valutazione d0l
Governo di}]Ja Repubblica ltaliëma.
Artico!o 2
La R.cpubblica Federale di Germania mellerà a disposizione
della I'cpubblicr, ltaliana la somma di cui sopra un
mesü dopo l'ent<ü.la in vigore del presente Accorde.
Articolo 3
Con il pagamento di cui all'Rrl. !, vengono re!]o!ate
ln m•;do dcfinillvo tutte le queslioni tra la Repubblica
fcclcrRl<.l di Germnnia e la Repubbrica ltalianu lormaoti
ogi]elto del pn:sente i\ccordo, senza pregiudizio de.lle
evcnluali prctese dl ci!ladini itali<lni in base alla legis-
!azione teciHca sui rl;;arcimenti.
Articolo 4
Il presente Accorda si applicherà ~nche al Land Eltr·
lino, .a meno che il Coverno della Hepubblica Fcclerole
rJi Germun.ia, entro tre mesi dal!'entrata in vigore del
presente Accorda, non rimella al Covemo della Rept;bl.>lica
Hal!ana una ùid1iara-zione contraria.
Articolo 5
(l) JI presente Accoido sarii ratificato e (jlî strumenti
di ratificd sariltlno scambiatl in Rorna al più pwslo possibilc.

(2) Il prc<:cnte Accorùo entrerci in vioore ii giorno
succcsslvo a!lo sc<unbio ùegii s!rumer.ti di rallfica.
794 Bundesgesetzblatt, Jahrgang 1963, Teil II
ZU URKTJND DESSEN haben die Bevollmiichligten
nad1 Au$lcmsch ihrer in gehi:irigcr Form befundenen
Vollmachlen diesen Vertrag unterzelchnet und mit lhren
"Siegeln versehen.
GESCHEHEN zu Bonn am 2 .. hm! l%1 ln vier Urschriften,
zwei in deutscher und GWCI in italienischer
Sprad!e, wobei jeder \Aforllilut oleichermallen verb!ndlid1
ist.
Für die BundesrepHblik Deutschland:
Carsiens
v\!estrick
Für die ltalien[scilc Republik:
P. C)uaroni
IN FEDE DI CHE l. plenlpolenziari - dopo presentaz.\one
dei loro pieni poteri trovali ln dovuta forma -
hanno f!rmato il presente Accordo e vi hanno apposto !
!oro sigillL
FATTO a Bonn ii 2 giugno 19Gl in 4 origlnall -- 2
in lingua lectescu e 2 in linguw italinna - luno e t'allro
testa !acenU cgHalm<:nto fcd0.
Per :la Rcpul-blic:a Pcderalo Tedeska:
Carsleno;
\Vestric k
Per la Repubblica ltaliana:
P. Cl ua r on i
Nr. 22---- Tag der Ausgabe: Bonn, den 5. Juli 1963 195
Briefwechsel
Der Stnats~ekre!iir
ùcs Aus',~ctrtigen Amts
Hcrr Ilotsc:haflerl
Gemiirl Arlikel 3 des VerlrR~cs über Leis!ungen zu·
gunsten ita!ienisdwr Staatsungchorigcr, die von ntltiomllswiali~lfschcn
Vcrfolgungsmaflnahmen betrolfen worden
sind, sind alle Fra~Jerl, d!e den Gegenstar~d dieses
Vertrnges bilden,, UJoèu~scharlet etwaig~r Anspriirhe il il·
lienisc.her Sldiltsangehéiriger auf Cni:nd der deuiSd1en
WiedNgutmad1ungsgeselze, absmlie!knd geregelt,
rch beehre mich, nmen hierzu mîtzut-eHen_, dafi die
Regierung der BundesrPpublik Deulsd:!J;md l-n .t,nbeiracht
des besonderen Charakters der AnsprüdH:l àu:f Wieder·
gutmachung der durch nal ionalsoziaH~tisch<>. VerfolgnEgs·
maflrlirhmen verursad1lcn SLhiidigung•m in bezug auf
die A nsprüd:le Ha!ienischer S!ai11.sangi!h-llriger, àie unler
diJS Bunde-scntschiidigur;9sgcsctz [BËGl in dür Fassung
vom 2fL Juni 1956 und das Dnncle-srûr.::'i:.èr~t:ü!ungsgesetz
(BRüG] vom 19. Juli 1957 filllcn, folgend!l Regelung !ref·
fen winl:
l. él) ln cincm besonderen Vcrfahrcn sollcn dlo" von
i!cllieni;;men StJalsangehorigen nm'h dem Blmdesc:ntsc:h~digungsgesctz
gcstC'lli.cn Antrage, die van
rkn deutsd1cn Enlschildigur.gsbehorden m Anbe·
trad1t der l:loslimmung des Arlikels 77 Abs. 4 des
ilalienismcn fricdensvertraaes vom 10. Februur
1947 abgewiesen würùen, nac.'l Mailgabe der Bes!immungen
des Bnm!esen tsdliidiaungsgesetzes behande!t
werden, ohne dall llierbei die Einwendun"
:Jctncr ExzeHenz
dem !lalienischen Botschafter
!lerm Dr. Pietro Quaro ni
Bonn, den 2. Juni !D6!
gen a us A:likel 77 Abs, 4 des genannten F!idcnsvcrtrages
erhoben werden sallen.
h) Auch sofern cl8rartlge .. "..nlri:ige au! Gmnd des
Artikels T1 Abs. 4 des ita\ienischcn Friedensver"
l__rag;;;s rechtskriillig uove!ehnt wm-tlen sind, werden
~le nach Mailgabe des vorslehenden Absaizcs a
neu lJehandelt wcrdcn.
c) Sind der at tige Antriige nad) dem Bundeser.tsmadi·
aungsgesetz nidll. innerha!b der Anmeldefrist dieses
Geselzes ge,tellt wordG,n, so kiinnen sie nodl
Jnn~rhilib elnes Jahres nad1 Inkraftl rel en die ses
Verlrctges zur Dehandlung in dem vorürwahnten
besonderen Verfahren eingebracht wcrden.
2. Die Rcgierung der Bundesrepub!ik Deutschland hat
bereits Vorsorge getroffen, da!l gC'gen Ansp!Üdle
l!a!ienismcr Staa.tsangehtiriger, die unter das Bundes·
rück0rstattungsgesetz fallen, die Eirtwendungen aus
Art1k2l 77 Abs. 4 des itallenischen Priedcnsvertrage.s
nic:h! erhoben w.:;rden sollen. Sie wird sicherstellen,
dal3 demrlige Antnige llallenisdler Staatsangehoriger,
dle aul Grund des Arlikels 77 Abs. 4 des il<J!ienischen
Friedensverlra<Jes rechtskriiftig abgewiesen wurden,
neu bchanùc!t worden.
Gcnchmigen S!e, Herr Bo!srhafter, den Ausdrnck
meiner ausgezeichnetsl.en Hochachtung.
Carstens
196 Bundesgesetzblatt, Jahrgang 1963, Teil Il
Amb~sciata d'ltalia
Bonn, 2 giugno !961
Signor Segretario di Sta!o,
ho l'onore di accusare ricevuta della Sua letlera
orlierna, che in lraduzione ha ii seguente tenore:
"!n conformilà dell'art. 3 dell'Accordo sugll lndi':nnizzi
a fovore del dltadini ilaliana che sono slati
colpiti da mlsur di persecuzione naziona\sociallste,
tutte le quesliom che formano ogge!!o d! tale Accorda
sono regolc1le deiinitivamen!e, senza pregludizio per
eventuali pretese di cittadlni italiani ln base alla
legislazione ledesca sui risarcimenti.
Ho l'onore di informar. La a tale propasHo me il
Governo della Repubb!ica Federale di Genmmia, data
il caratterE< speciale delle pretese di risarclmento da
parte di cittadini i!aJ.iana per dannl causati dili.le
misure dl persecuzione nazionalsodallste, dispona il
seguente rcgolamente per le pretese dl citlndini Hallan\,
regolate dalla Leg•Je Federille per gli indenwal
{BEG) nel tes!o del 29 giugno !956 e dalla Legge
Federale per le restiluziani (8RüG) del 19 luglia 1957.
1. a) le rid1ies\e avanzale da ciUadini ila\iani in coriformili'l
della Legge Federale per gli idennizzi,
le rpali \umissero respinte dalle Aulorita ledesche
preposte aU'indcnnizzo sulla base della
àisposizione dell'art. 77 par. 4 del Tratato di Pace
italiano del lO febbraio l 947, fcrmeranno ogetlo
di una procedura spcdale, in conlormità dr.lle
disposizion! della Legge Federale per qli incltmnizzl,
senza d1e sia sollevata l'obiezione di cui
all'art. 77 par. 4 de! dclto Tr<Itlclto di Pace.
b) anr.he se rittrieste siffatle fossero slate già respinte
ddinilivamente sulla bi\se dGll'art 77 par.
4 del Traltato di Pace italiano, esse saranno
nuovnmente prese in eBame in conformitil delle
àlsposizioni del precemente capoverso a),
c) se, in conforrnità delle disposizioni della Legfie
Federale per gli indenniz.zi, tali richiesl.e non
rossera sta.te presentate entro la scadenza prevista
da tale Leqge, esse potnmno essere nuovamente
presentale entra un a.nno dall'entra!n !n
vigore del presente Accorda per esserr:o prese in
esame seconda )a procedura speciale di eut
sopra.
2. ll Governo della Repubblica Feder<Jle ha giâ preso
provvedimentl perche nei confronti delle richieste di
citladird ilaliani, che catlono sotro il disposlo de il a
Leg9e Federale per le resli!uzioni (BRüG). non vengano
soi!e\•ale le ooiezioni Iond<Jte su li art. Tl par. 4
del Trùlt<lta di Pace ila!iano. Esso provvcdcrâ a che
richicste del generQ, da parte dl cilladini ilali;wi, già
respînte in modo definitivo sulla b11se de!l'ar!. 77 par.
{Uberse!zung)
ltalienische Bolschaft
Bonn, den 2. Junî !06!
Berr Slaatssekrctiül
lch beehre m!ch, den Empfang !hres heutigea Schreibens
zu bestaliqen, das ïolgenden Wortlaul ha!:
.Gem;JB Artikel 3 des Vertrages über Leislungen
zugun>ten italienischŒr Staatsangehi:lriger, die von
nationalsozialistischen Verlolgungsmafinilhmen be!roffen
worden sind, sind alle Fragf'n, die den Gegenstand
dieses Vertrage.s b!JdQn, unbesd1adet etwaiger AnsprüdJe
italienlscher Staatsangehôriger aui Grund der
deulsd;en \oViedergutmadJUngsgeset~.e abstùliellend gerege!t.

!ch beehre mich, lhnen bierzu milzuteilen, da!} die
Regienmg der Bundesrepubllk Deutschland in Ani.JetrarJ1t.
des besonderen Charakters der Ansprüche Ruf
'Wieqergutmadwng der durc."l nationalsozialistislhe
Verfolgungsmallnahmen verursachten Schadigungen in
bezug auf die Ansprüche ilalienismer Slaatsangehiiriger,
die unter das Bundesentschiidigungsgesetz (BEG)
in d~r Fassung vom 29, Juni ! 05li und da.s Bimdesrückerslattungsgesetz
(IlRuG} vern !9. Juli lOSï fùllen,
fclgende Regelung tretren wird,
1. a) ln. einem besonderen Verfahrcn sollen die von
italienischen Staatsangebèir\gen nad1 dem Bundcscntsd1Jdigungsgo.selz
yeslelllen Antrage, die
von den deulschen Er.tsdùidigungsbehèirden iü
Anl.wlracht cler Beslimmun<:J des Ar!.lkels 7'7
Abs. 4 des italicnl.schen rriedensvertrôges vom
W. Februar l'l47 abgc,·:i~sen wi.irden, nach Mal3-
gabe der Bestimmungen des !lumlesentschiicligunqsgesctzes
behandelt werden, ohne dall
hierbei die Einwcndungen eus Artikel 77 Abs. 4
des yenannten Frieclensverlrages erhoben werden
soU en.
b) Auch salem derarlige 1\nlrage auf Gnmd des
Artikels 77 Abs. 4 des ilaiicnisd'Icn Friedr-nsvertrages
red1tskraflig ab'Jeichnt worclen sind,
werden sie nach Mailgabe des vorstehend0n Ab·
satzes a neu behandell werden,
c) Sind derartige Antrdge nad1 dem Bunde.scntsdliidigunqsgeselz
nicht innerhalb der Anmeldefrist
d!escs Geselzes gestellt worden, so ki:innen
sie nod1 innerhalb eincs Jahrcs nad1 !nkr.dttreten
dieses Vertraoes zur Behandiung in dem
vorerwahnton besonde1en Verfûhrcn eingebrucht
werden.
2, Die !l.c~Jierung der BundesrQpubllk Deutschiand hal
bere1ts VorsorgP getrollcn, dail f!Cgen An$pri.ic:he
ita!ienisdwr Sta~lsanDehi:irioer, elle unter das B:un·
desriiclcers!allnngsgesetz fJllen, elie Einwendurtgen
aus Arlike! 77 Abs, 4 des ilalienischen Fri.eùç;rtîl•
vertrages nicht erhobrn werrJen sallen. Si:e w!:rd
sicherstellen, dall derarlige ;\ntriige ltalienlscber
Staalsilngehiiriger, die auf Gn:nd des Artik~ls 1'7
Nr. 22- Tau der Ausgabe: Bonn, den 5. Juli 1963 197
4 del Truttato di Pace italiano, si~no nuovamente
prese in csame,''
ll Governo tlellil Repubblica !!.aHana esprinw il sua
~pprezzamento pcr il H:IJO[ilmento cui si è impcgnato IJ
Gov0rno della Repubblica Federale di Gennania e si
dichiMa ct·<Jccordo con esso.
Voglia oradire, Signor Segretario di Stato, gli attl
clc:lla mia piû alta con~lrJerêlz;one.
S.E.
il Scgrelario di Stato
dell'Auswèirliges Am!
Fr of. Dr. Ka ri C: ars te n s
Pietro Quaronl
Ambasda!ore d'ltalia
Abs. 4 des italienischen Friedensvcrtrt\l]CS red1tskriiflig
abgewiesen 'Nurden, n.:u behanclelt werclcn."
Die J<egierung cler Itallcnisd12n Repub!!k bcQri\Bt die
von àer Regicrung der Bunuesrepublik Deutschland zugesa9le
Regelung une! erkliirt sich mit. Hu einverstant1en.
Genehmigen Sie, Herr SlaatssekreUir, die Vers1dwrung
meiner ausg0zeichnetsten Hod1~chtung.
Seiner Excejlenz
Pielrn Quaroni
Jtallenischer Bol.sd1after
dem Slaatsseicretar des Auswartigen Amts
Herm Prof. Dr. Karl Cars! ens
Translation
From the Bundesgesetzblatt (Gennan Federal Law Gazette) 1963, Part II, pp. 793-797
Treaty
between the Federal Republic of Germany
and the ltaJian RepubHc
concerning compensation for Itaiian nationaJs
sub,jected to National-Socialist measures of persecution
THE FEDERAL REPlJBLIC OF GERMAt'-JY
and
THE IT ALIAN REPUBLIC
HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
(1) The Federal Republic of Gennany undertakes to pay to the Italian Republic forty million
Deutsche Mark for the benefit of Italian nationals who, on grounds of their race, faith or
ideology were subjected to NationaJ-Socialist measures of persecution and who, as a result of
those persecution measnres, suffered loss of liberty or damage to tbeir bealth, and for the
benefi.t of the dependents of th ose who died in consequence of such measmes.
(2) How this sm11 is used for the benefit of the abovementioned category of persans shaH be
lefi to the discretion of the Govemment ofthe Italian Republk
Aliicle 2
The Federal Republic of Gennany shall place the aforesaid sum at the disposa] of the Italian
Republic one mon th after the entry into force of the present Treaty,
- 2 -
Article 3
Without prejudice to any rights of Italian nationals based on Gennan compensation
legislation, the payment provided for in Article 1 shall constitute final settlement between the
Federal Republic of Germany and the Italian Republic of all questions governed by the
present Treaty.
A.rticle 4
The present Treaty shall also apply to Land Berlin, provided the Govemment of the Federal
Republic of Gennany does not submit a declaration to the contrary to the Govemment of the
Italian Republic within three months from the date of entry into force of the Treaty.
Article 5
(1) The present Treaty shaH be subject to ratification. The instruments ofratification shaH be
exchanged as soon as possible in Rome.
(2) The present Treaty shall enter into force on the day following the exchange of the instmments
of ratification.
IN WITNESS \VHEREOF the plenipotentiaries, having exchanged their full powers, found in
due fom1, have signed the present Treaty and affixed thereto their seals.
DONE at Bonn, the 2nd clay of June 1961, in four originals, 1\vo each in the German and the
Italian languages, all four texts being equally authentic.
For the Federal Republic of Gem1c:my:
Carstens
Westrick
For the Itahan Republic:
P. Qum·oni
- 3 -
Excbange of Letters
The State Secretary
of the Federal Foreign Office
Bom1, 2 June 1961
Excellency,
Pursuant to Aliicle 3 of the Treaty conceming compensation for Italian nationals subjected to
National-Socialist measures of persecution, all questions govemed by tbat Treaty are --
without prejudice to any rights of Italian nationals m·ising from Gennan compensation
legislation--- fin ally settled,
I have the honour to infiJrm you in this connection that, having regard to the special nature of
rights to compensation for loss and damage caused by National-Socialist measures of
persecution, the Govemment of the Federai Republic of Gennany will make the following
anangements m relation to the rights of Italian nationals under the
Bundesentschadigungsgesetz (Federal Compensation Act or 'BEG') as amended on 29 June
1956 and the Bundesrückerstattungsgesetz (Federal Restitution Act or 'BRüG') of 19 July
1957:
(a) h1 a special procedure, claims made by Italian nationals under the Bundesentschadigungsgesetz
which would be rejected by the German compensation
authorities on the basis of Article 77 ( 4) of the ltalian Peace Treaty of 10 February
194 7 are to be dea]t with in accordance with the provisions of the Bundesentschadigungsgesetz
without any objections based on A.rtic1e 77 ( 4) of the
said peace treaty being raised.
(b) In addition, where such daims have been rejected with final and binding effect,
those claims will be re-examined in accordance with subparagraph (a) above.
( c) If such claims un der the Bundesentschadigungsgesetz were not made witlün
the time-limit provided for by that law, they may be lodged for examination
- 4-
under the abovementioned special procedure within one year of the entry into
force of the present Treaty.
2. The Govenm1ent of the Federal Republic of Germany has already taken steps ro prevent
objections being raised on the basis of Article 77 ( 4) of the Italian Peace Treaty in reiatioü
to claims of Italian nationals under the Bundesrückerstattungsgesetz. It will ensure tJ1at
such claims brought by Italian nationals which have been rejected with final and binding
effect on the basis of Article 77 ( 4) of the Italian Peace Treaty are re-examined.
Please accept, Excellency, the assurance of my bighest consideration.
His Excell~ncy
Dr Pietro Quaro ni
Italian Ambassador
Carstens
Italian Embassy
Bom1, 2 June 1961
Sir,
I have the honour to aclmowleclge receipt ofyour letter oftoday's date, the text ofwhich re<uls
as follows:
"Pursuant to Article 3 of the Treaty conceming compensation for Italian nationals subjected to
National-Socialist measures of persecution, ali questions govemed by that Treaty are --
without prejudice to any rights of Itaüan nationals arising from Gem1an compensation
legislation--- finally settled.
I have the honour to inform you in this connection that, having regard to the special nature of
rights to compensation for loss and damage caused by National-Socialist measures of
persecution, the Govemi11ent of the Federal Republic of Gennany will make the following
arrangements m relation to the rights of Italian nationals under the
Bundesentschadigungsgesetz (Federal Compensation Act or 'BEG') as amended on 29 June
L 9 56 and the Bundesrüclœrstattungsgesetz (Federal Restitution Act or 'BRüG') of 19 J uly
1957:
1. (a) In a special procedure, claims made by ltalian nationals under the Bundesentschadigungsgesetz
which would be rejected by the German compensation
authorities on the basis of Article. 77 ( 4) of the Italian Peace Treaty of 10 February
1947 are to be dealt with in accordance witb the provisions of the Bundesentschiidigungsgesetz
without any objections based on Ariicle 77 ( 4) of the
said peace treaty being raised.
(b) In addition, where such claims have been rejected \Vitb final and bioding effect,
those claims will be re-examined in accordance with subparagraph (a) above.
(c) If such claims under the Bundesentschadigungsgesetz were not made within
the time-limit provided for by that Iaw, they may be lodged for examination
- 6 -
under the abovementioned special procedure within one year of the entry into
force of the present Treaty. -
2. The Govennnent of the Federal Republic of Gem1any has already taken steps to prevent
objections being raised on the basis of Article 77 (4) of the Italian Peace Treaty in relation
to daims of lialian nationals under the Bundesrückerstattungsgesetz. It will ensure that
such claims brought by Italian nationals 'vvhich have been rejected with final ru:Jd binding
effect on the basis of Article 77 (4) ofthe Italian Peace Treaty are re-examined."
The Government of the Italian Republic welcomes the arrangements promised by the Go vernment
ofthe Federal Republic of German y and expresses its agreement thereto.
Please accept, Excellency, the assurance of my highest consideration.
His Excellency
Professor Karl Carstens
State Secretary ofthe Federal Foreig11 Office
Pietro Quaroni
Italian Ambassador
Annex 6
ltaHan Pr{;lsiâemtia1 Decrèe No. 2043; 60ctober 1963
Deutsche Botschaft Rom +39 06 49213320 S.0V03
21--1-19H-i: · GAZZB'l'TA T_IJl'J?IOU.LE DELLA P..EP'GB~LIC}.:·IT:.ALUN.A:· :N. :m _ '"26-7. JDstiî!:~-!!..-~------;--- .. ~--L . .!--~!'!"~,-l:t":"""'..___.,._~-?tt ______ ~--~-~-_.-----~ ~----?---~--··~· --~,._.;-~---~--- --------~--":ee:::::;_;ç_... .... ~-... ---1-
D~ète:v :t)Ogotel,elîr.!l'l!e i.a ù((Obte 1016, rè;;istrato ana L E (j ft 1 E D E' c· R' E' 'T-· .. ·1' Cor!&- de\ co nt\ H 31 ottobre Hl1G. re:;lstro u. :'f? .• !oglio n. 2N U
(Bollètiino rr!ficiale 1916, ldisperwa 88, pagina 5Qj7) : -~ ,
. "' .&TABILE G-iuse!Jpe, da. Pa!~rmo, capltuno. 1 . . _ . _•:·.u:l'. .· ...
. Deereto luogoteuenzi:.üe '20 ottatre 1ir!t!, r~:;lstrato ana 1 DECRETO DEI. PRESIDENTE DELI,A REJ?l;'BBLICA . .Corle dei •JOllii il 29 novemhro 1()16, rcg!stro IL 00, fo;?Jio n. 2A 27 ottobre 1952 P. 2H:!. .
~clleWüo ufî\oiale 1Dl6, cttspensa Ufl, Pilirl.rw. 37;)9)' l E.reûon-e ln e:nte inorJ>le ·d,t!la ·cassa ~colastlc!i' :della
·. , DE P/1.0tA .-\ü<fèltmtouiO, dà. Gtê!mo Ap))n:a (EJarl). 1 Sèu<)ll\. <ii RVVW:mento f?l'O-'i·eSs!o!,l.fth) a tipo rndu~tri:tle::'Wli' _ . IO!dato. ' '!ICbÎ!e di ConegliaM, ru~:vlso). ' ' . ' ', '>3,\ . ' '
De.~relo · ~uogctene::zl(l\e 1\i .novembre lDlô, registrato ana d d 11 n bbl, ;•w,i·· ·t · ·- Cotte . , :S. 2112. Decreto del Pl'e;;:i ente e a .1.\epu 1œ- -' P. • {!si cou fi il 15 dioemlll'·\l W1G, regi;tro :-t, 281 ro~lio n._ .;~, .. ·
(Eoliet11ilo umcla!e t\l'!ii, <J!~pen~t\ 100, pa~lna 61üii): tobre 1G6~·l col qillilll, sul1n· propostâ deJ 1\'H:n,t~:t:r:O: :
OUvttn ~o:-dlrHtndo, da Büc'glll [fülW, tenen(o.. per lw pul',lblien. istruzionc, liiJ Cas© scola-stlr;4;~~,ell'Ji,
. D~rr~:o iiJo,!iotçnen:zfatg 3 <llce:nbrc i\116, regl;trqto nJln. ScuoL't {li <nvJ~unento profes:üomûe E~ tiJ)O iuda~~l:in1~ · Cor:e del conn 1\ :'5 dicl)m.l:n·e l\.llG, \'G8'lstro n. ':/'1,' rog1!o n. 70 rna-s.chile üi COli<"{;limlO (T:reyiso), vle:rc~~ e~:ett:ar in_
(Bol!et!JtlO vfîlc!a:e l:JlG:. \Lspema_106, pagina. 6595) : ente morille e ne viene a:pprovato lo stah1to . . :· ' · IUCC.-\ Cul·!.o, da Tor!no, a$pir:m.to uf!:clal~. · ·.': '
D .,, , 1 .... to 1
., 3
,. ,., 1 . 0 " • ,_,, 1 1/i;;to,.il G11ardaSi.1]Uif..:. So$(,XJ • . .~ ···.· .. ·.· ,, 8
• 1
e,'o, u~.,~ c;}!:~YZ.<ttè. ',,_,.r.~,:;;.~.:.rl~ .. :.;g-,,,1a!o alltil Regislrala'alla torte d. Bt conti, ailat 17 gennaio 1GO~ ' '·• ', ~ot,e d<l• (Ol,HI ,-1 wG ,euruuo 19it, .c.,J>;,to !\. ~~. !oglio ll. l Alli Clet Gocano reglsii'O n· 170 fo(Jlio n. 1~0.- viLLA . tBollctilllD tll!lûlalr. tJl/, tl.lS))Ctl!i:l. !f, pag\M 3'J.j); • ' ·- · ' .. · · ··· .·.
A:'<GEL~ ·R~:r:t~lo, da CtWi:lZ~~ C~rS:Co ~ (l:din,e~, so!ilato, ~=-----=----="'-::"""""==- .•. : -~-~··====.:.---- .·7
ùe<'!'e:o JUO(;O!e.rcenr.t~:le 1" fr:n~nuo 101,, re.;r~tt·nto ~1111.. . ~ ·c· ·.y.,.; · D-rLL 1
•'BPUBB' r YC <
Cori.' dei coo~i il !il mo. no 1017, l't!:-;'btr·o n. ;;g, tD;?~!o ,,_ :n! DECB.ETO DEL L RL:' IDEXlE •:·. .'1- ~ ... ~. ·"'· .. -, (Bo!'cil!no n!'f\;:hle t\ll'f, dl~peùn 12, pa;,::ne. mt, 896j: J 6 otto.bre ·JSI33, n. 2{14:1, · · . . . . ···:.·. · ,
I'\;T)I·:;o;~n·A.DE Pomrdllo. rlD. !':al·a0 p,,Qt,.~il), SJ<,~i1Ùo; 1 Norme pet la dpà_rtillon.e: della ~o~ma· versatll..dal Gç~ ... • -~L-\:LCE;Ar-\01 li"O, {l'\ r\on.J.a. crnit:\no. l venw della ~epubohca !?~derate d1 üermanla, .ln ta-az~ al.·., .• ; . , . . ' . _ • . I';\ccord<i.'di Bou~ dd 'J;. gtngnu I96!,.lJ,t~1·Jndenrm:fi.a:·cJttl!.• .. ' · ncc:.:~o lnogotf'tlPit:r.;u,e 11 febbl'a~o 1~11,, reg:;;trnto ana 1 dhli iütliÀnl cmpiti da m,isute di p·3ra:ecnr.ioae !lit:{JQllai!Jo, '
Corte.del (01:.~1 Uii m~n~ 1Dl'l, \·~_g·l;;n·n n. 88, ro:;~io n. 701 cillii~te.. · . : .·. ·
(BoHecr!nO ttfl~~.ia_ie i~JJJI d.~peu~u, 1:\ I)ng:na l~'J);. ·! . .. · .. ,· ··
:\!V.};! fémilio., od!!: Ss.vonu. capituno. ·. . IL l'l\l~SIDEX1'E. D:SI1 f,A REI't.UDLIC~~ ·. · .· ··'
r>.e::,·~lo !t.W{,~Oif1ll;nzitlle 1~ :;,p;•i!e 19ii, regi5(rato ulla Corte l · · · · .--. · · -:: •. ".
deii:o:di 1.1 21 mn.;:gio 1~Jï. \'~glmo n. \'i, tn~Uo n. t:.~ (Bol· Visto l'al.'t. 8i del!n. Costituzionc; · · .:: . leiê!:JO ufl'Jçl<iie lY.>lî •. ù,';cpen:::a 21, pD.gin:.t il708): . Yisto l'<n't . . 3 dtiU;i legge G febbrllio lOtiS, n. 4p..t; re~::;:
, " S.-\.VIO rmt>':;ro. de. Ral'lll::llleito (Pavl·!!), capornl mn~·!' latir:t ,:llJ'-·Ù:cordo. J.i,1lo-g·erin::mico. prr ,gli -.indenn1z.~~ .. ''.•.•:
IZ- 0
·"· n. c.ittmlini italiani colpiti -d.n· ru:i~>ui'<e. <li per:-1ecuû(}UC · · .. . Decreta :n_o;;otetli':fU.lai<! _:!. a;,t(IWl 1D'J7, t·~:û~tra to a!lr< con~ lrwziou<i.l"(idn.liste · conch1~0 .a. Bonn ·.il 2 giugno:.;1.~6f;·:c .. ' · dEl C•l!lr! il.~.) a;j'O'itl). 11117, reg!5l1'6 iL Dl), .J'tJ;;;to !l'. 30!) (Bvi·l ' • · • . ,, ,,',,.,!, c· . • • . .-• "·_. . ··l· ·-r: ·,:-._.: ,:.~. lettino uwr:rc!c l!t17, ·:l.lalWlfl'l f!IJ, · [lngiù:t mn): 1 , T:dJto 11. p.111 tc u!, lJ OlllUll:-J.>ilOl'l"( l(l't. ll.1üe11 are P'l:~·
· (itoi'\0.\\;0 An:;etn n'a;::(o, d<t casw:;1,
0;0 r .. a1
u 0 ~~~·~· 1 Vlslt t'L'lU .<ll'L 3 dellrt legge .. s·~pr:und~çata; · · ·- :.,
se;·gvm,), - _, ,, 1 SeutitC'I il C:O\l!(iglio aet.)'Lü~isq-~; · .. ·· . ,~:)<~;<:< .. ;;:. De~l'e!o. llJo~nt~n~~n-.:iaio 1:1 ètt~mbre 1;11';', rr:·gü;trn!o utta! _Sn~la !n:op~lP..b ciel l?~es1~ente .del Con.~.l~.IO:··:del :~f~.,,
Cœ·te :le\ con~~ Y. 19 s,c~:c;;d:''" 1;m, l'<•gi;;u~ n: .• ~o. iogUr 0. ~>9~ 1 mst1:1, 1h C01'l<'N'tï:>; con .. 1 }Ii.nHtH pel' gl1 .idl:<H'J -~;otel'I,.
(BO!l•J<.I.\1:. lH":·:<\le.1.3l .. , d·~lHm:a. cs. _llatnna._ ~~~5): · ~ per ll tl';;IWO e per le finanze; ·, . · ..· .: JHA.,Cf-11':1 l .-\ Gru.;~IJl)e, da Saw.ss.:J. (l.or~no;, capoml .
. :roag;;:on. · . · . · Decreh · . · ·
· l)Qcl.'~tc luogote.n~>.nziale JS otto\Jre 1011, regtstratc ana.'!, · ·. · • . · · . ·
Corte, cre; contîJ~.30 otfol:tre. 1!>17,, registro n .. ~~. fog:\io h. 3ù3 Art. .1. .. .-:
(BolleHtno UfflCi<Ee·tn7, .d!>11en>tl. 79: pngirm 1)600) '- 1 · . · · · ·
z.\lJR\ l.~1:t~lda. d.:1 :..t~l (E!elh.inê), $Ottot•mco.te .L14 sm:~nUI Y~r~tll <Ùl) Govel.'.no delkl· ll<:pü.bb!itet fi~
· · derale dt Gel'J.lU'I,llli1 ai Go<;erno dell.a . .lkpuhhhcu. It:'l· l)t>rrHo lnogc:cnenzi:HP. ?:?. no•:eml!re J.917 te"\strato ana.·1 !' · · ·1 · 11' A 1 1 1 2 " · 1"-"1. t·• 1 _. .. _ · Cori~ d·!l conti il .JO dlcerrilll'C tn7. registra n. iw. taglio n. 1s.} ~XI~ In ;use a · 11ccon o < \l • lP;u~no .. '':' ~· !"ü ~ ·
(Bo!lenlno 111'lidals lOn, tli>.Jio.•UoA. S7, p~gln(). 717nl, · li \11 r.lf~l'Mû~ne mc:H'~Ll_e .11. f~,.~or~ clJ él.tw.d\n_l .'~ai.~Hl.l.dre .·:;
PE\'AZ7.0 Fl'<llt~<~to, da !-faranr.auu. (Ar;ti), tenenre. ftn•m;o ·\'tttmte dGl!.n,. dep;.wi;a:r.lOUc: per l'agwm .d1· l'illZ;t·; . ·
""""MO · •O•'•OtR'h .·, ., " · inlS .. ...-~ .. Î~i-! oidei>Jogit!, :t:ârà, ripattifafr~ i ben~IJ:e.JarÎ&-"COl1dO;:-- ='', 11: .-.;_ .. l.dJ7;!3.,Q ,, ,.enn&!Q ' , re~'S!Yu.te> !!llO. ! .-1' ·, ' J ,_. 't a· t · . . . . · ·--·-·-,,. C{}ste ~e!. con~J. Ll .31. g,enn.alo 1018, re~·~stro n .. "15. fogl\o n. 2 ~. l\()l"lt;e u-} __ cut <i p"escu e e~e .o. . . . • {B,Q!lellt~to_ \lU •,ct.~ le 1!lb, d:opensa 3, pagine; rr53. ~G7) , :JJ_&ll-ll(l dit·~tto fl.lL"\i·l!Uddettlli.ci'JP&t:aZJcme colom 1 quah,
CAJ.UELLO. Pa,;qual"; da. Sitonto (!5:li'J). >ottotf!mnta; · il\! qua-lünqa~ ·-cLrrosti1n.ia -e O\'U·riquê si trbvrH.;sero·; anche''· OlJV!ti~() Er:rico. lla 1-'ortno. ssrgentn !llil;J8ÎO;'e, fuori del tel'l{torio dello· SW.to, furono· deportn.tî J)e1'
Q«Jënto tuo;;ot.enenzlalP. ;1 n\il.l'ZO 1Wt, rn;;fst1·ato alla Cort~J lé ~·n.ghmi di CU\ al Comnm pr~Wedente, nei camp\. t.ll
<l.èi ccm.:T l:. -:!1). mi:\rzc 1:118, JeglseL·o Jl. so, fo,g-lio n. 264 [BOl· oonr..entL'U!LHlilt.o- llitzion:J.1&;ocialisti per E\E'l':
l<:U.!.j:to lJ.!.tictale.l913, r,l!sp;msa l~. PI).,\:!M: lî!.Ji, 1::n): a.) com.piuto :1tti re!ativi all0 loti;;.J, di lilJeruûona, ·. CITRO'itO f'o.r,.lo, <la C;.sa\e ~!Ol'lft::rra.to. ser;;-ente: ovre.ro .
nos ..
1
:n Vincenzo, ·aa Lrmclano, sergeme. , . b) 'S'<Olto at.tivim politic:a:in wntrnf!to con 1e dirBt·
'Decnto ~uc~otenertl.i&le 13 Siu;;no 1918, rèî;'i;;trato alta Corte tivé del regime fa1:J.Ci:ot11 e tlellr;; i'Ûl'ze tedeS"elle di oectt~. · d2l co::Hi il lB tugiio l'>lll, l'egîMl'o n. ~J. fog-tto n. 230 (Bol· padoue, Oi'i'l?ro, . . ·. ,
l.ettir.lO u!licia]e 1918, dlo}l()llS<l. -10, pagina 3231) ~ . . C} annartennto 8; T'lll.I'tfti·p:olitiéi viehlti dài .I.j_@;_,<>im.i.: l?OZZI: !1-Is.rJo, da. VI;;èvano, ienente. n: "' "' uaiiorullsoci.Q.1ieta. e !asdsta·; .ovvero, · ·. •. '/·> ;! ; ·:·, ""'rî~eecso~prl~fn:t:catl'l Ql.'OC\ a) '(l).!ore miHiar~ $( !ntenclono ()Oit· .. •, d_.)· .· :COlll.~illtO. mA_ n:lfés.ta_ ?,l~!Ü 0 e.tti di_ prot~.tiJ: ~OQ~_····:' ,.,. • u c stesse motivazloni deci\i encoml salennt ~· l tr:o !L regbJ:~,e fascista: . ., C<introle forze.ted-esdte di {JCCU·(<
p$~Jone, ovvero, .· .· .(10497)
10-DEZ-2008 17:03 Deutsche Botschaft Rom +39 06 49213320 S.02?0::3
!li'l~l~~r,iB~B~Iim~~~~~~~t~~~f~~ ;/':~·<;·:··~:·.:-; · :~~)tP~~~1~atQ. ~·. ·~ci'op~ri, .-·o com.piP..t:o·\~(f:ti ··ixf oeca-· ·· .. ·Art 6~ ·
;-~}/.1ii6~-;g,~gl( sté-i3:~-1{ l),Jtéiuti <;flt:îli ·~He l:orie· germaniche La ùomandâ pe; ottenere la, ÙQ.ui-dn,zkme. dell'inden~ _· ·
,;.;;:.:, ---:~ ~Jlpn.z1!Jne,_ o>vero, - nizzo de'\e esser& pr-e$entn,tSJ a! Minil:lter1) del tellor-d-·en· >~:-':·· /··: · ·-i~J1·.::.s1;thlttJ 44ttur~1 in. ~.c;}~io.ne cH rfistreHanv~nti, di' tro sei n1;esi dalla data di pubblicnzione del pr~sente
: ii'l'iopèri, <>'di -C~zîonJ ùi rappresu-gli-a, ovvero, dectr:to n.elht Gaz.11etta Uffioiale, I'Jotto peno, di d!X'.a·
, ;_,: g)_ sublto perseeuzioni !)er i'agion~ r;~zûalj. denza, ô:J;l cli~ltto .nll'irulennizzo stesso. ·
._.,,.,I;ia;nno. flgtialtilenfë dir-itto. alla suddetta ripn,ra.ûcme · Nell a dmnandu derono esse re indicati, .-olt re Je gene·
_ .· ~~i AJ\~rua.ti milltûi o i hwm•Mori ·non vo!ontn,ri ln ralitù -ed iJ domicilio del richiedente, i seguer.ti dati:
•.. · {)-Bt:in<l-~}Ï-!' !!he, h1 seguito ad a.tto di rüsîstr;mzn -o rit~- !no-go· e (l(tt.n, della catturn.; ·'··
.; · 1\~Jt-fta.le h p~r atH consi-der;ati dl sabotaggio ana pro- ,i r,.,po8\?,ione so-mmllrJa dei mo-ti vi che determin;:rrono
.• CJ.,tt4;:-,~e _t&le~~, ~-emr.ero tra;:;t'eriti ne] è<)rilpi di concen- J tt . . .. . , . - .tt cu. nra; b.-<(;, -"'l r" "'"~l .. }}l u,tso CJ" n, l.J' "-tt' •. _ -- ~,.,__.,,,-v. '''-""'' . . • " - !uo~o e. denom.in,Jz:ione del campo e dei campi di
';,;_,;,_.- délJortnziOnt:!; '\ ,,
. -- . Art. 2. d . d. 1 . . · ,_ · <Wl e. t'lmpo.tl'11);. _
Soll h:nino ùîdtt•J <~lb ripat'tizione d1;ll~ 3JOil1ID:l di d.nta efl'ettiva o trrer,:unta della morte peri_ decef!uti
eni· a.ll'm:t-. 1 co·loro î q11n.li, direthnnr:mte o inrJi:rertn.- in stnto di..deportazi.one o a ('fLUIMt di -·es~r,~ .
. ·.·· -_ mEn_tEi, abhîRlll) t;,ri;), pél>eepit() nna îndenn·it;),", per lu La domn.n-(1;1, SP, f>~ese1\Üi:Ül dal deportato, Q!;\ï:\ ~:~sere
. " . sre~~o titol•1, 11~-lla Repnbb!icn. Feélçr::) le di German in. 1 c:otl'Mnt(t dei· segi:lentl dotmrwnti:
i cr)· cert:iî:lrato n.ttesümte che l1 ritrüeclente all:t ùatn.
Art. 3. .. 'j defia depor·t.r.ziti>H! era cittadino itl\liano; . · ·
_ .' Ai fini del p:n.""'e:nte Je-;1'eto sono val11i<'ati ai c.ittl\- Il) ogili docnmênt-o .utto ri.. èomprovare il t;:1.tto della
dini :itftlimti coloro. ai quali tale r-;tatus nmne l'evoc:1to 1 cnttm•a, delJu. depor(niione e-11 i1 moUva che !o hn. de-
>:·, '{Ü s.e:nsi del regio d,ec:ret? 1 setter~ ore UJ:38, n. 13H1. rer:ninnt~, ·Qn?l.i l'n.ttestazione d_i rNh~c:e -d<;n.u depor-
-.- ·:.,::·.1.!-P(,lSIH!_:rsi'J;,<lelh L:-1ttu-duumza. !ti~lum~ ri-c!Jlellto dnllol tn.zwne rllnJseHHfl c~! ['l'efet~o- m .seil$1 dell Ul'r:.: 8 dc1 <\:r<. ~~~rt: t è· l'deJ:Jto H lJn- dn(-:-t. de !l'tt depm·h'lzinne. ·· / d~~r:to l_ucJ~o!~nen:nale .14. _I.:;pl_,.r~IO p:ta: r1. ?r,. o le
,:~ J.\~. i!Jthl<\Nl-ZlOlll rtlilSCl<ll:e <Htgh g_nf:j .Jl\dlL'I1;t1 ne}\ :U't .. l3;
·~~~>f<·::,...::~ _ : . . .. Art. -L . 1 . ç~ clJch~:H't;ziQne di: non fiVc!' j)e,rZ'epi:o~ n~.~lii:ettll- ;~;;:·.:--:·.: '• St:l cnstHIJ-morte r1~! dep<lrt1'1to per C'tin,;n dmondentc: ment" nt~ m(hrettijmente, a!J.'l,J:nl1 somm.t n, t1wlo dt
;::\.U. 'd:it;ettrun\'.Û.te .1). indltetr.nmerite · cln-llit_ depm·Ut~ione, !o j! im.le~mizzo àa.p~r·te ~ell:11_ H<'"P;~bl.l1iM. Feüer<tle dl G?r:
~;~.(::);.;-~ii:ïJ~nniz.t>:G .~P~tt.a in· ordine di pref:eclenza: TIHt~nn,. 'i':t!!) drchlai'il2lO!le deve ?ll'tler." fedn,ttu. ;]; term~m ;t;/ ::~ ::.:~;~): rr·_l ~~îti~ge, ch~ al niomentn della ntorte no ~ erl'l l dtdJ '<'lt:t. 7 "~:_! d(!-Cl'~to d1:l Prr.;,ider1te ddla 11t::(JUbbllrn.
--~-~-:::-,:le~;HJn~te;,sc~~Mo .per !Jila colprt 0 pc:r colpn 1.1 1 en' 2 ng-osto LI.>•, n. 618. . • ·~':';::~ü-u~\.fl.ji.':O:ilù~s mtènia p.nstwtà in gin<licato. e cùe non 1 . _f:'.e p-r,~.<sentnt_a àttll'avent(l c~ousa la o-y.uu:mda. dè~e
.-:\·'-- ·~:~.s'in:'ptis6lttd ;i st:-ë<inde riozzc; 0Silt<l't: (·Ot'tèdrtta:, nl.t1•e. che Ùel_ documentl à1 è\11 alle
';)~~~: ---~b} 11.i iigli fegîttimi,' !egHtlmn.ti, · r.!l-.tin·.nll ricom). lettere dn_~l ~- ~). ~u{;im dei i'ieguenti d(!t:umenti.:
::;:J.;':sd\1ti ·_'udctbyi, ed a !l'Ji nfôlinti in <:on<::oJ~o fra di !oro ri) stnto Ül humgha; ~- '.>;:/; 'iii-boit'ko il:iïrirmè àn~ce. sorie . c) cettHkato .di riîtwte del deport11to dr:cccl n tû do po
32:::;:_:_;,;:;:;; ;.;) ·:fii: ,g~riitorî· legittlrrd, ~atnrLtli, r;d-ottivi e <:gH !n s1.111 Jihf't'-fizimH:; · _ . ·
-~-· ... >:< ':;iffifhurti, ill ûonr.:Ûl'SQ i'ra di !oro secondo le lHJnne suc. j) ùocomeut-o comp~ovante elle il dece~so è .arreJHJto ;;;:'::-::'~:: r:r,-~(,ii€·· n. NH1S.'t delln d•..ljl'ùl't~z,JOrHl; _ _ , __
;}:;_;><_: : ,, d!, di frateHi cd a!le sot·elle; . .~) at_to ,no~ol'lo!, r,ppu~ë dkhlu.ra-zione so.stl~utivs. ~ -:-:'·.:::\· :/ ·_}0 a ~Qlo<o ~he abbtQno provvedul~ ;il mantenimcnto tdl esso- m. a~n~l- aclJ art, ? . ~:_1 · df'c:ret_? del PTe~1dr:-~u:
,:_,:;:_,•.-: -~i:'J. .. -.an.-. eüu.caz10ne del departato, rlmnsto <l'rfa no di dt>l;n R-<>pv\,_blli'a 2 a~?~t9 19:)7 •. n •. ?18, resa e _sott.O· :::·:.;':-:;y~~b'~mhïl gè11itoi•i .prima del complmento de-112~ ahi;w, i\~.n!to d.'l]~·n~r~ress.a.~o. da_ eut r~snlti. c"!:u~_non e~Jsto_no
\/,:,:~·- f!~G:.ttlJts mU:gzjore <;t;à, OVV~r?' fiO.l1 <~lla datll. gel!'evcnto a!tl'l, :H'ètth rJl.l'~~tO dl r~,do prefel'llllllllt\e lll, COUfMuutà ,~,-~-:-·. _ .({kum~so .. Se )l ù-epot•tato sw fJma-~to o-r fano di a no 11. qn.mto F.<Ut!nhto tla!l :ut. 4.
('':;~;( f>:(tio ;(l~J ,,gefritm•i, la .dispooizione di cui ul [lt'<'sente
:;:{:~Y;:~~Ù1Hll4' -si<ap.plic::L: anche nl. patrigno 6 alla matr-it:,rn::t.. Al't. 7.
~:;'-'';-, .'~':'''J:li· ma:p,c;}:(}~~ deHe. persona sop?ll elencate l'indennizzo Ctm dt!Cl'i!tO del Pt•esîà_ente' dei C-ousi_gHo dei )linistrl
:r::;':-,:,:)rihnc' 'pù?; t>:'liÙ?l'n nttr-il!Ûito. ~ nomiuatu.. una Qomm!saî:P,Jlè r:.on il compito dl e$amic ·::;r;#:: -··:;,~}' fi~H <lei" -d~thte cau. sa:, .che .sinM deced~1ti ''[J#Illa nnre le. domQnde, accerttH'e i· reqüisiti richiestl .ai .fini
:·Y;/!:: -a· ~adtmru <lél · tc:rmme· per lù. pt·esentazwne· delle ùel!a liquiùn1-ione ùel!'inàennizzo, con f<tC()Üà di. nssu- .'-';·: dom{lnd-e,. -:>tllhô:ltr~no, pel' l·;.q>pra,;eùtazione, i dîr;cen~ rnere cveut•.w.li prove 'anèhe d'nffi-cio e di dispox·-rn li~>
'· :: _ tl.ènU -l~Htimi. - ri ['IJtl'tizione del! a sommr.,
· ~n~fielt1·no ddl'~lidenniz-zv anche gU a ven ti cnusn, Ln. Commiso\one è cos! compo1>t:.1>:
<'O;Jüpt•eû Mlle cutagorie ind\eMe nel primo cmnma del a) <111 un t'ilppt•esHmtl\nte 'de_na Presidenza del Con-
- pï~S~tmt-e artl~olo, di colui elle fn $OJ)presso o ~·enne nl· siglio dei :.IUnistri che ln, prë.slede;
. • tJ'hl1~nH :t mm•te nel .:·orso ùella tr:idnûone dtd luogo · 1l) da. nn r:ippl'e:oentatd.e del lilnistero degll ·id!a_rl · - di t:.:.<thu:u. Q di ddenzione. e~Sterl ; · · · ·
~ c) a.,_,. un r:appresentn.nte del -:3.-!inister.o del tesorO.; . Art. 5. : d) du. un ni.ppr~sent.nrite de-l ~Ji,nîstéo del).:> difèsa;
· • ·. ~on hit!ÜV:J dîdtto nll'îndimnizzo i deporta ti eif i e) dui presld;;ni;l, o .1oro delejl;ati, delle segUEmti or--
- · .. téndl-d;;tri :dt'.ne"''ti ne !l'art .. 4·che sl.ano :;;tMi con-àa.n- ~D.rûiiil.Z:io-nk .• ~ssix:i.azione tillzionale \'11: àeportati poU-
.. ·>·;·', .n~t;l-)?ê.t. MH-:;JrlÎo:ro:zioùïsmo- 63ii· r,;entenw: pnssat:a in '[(lb~ 1
1
· tic(néi. c~tntpi ?•1zi$ti; As~~cia~iorw ~~zion~J e ~x -inter:
;:·-::::'.,-:~<I)_c:~ro~ - . Mtl; 1; x'!! où;:: delle ComBnJ t:1 1STae1meh~; 1t;ch::tlH:) . - .... .:;:;-... ; ·.
10-DEZ-2008 17:04 Deutsche Botschaft Rom +39 06 49213320 ~;.0]/03
21-1_:., i9G1 .' ùAZZ~~TT.i tFFIŒAI,E DELLA REP'C'BBLIQA ·J'l\:~f~X.ANA • N; 16 .. ~ ... ~~9 .-.._,...!CG:~·._. __ ,.,;:__:__·_ ----'S12#-~. _'!!'!..___'!!:...--~~- ,.__, .. , .. ~<>,a _______ _____!_. __ ?__. __ . ______ ~
fl' dil iJn S\lg!'etario, s~nm .dh:itto u >Oto1 see1to fra AJ't. 12
1 funzlOMl'i ilellit cutrier<i ùh;èttil:t (}el ruolo èentràle L~ind·en~i~zo. vLene }.<aga~o tn • 'ùn':rm1Ci1 ~liJ~~:a.d.~ · .. . ;~Ad ~linbtero del tésoro. ogm ben.efiCJ.n.Mo. Se qutl;Su mum'e d.opo la ~;t~~~~::,. • delle quow, ma prima d·hl pa,eramento, l'iudwm~tQ~·:.~: ....
L'P~~llllt! d~lle domV:>1Ùt> deve. esosere ultimato dalla·
:C:ommisi;ione entro un hnno dntln. :>MQ.cnza del t.èrrrirne
<li .t;ni a1l';.o:t. n; cntro i duc mc;;î nucecssivi ver).'anno
r~dattL n. cma. della Commis;;,;lone, gli clenchi de}Je
donHw<lc a~colte, dî:>tingu~ndo i benefidari dell'1nclen.
nü:zo in superstiti e. ftJ.m.ilhtd d.;:i dectldnti.
... Gii ~l~Jm:ld so·llO putiblif.ati, in nn:t sola voJta., n.ella
Gu:.,:;.;:tta Uffioiale e ~onlro le loro •r1s-qltanze puo ~Sl'
Nl p t~:«:n!;~to ri corso, en tl'O t.renta. gîori::li (la.ua~ pnb·
lJiiem:io.ne, .ni MlrclstGI"O .Ml tesoro yhe d.;;çide con prov.
rcdlmf!nto·dctinitivq. nd termin~ dl t:re.medtL
l'el' ügnl JH.mÙu..atixo sono indicaù, · oltM !e ge·Di:'!.'V·
lîtà ed îl dom!eilio, il luogo <li c:1nura., il campo o i
C11Jl!Jli di. 'ct.epovt:~zion.: .e l.n dunna della depo.rtm;loni!
esp1·es;,n in mesi; per i. <lrwt~dutl !}twe indicat•al n.nch~ l:~
dat:l tlell.(l, .rnot'toé o, in m:~.ueanz.n., q1.1el.ia p:r-es1.mm.
d<>voluto a:U.e persone: di Cl!.'i .nJl'art; 4. • :·_,-.;""
Art. 13. . .. · .. · .·.· · : :·~, . .
. G'na f:raz\<Jnll <1dJ.r. soinma .ver:'ili-ta di!11$.. Rep;ill>lf'U,~
fi'~dm-ale di Germania, nelJa mi"Sut":U: chè s.a:~à.,,.ii~W!~
d:ùla Oornmissione di· -cui a.ll 'Mt~ 7 é éw n<>li ~~~'.<~î{·: ·.·.
pemre H2,50% deJ t()talr:, è .(1-Rwg:u.ata. B liiiJiss:·.i&t~:.-. ·
·ig!Ulli <t·Lk tr...; As.socimdoni : ASOOûis.ûon:e naz'ioM,i~ ë; .• , '
!-eportati pontie.\ nei <'-itl'upi nazisti, Assi:Hii~zioni(;~~~·?
t.ions.le ol!X interna ti, Union-e dell-e Comunità ist~liHèW, .'. .,,,.·.::,·
.ta.!iu·ne. · ... · . · . . . ·, .·: .... ·· ...• :;.o,:.,,.y . AJtr.u frazlon~ .. dell'l% .è te:nuta a. di:opo!lh::ior:~~ ~;:.·:,
,iÙnist.el'<) dèl t€~Oro I)er éSs.tl'e CV~ttlwhnrmtè r!,va.liti.~, , .
fr;t tJolot·o le cul domande non. fœ.sero. p~ntatê :n~.L· ..
termini pt>l' cans<t. di comprQ<.ata forza · :rn..<tggl<i.~ .. -~ :- '
p:wt::t attrlbnit'-L a ciuscnnp di cost<lro surà: I>ati.~•.\·
q <mlla n tttihuîta ~i benetkin.ri de11<JJ r.ipt.~tizi(Hlé. pi:iiJ:·i ::::.
ôpale o, se ~ecessrtrio, pn>por~ionalment.e r;i.~ot~~-·~:;,;:;~:.;:
. ·8-e a!!o sca..dere di cinque .. <HJ.rii: .dtolla pu'bblfciti('l.n~/<:
Ùcl pre~en t>?. de~reto Ià ~on{mll: fi·CClill~Ù·ri~lta aL~m;;:~~w; ~: Il c:omputo dd meiiî è effettllatD tenendo conta d€î pr<:eedente comrnll; non ~ia st.M.a intera.mente· ti . , , .. i;::<·
si'gnN1ti criteTi: · . !'izripù<rto !'P.~idoo vir:rne ye:rwt-o in prirtï'tigiû:t1î!1.:.:.";.J::'i a) pf'r pr·e~r;nzJJ nei C..'\r!i,Pi di rO.n.;·ent-rnnwnto· si in. d tt t 1\ · · · · · .. •,:,, ... ,," .. :"·~·
~;z~lt~l) l~~f~~,;r~!~rx~;~e db;o ~:l !i~~~:~~~~o:~e;la cattura al prr· e e re - ssD(:tnzw~~t. u .. , . . . . ~. > ·/··>\i~~Jl~J · · L') t>e.r i .c1ec:ëdciti dui'.a.nte Iu der>oL't.'l~i.O.ne, o ent'N) . ~ so_Iitm~ pa~t;~ dulla.I\.e'p_ul)blica. F<:lde~l:e,.;tg~~%:;:~ tl ne :.mn i d:.l·H'S m.a{,~·wq 1Q:i,5 00 la rn ci rte avve.nn·e .-J)e!' mnm.:t. 1n VJ'i:tÙ deLl' A<::c<;>rd-o dcl ~. Q1U~O U)ôl~ ~~~~~f:·:;:,;~ cnus;u di·rettn della dèp·ortaiiilne, si con\pata un mini- dep-osltata ne~ su.o compJ.eSso ,in nn oonto speei:ali'l ;!l'ltl;-'': ·•:
mo dl d6(lï~l rùs!li: . tifel:'n pt~esso la. T-esomrin eèl.ti-iiJe del:l(} ··stato~ ~(}.: ,: . tJ) Ü f*'l;'ÎOÛO. di p·resentAJ. 'sup.el'ÏGNl S ,if1eci gÎ()-Till { . mîna.to · 11 l<'Ôndo versn.tû 'da.Jla . .R~Ùl)b~Jri1':'f~~~~:~~t~:;; ~!n;l<,:to ·[K::r 'tin 'mese; qnd!o inf<:riol'e non è compll· (J~rmaâht da ~1'0g<trsi ~i S<:?ùsi d.;llla, J,e_gg.e f5 .~~~r~i:·~ :'
tnt0. Wl.l:> n 40J '> · ··· · ··· · : ...... ~>'\ ,,,.,_, .. ,
ll s1um<:.l'<J dt'! le quote .ru;s\gJl,'lte ad ogui ~n.eikia.J•iü. Pe'r ~~ coi.·~pomil.:.mc ~%\Li iridenn~zi;.l>J?et~t~f:~gij;~{1 ,y tlto-10: dl pîil fi11nUiari dc~C'routî o. ùîspüt·si: non putr aven ti diritt-o, J.e o~rnzi.orii di ··-p-mlev~ètitô s_~]>'~~d;.i,f)y~ CvJÎHm1;J,\lil supérttr•e i.l UIUTH;.l'O ll:l f!llHJ\1~, olt:l'è quetia di cui .('v] (lümnltl. prèc.e;:l.ente saraJin(l effettïià,~'-.e.i;l!l.·)~. { el·(·ntnulmtJnt~ dovut.:;.gli a titolo. persoMJe per fatt11 rnoda.liti~ da .St't-hi.liTI.li: éon pnwvedimento {!(;} :~.H~tro.:·,.
del!u swl d{~pMtttzion-<:l. 1 j)èl' iJ te~oro. · · · · .. · .· · · · . } .•::~ :~ '.;
· · 1· L-à. l'isultan~"' aWvU. del strddetto èon{à'sp~Mei~:·, . AN. 1?.· . . . .î_I prcl~viu~ento d;j,IJ.è P_et-eent~.a:J..f di fui· ~~'art';,,~.'~,~~;/:' Din:u.utî deûnitîvi gli e1enclli dei OO.Uefici.ari, l-1> ('_.o.m- i Ç"O'I.'~:irpon<li{l:n;3 ;J-egli · mdeJ1·n~zz: 1 ::ar~· dl~trib~~~(·~~~·< mir;.~kmO' di cui n-ll';~:rt. 7, integra ta da 1m funzioMl'iJY] p.a·rM ugus,l! 1 aJJe. tre AmK>C).;!I.z:IOIH di cui &LltVl'!tooso '
dü.lb Ragioo~ia gsn~,ffi deU-o· Sta.to, p~de·, entro f .act. ·lit · · · ·
d.1m lfl!'IÜ, a lla"l'ip-aNtt'&ipn~ <:'I.P.-lltl ·oo.tnma. ·· An. 15. . . .. . .
A · t"-'l flli\0. · l'um.mo!lttl-l'e .d;t)l!.u somma vel'$3.t<l! d.:1Jl(! · T.t!tti gli .atti e documenti relativi .aJ.le dorilan~oe- ed ·
Rcrn1bblic.a Fe-de-ra.Ie di German;a, iYi eompregl gli irt· ~!le operazioni di rl:pà.rt<) e 'a.isegn,'l,zlone ,I>(}UO ,~ntt ·
t.ç1'-€~si n;abi-rati flno nJ,J.u. da ta di pubblkarion~ degii da bollo e dl.1> regist,r.a.zJ:.\).!'lè. L'in<lèhiliz?Jo ~t.a oom.ri~~
}~·.~~~Jchî .dr S;1~J;l11~.:il:~t. 8 .-:~ P\~YÏii }.~tr~·~i?J1'~: 4~1_1e :fili·, 4ue :esen~ :<la ogui itni-~t>J. .e. ~· n~ ·oo~o nfii :.'~!l:~: · ·· q\1ot~·. ~r<:ut . .ti'W~t~. ::1'3, ,.~t'l\'~. d\'l'ls.::t Pr;r 11 t;~um~q~.tn, fronti degll, e:ï: de:po-ri:llti, IiUl. aJl.ch~. ne;1.. !)-0-ù.f.ro.n.ti d~ .. talc; ilé!i .mesf di presfjnza.in campo di.C.O).lCfrJJh.UJMntO aV>C!lti didtt<J del deportato dceOOUt0. ·:"(1; ..
da T)al'te rll tnt(l) deport?-ti 8.l'!'l me.ss.i il,ll& ripitrt.iziohe. · fJ te dé • t ·t del . ·,.;.,10 de1Jo :st~ ; •
1! nilC>Z{t;tJle Cûsl Ûttnnnto· Vlen~. mo1tip1ieato per i· . "'··J.l't'eSD--l'l ' .nie o,. mum 0 lillr;.w.. . · ' ·· 1 ., ..
· "d· · d~. ·' · ·· 'à· ·•· 11 · 1 < 1: • • ed' · . · ' , .,.. d · SMù. lne.erto nella. Raeco\ta uffici.ale deU-e leggi éi~ef JMS! . 1 ~r.!l,tu. .. ~· il>.~ ~por,o.zJO<ne ' 1 ()J.0.SCI7n l'J(wl<3 en· decroti delJ.a. Eepubblka Itallims... E' fa.tto a .chluuq.ri~ tc o su0 d;mte w.usn, 11 prodotto Hlppresenta la quota tf d' ~rv.a.rlo e ~i faru-o ~<l.'e , . ;•. ·- ·
pel'.,onn t~ cH. ciascu.n: :dchicdentc a.rinne$.!lo tJ.ll:t l'ÏPfll'" Sl)e l 1 · · · '
Üzlone. · . D.ato n. R.OJl1!.!>_,. .ad-dl. 6 9twbr~ 1~3 . , ·~. · .... :·.
A.rL lL. . •.. : Sl'}G:NT
· r,o- '!tM·l? -di ripa-rt9 ê: t~.:r ooecut.ivo oo:n. d<:cl'et<>:'l~~ " · · ·. · ·· ·.· ~·\::,
3linlstro per il teS:Oro .e ·J:.ai:,'di;;t'clbuzione d.elJ'ind~i~· ·-,. : I0~.~~~!Bq. ~~.·.~~.~! .•.. ::.:.·~.;.: .. ( .. t•.:.-:
. ~~ ft;;;:li a>~nti dil.'ltto ~~(,~',•,en,t~~ il ~>rni).~J3 ~~§ ·~lstp, i! Gum:dasiff~\~i; 13\~. . . . . . . . '·" .... ··· ;. > ·' ., ·.·'
d1 sei, mtsl,;.lli m~z-Z!?: ~1,~~ OOI'I'€Jjte posw~ pagafill~. ·1legt3tr(l.ta .a!ta torte. ~e.l;:i;w.ïi, tltùU ·t7·gllnnmo ~·!·./' '.::
}1e1 luc go dl rt>SlÙI!llz&· d<Jl1'mT.e!lessa.OO.; A !ti éle!. Governo, ·re;tlütro n"(;~'19. [(J"glt-o n, .. lOO,-~'~--.:~· ,,· • • • • ( • ' • ' • ' :-:~.~ • • '. '> ., • :-·: .. : ~ •
. . ; ,_.:,, . · ... )(~· ... · ... :·~-~·:;~.:::i:j;~:~.
GESRMT SEITEN 03
Translation
DECRE.E OF THE PRESIDENT OF' THE REPUBLIC
6 Octoher 1963, no 2043
Ru!es for the allocation of the sum paid by the Goyernment of the Federal RepubHc of
Germany, on the basis of the Bonn Agreement of 2 June 1961, by way of compensation
to Ha lian victims of National Soda list persecution.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
Having regard to Atiic1e 87 of the Constitution;
Having regard to Article 3 of Law no 404 of 6 February 1963 concerning the Italo-Gennan
Agreement on compensation to ltalian victims of National Socialist persecution, concluded in
Bonn on 2 June 1961;
Having beard the opinion of the Parliamentary Committee provided for in Article 3 of the
above Law;
Having heaJd the Co une il of Ministers;
On a proposa! from the President of the Council of Ministers, m conjunction w!th the
Ministers of Foreign Affairs, the Treasury and Finance;
Hereby decrees that:
Art, 1
The sum paid by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Government of
the Italian Republic on the basis of the Agreement of 2 June 1961 by way of moral compensation
to Italian nationals who suffered deportation as a result of race, religion or ideology,
sha!l be shared out between beneficiaries according to the rules laid down in this decree,
Persans eligible for this compensation shall be those who, in whatever circumstances and
wherever located, even outside Italian territory, were deported for the reasons mentioned in
the previous paragraph to National Socialist concentration camps on grounds of:
- 2-
a) having been involved in acts ofliberat1on, or
b) having pursued politica1 activities in breach of orders issued by the Fascist regime and
the German occupation forces, or
c) having belonged to political parties banned by the National Socialist and Fascist
regimes, or
d) having taken part in demonstrations or protests against the Fàscist regime or against
the German occupation forces, or
e) having taken part in strikes or, on the occasion of such slrikes, having acted in a
hostile manner tmvards the German occupation forces, or
f) having been arrested during searches, strikes or acts of reprisai, or
g) having been persecuted on racial grounds.
The following persans shall also be eligible for the aforesaid compensation: military prisoners
or non-voluntary workers in Germany \Vho, following resistance or acts deemed to constitute
resistance, or acts regarded as sabotage of German manufacturing, were transferred to
National Socialist concentration camps.
Art. 2
The compensation referred to in Article 1 above shall not be payable ta those who have
already, either directly or indirectly, received compensation from the Federal Republic of
Germany for the same purpose.
Art. 3
For the purposes of this decree, Italian nationals shall mean those persons whose status as
such was revoked within the meaning ofDecree no 1381 of7 September 1938.
Possession of Italian citizenship pursuant to Article 1 refers to the date of deportation.
In the case of the death of a deportee, caused directly or indirect! y as a result of deportation,
compensation shal1 be payable, in order ofprecedence ta:
- 3 -
a) the spouse who at the lime of death was not lega!iy separated through his/ber fault
. or through the fault of both parties according to a judgment which has become
final, and who has not remarried;
b) to legitimate, legitimated, recognised natural, adoptive or affiliated (foster)
chîldren according to the inheritance laws (to be shared between them);
c) to legitîmate, natural, adoptive or affîliated (fosler) parents, according to the
inheritance laws (to be shared between them);
d) to brothers and sisters;
e) to th ose who provided for the maintenance and education of the deportee, being
orphaned of both parents before the age of tweive, until his or her majority or until
the time of the harmful event. If the deportee had Jost only one parent, this
subparagraph shall also apply to a stepfather or stepmother.
In the absence of any of the above persans, compensation shaH not be payable.
Children of deportees, who have died before the time-limit for submitting applications, may
be replacee! by their Jegitimate descendants.
Compensation shall also be payable to successors m title, included in the categories
mentioned in the first subparagraph of this article, to a person who was killed or who otherwise
dîed during transport from a place of capture or detention.
A1t. 5
Deportees and other beneficiaries listed in Article 4 who have been convicted of collaboration
in ajudgment which has become final shaH not be entitled to compensation.
Art. 6
Applications for payment of compensation must be sent to the Ministry of the Treasury within
six months of the date of publication of this decree in the Gazzetta Uf}iciale, failing which
their dght to compensation shall lapse.
In addition to general particulars and the address of the applicant, applications shall contain
the following information:
. - 4-
the ti me and date of capture;
a summary of the reasons for capture;
tbe name and location of the concentration and deportation camps;
the date of repatriation;
the actual or assumed date of death in the case of those dying during or as a resuli of
depmiation.
The application must, if submitted by a deportee, contain the fol1owing supporting documents:

a) a certificate attesting to the fact that the applicant was an Italian national at the
time of deportation;
b) any document proving the capture, deportation and the reason for it, such as a
certificate of survival of deportation issued by a provincial govemor fprefetto]
pursuant to Article 8 of Decreto Luogotenenziale no 27 of 14 February 1946 or a
declaration issued by the authorities indicated in Article 13;
c) a declaration of not having received, directly or indirectly, any sum by way of
compensation from the Federal Republic of Germany. That declaration must be
drafted in accordance with A1iicle 7 of Presidential Decree no 678 of
2 August 1957.
The application must, if submitted by a successor in title, be accompanied, in addition to the
documents referred to in (a) and (c) above, hy the following:
d) a family status document;
e) a death certificate in the case of a deportee who died after liberation;
:f) a document showing that death occurred as a result of deportation;
g) a notarial document, or equivalent dedaration within the meaning of Article 7 of
Presidential Decree no 678 of 2 August 1957, drafted and signed by the interested
party, showing that there are no other preferential claimants under Article 4 above.
Art. 7
A Committee sball be appointed, by decree of the President of the Council of Ministers, for
the purpose of examining applications and ascertaining compliance with the requirements for
- 5 -
payment of compensation; the Committee shaH have the power to accept evidence of its own
motion and to make provision for the allocation of the sum.
The Committee shall comprise:
a) a representative of the Presidency of the Co une il of Ministers, acting as chairman;
b) a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
c) a representative of the Ministry of the Treasury;
d) a representative of the Ministry of Defence;
e) the chairmen, or their representatives, of the following organisations: Associazione
nazionale ex deportati politici neî campi nazisti; Associazione nazionale ex internati;
Unione delle Comunità israelitiche italiane;
f) a secretary, 1vith no voting rights, chosen from among the manageria! staff of the
Ministry of the Treasury.
Art. 8
Examination of the applications must be completed by the Committee within one year from
the expiry of the time-limit in Article 6; within the following two months the Committee shaH
draw up lists of accepted applications, distinguishing between survivors and the relatives of
deceased deportees,
The lists shall be pub1ished, once only, in the Gazzetta Uj]iciale and appeals against them
may be made wîthin thirty days of publication to the Ministry of the Treasury, which shall
decide, in a procedure not amenable to appeal, within three months.
For every person named, in addition to an address and general pmiiculars, the following
information shall be provided: place of capture, name of deportation camp or camps, duration
of depmiation in months; for deceased deportees, the date or assumed date of cleath must be
g1ven.
Art. 9
The calculation ofmonths shaH be made on the basis ofthe following criteria:
- 6-
a) presence in concentration camps shall be taken to mean the period bet\veen the date of
capture and the date ofrepatriation following liberation;
b) for th ose dying during deportation, or withîn two years of 8 May 1945, if death is
directly attributable to depmtatïon, the reckonable period shaH be a minimum of
twelve months;
c) a period of presence in excess of ten da ys shall be regarded as one month; any lesser
period shall not be reekonable,
The number of portions awarded to each beneficiary, in respeet of several family members
who have died or disappeared, may not however exceed five, in addition to any pmtion due to
that persan individually as a result of his or her deportation.
ArL 10
Once the lists have become final, the Committee referred to in Article 7, plus an official from
the Ragioneria generale dello Stato [national accounts department], shall proceed to allocate
the sum within two months.
To that end, the sum paid by the Federal Republic of Germany, including interest accming up
until the date of publieation of the lists, as mentioned in A1ticle 8, and follmving deduction of
the amounts referred to in Article 13, shall be divided by the total number of months spent in
concentration camps by aH eligible deportees.
The resulting number shall be mul1iplied by the number ofmonths spent by,each applicant or
bis successor in title; the product shall be the individual amount payable to each eligible
applicant
Art. 11
The statement of allocation shaH become enforceable by deeree of the Minister for the
Treasury and distribution of the compensation to claimants shall take place within a
maximum period of six months, by means of a current postal account payment at the place of
residence of the persan concemed.
- 7-
Art 12
Compensation shall be payable in a single instalment to each benefîciary. If the latter should
die after the shares have been determined but prior to payment being made, the compensation
shall be paid to the persons indicated in Article 4.
Art. 13
A proportion of the sum paid by the Federal Republic of Germany, the amount being established
by the Commîttee referred to in Article 7 and not exceeding 2.5% of the total, shall be
allocated to and divided equally between the three Associations: Associazione nazionale ex
deportati politici nei campi nazisti; Associazione nazionale ex internati; Unione delle
Comunità israelitiche italiane.
A further portion of 1% shaH be kept by the Ministry of the Treasury for sharing out between
any persons who were prevented from applying by the due date due to proven/oree majeure.
The amount payable to each such person sha11 be the same as under the principal allocation or,
if necessary, reduced proportionally.
If, five years from the publication of this decree, the sum set aside pursuant to the above paragraph
has not been entirely used up, the remaining amount shall be paîd in equal parts to the
thJee aforesaid Associations.
Art. 14
The sum paid by the Federal Republic of German y un der the Agreement of 2 June 1961 shall
be deposited in its entirety in a special interest-bearing account with the central State Treasury
designated "F\md contributed by the Federal Republic of Germany to be paid out according to
Law no 404 of 6 Fehmary 1963 ".
The rules governing payment of compensation to claimants and withdrawaJs from the Fund
referred to above shaH he laid down by the Ministry of the Treasury.
Any remaining amounts in that special account, after withdrawing the percentages referred to
in Article 13 and paying the compensation, shall be paid in equal parts to the three aforesaid
Associations.
- 8 -
Art. 15
All papers and documents relating to the applications and to the allocation and distribution
operations shall be exempt from stamp duty and registration tax. The compensation shall be
exempt from al! taxes and charges not only with respect to ex-deportees but also with respect
to the successors in title of deceased deportees.
This decree, bearing the State seal, shall be added to the official collection of laws and
decrees of the Italian Republic. All concerned shaH be required to comply and to ensure
compliance therewith.
Done in Roine, 6 October 1963
MAR .. KS
LEONE--- PICCIONE ---COLOMBO ---MARTINELLI
Certified by the Guardian ofthe Seals: BOSCO
Registered at the Court of Accounts on 17 January 1964
Acts of the Govemment, register no 179, folio no 106 - VILLA
Annex 7
Corte di Cassazione
Judgment, 30 October 1986/2 March 1987
COMPETENZA È GIURISDIZIONE CIV.
Giurisdizione del giudice ordinalio e del giudice amministrativo
PARTIGIANI
lliferimenti normativi
DPR 06-10-1963 n. 2043, Art. 7
Composta dagli Ill.mi Sigg. Magistrati:
Dott. Antonio BRfu\TCACCIO Pres. di Sez.
Dott. Franco BILE Pres. di Sez.
Giovanni CASSATA Consigliere
Giuseppe PERROTTI
Ernesto TILOCCA
Luigi COSTANZA
Domenico MALTESE
Onofrio l"<'ANELLI
Giorgio CHERUBINI Rel.
ha pronunciato la seguente
SENTENZA
sul ricorso iscritto al n. 4666-78 del RCit~\. CC., proposto da
MARCONI Leonora, quale eredi di Marconi Emilio, elettivamente domiciliata in Roma, pressa la
Cancelleria Civile della Corte Suprema di Cassazione, rappresentata e difesa dall'avv. Giuseppe Mari, giusta
delega a margLne del ricorso;
Ricorrente
contra
MINISTERO DEL TESORO, in persona del Ministro in carica, e1ettivamente domiciliato in Roma, Via dei
Pcntoghesi, n. 12 presso l'Avvocatura Generale dello Stato, che lo rappresenta e difende ope legis.
Controricorrente
Avverso 1a decisi~ne n. 424 del Consiglio di Stato, pubblicata il 19.4.1977;
Udita nella pu~blica udienza tenutasi il giomo 30 ottobre 1986, la relazione della causa svolta dal Cons. Rei.
Chembini;
Udito l'Avv. Bruno;
Udito il Pubblico Ministero, nella persona del Dott. Evandro Minetti, Sostituto Procuratore Generale, pressa
la Corte Suprema di Cassazione, che ha concluso chiedendo il rigetto del ricorso.
JVIodvi della decisione
Con l'unico motivo del ricorso, la J'viarconi censura la sentenza impugnata sostenendo che tutte le
considerazioni svolte dal Consiglio di Stato per negare la proplia competenza sarebbero erronee.
In particolare, 1a ricouente osserva:
1) che, nella fattispecie disciplinata dal D.P.R. 6.10.63, n. 2043, non è individuabile un obbligo giuridico a
carico di chicchessia, sicché la posizione soggettiva di colora tra i quali verrà ripartita la somma versala dal
Govemo della Repubblica Federale di Germania non potrebbe mm assurgere a consistenza di dititto
soggettivo, dato che questo presuppone un corrispondente obbligo;
2) che le norme del suddetto decreta sono dettate anche al fine di garantire il conetta esercizio della attività
amministrativa nella determinazione ed individuaziane dei saggetti che beneficermmo della ripartizione
della sanuna versata dalla R.F.T. e, quindi, 'si è in presenza di un interesse pubblico immediato e specifico
che va al di là di quello generico tendente alla buona amministrazione';
3) che l'attività svolta da11a Commissione, incaricata di vagliare le domande degli aspiranti al beneficia,
comporta esercizia di attività discrezionale con conseguente impossibilità di considerare la posiziane degli
interessati come diritta soggettiva.
n ricorso è infondato.
Le argomentaziani della riconente non hatmo pregio perché, nella fattispecie regolata dal D.P.R n 2043 del
1963 ben puà individuaxsi una situazione di obbligo a, più couettamente, debitmia: è quella della
Repubblica Federale Tedesea, la quale ha messo a disposizione dei cittadini italiani, danneggiati dal fatto
della deportazione nei campi di concentramento nazionalsocialistî, una somma globale a titolo di
risarcimento morale. ·
La concreta attuazione di questo risarcimento è stata assunta dallo Stato italiano il quale, ai fini della
identificazione dei saggetti tra i quali doveva distribuirsi la somma anzidetta, ha ritenuto oppmi1mo
provvedere con il sistema delineata nel D.P.R. n. 2043-63, affidando cioé la individuazione atla iniziativa
dei singoli interessati, a cui viene imposto l'onere di presentare documentata domanda, e aH'esame di una
speciale Conmüssione, la quale deve accertare il passesso dei requisiti che abilitano gli aspiranti a
partecipare alla distribuzione della somma.
Orbene, l'attività della Commissione prevista nelPart. 7 del D.P.R. n. 2043 del 1963 non appare, satto alcun
aspeUo, discrezionale perché il compito ad essa affidato risulta limitato alla semplice constatazione che i
richiedenti sono o non sono nel possesso dei requisiti fissati tassativamente dalla nmmativa de qua per
partecipare al beneficia. In particolare, questa attività non è resa discrezionale dal fatto, puntualizzato nel
ricarso, che 'la Commissione deve attentamente esaminare la eterogenea documentazione prodotta dagli
interessati, vag1ümdola sotta il profilo della efficacia probatoria e sotto il profïlo della rilevmJZa, con facoltà
di assumere persino eventuali altre prove di ufficio , perché esercizio di potere diserezionale significa che la
P.A. si autodetennina attraverso una ponderata valutazione di opposti interessi, mentre qui tlttta l'attività si
risolve nel solo riseontro di una situazione obiettiva, conforrne a precise indicazioni nonnative, alla stregua
delle prove a disposizione.
Le considerazioni sin qui svolte consentono di concludere che non merita censura a1cuna la sentenza
impugnata la quale - Ütcendo leva non sull'espressione 'diritto' contenuta nel D.P.R. 2043-63, ma sulla
constatazione che il beneficia, spettanti ai cittadini italiani colpiti da misure di persecuzione
nazionalsocialista per tma delle cause e nei modi puntualmente precisati, consiste in una quota di
pmtecipazionc ad una somma e sul rilievo che nessun potere discrezionale è attribuito alla PA. - ha
aftènnato che la posizione azionata da Marghe1ita Lippi, dante causa della attuale 1icoiTente, aveva la
consistenza di diritto soggettivo e, non essendo la materia de qua compresa tra quelle riservate alla
giurisdizione eselusiva del Consiglio di Stato, il ricorso andava dichiarato inmmnissibile. Quanta alle spese
del presente giudizio di cassazione, le Sezioni Unite ritengono di doverle compensare in considerazione
della novità della controversia, già constatata dai Consigho di Stato.
La Corte, a sezioni Un:ite, rigetta il ricorso e compensa le spese tra le parti.
Roma, li 30 ottobre 1986
DEPOSITATA IN CANCELLERlA IL 2 MARZO 1987
Translation
CIVIL JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction ofthe ordinary and administrative comis
PARTISANS
Legislative background
Article 7 ofDPR [Presidential Decree] No 2043 of06-10-1963
[The Comi]
composed of:
Dr Antonio BRANCACCIO, President ofChamber
Dr Franco BILE, President of Cham ber
Giovmmi Cassata, Counsellor
Giuseppe PERROTTI
Ernesto TILOCCA
Luigi COSTANZA
Domenico MALTESE
Onofrio.FANELLI
Giorgio CHER1JBINI, Rapporteur
has handed down the following
JUDGMENT
in the appeal proceedings registered und er No 4666~78 R. G..r1A. CC. and lodged by
Leonora MARCONI, as successor to Emilio Marconi, with an address for service at the
Cancelleria Civile [Registry for Civil Cases] of the Supreme Court of Cassation, represented
by Giuseppe Mori, pursuant to the power of attorney [ ei1tered] in the mar gin of the appeal;
Appellant
- 2-
versus
MINISTERO DEL TESORO [Finance Ministry], in the persan of the Minister-in-office, with
an address for service in Rome, at No 12 Via dei Portoghesi, at the offices of the Avvocatura
Generale dello Stato [State Legal Adviser's Office], which represents it by operation of the
law;
Respondent
against Decision No 424 of the Council of State, published on 19.4. i 977;
Judge Cherubino's report of the case having been read at the hearing of 30 October 1986;
the [opinion] of Advocate Bnmo having been hear·d;
the Public Prosecutor's Department -- heard in the person of Dr Evandro Minetti, Deputy
Public Prosecutor at the Supreme Court of Cassation -- submi1ted that the appeal should be
rejected.
Grounds of the decision
By the sole ground of appeal, Ms Marconi challenges the judgment at issue, maintaining that
ali of the ci)nsiderations set out by the Council of State in refusing recognition of its own
jurisdiction are anfounded.
More pariicularly, the appellant notes that:
1) m the cases govemed by DPR No2043 of 6.10.63, no legal obligation incumbent on
anyone may be identified, with the result that the subjective position of those among
whom the sum disbursed by the Federal Republîc of German y [FRG] will be al1ocated
could never constitute an individual light, given that such a right presupposes a
corresponding obligation;
2) the provisions of that decree were also laid down in order to guarantee that
administrative authority is properly cxercised in determining and identifying the
- 3 -
persans who will benefit from the allocation of the sum disbursed by the FRG and,
consequently, "there is an immediate and specifie public interest that goes beyond the
general interest în good administration";
3) the activity engaged in by the Commission, which is mandated to assess the
applications of applicants for the benefit, involves the exercise of discretion, so that it
is impossible to consider the position of those persans aflected to be an individual
right.
"flJe appeal is unfounded.
Tbe appellant's arguments are without validity since, in cases govemed by DPR No 2043 of
1963, it is in fact possible to identify an obligation or, more precisely, a debt: that of the
Federal Republic of Gennany, whîch has been made availab1e to Italian citizens, who suffered
harm as a result of being deported to the Na ti anal Socialist concentration camps, a lump sum
by way of compensation for non-pecuniary damages.
Responsibility for act-ually disbursing that compensation was assumed by the Italian State
and, in arder to identify the persons among whom the above-mentioned monies should be
aJlocated, it considered it appropriate to make arrangements based on the system set out in
DPR No 2043-63, that is ta say, Ieaving it to the initiative of the persans concemed to identify
themselves, by requiring them to submit the requisite documentation, and mandating a Special
Commission to examine that documentation and ascertain whether the persans concerned
meet the requirements that entitle them to be beneficiruies of the sum distributed.
In no respect does the Commission's activity, for which Article 7 of DPR No 2043 of 1963
provides, appear to be discretionary, sinee the task with whîch it is entmsted consists
exc1usively in detemüning whether or not applicants meet the requirements definitively laid
dawn by the legislation in question for entitlement to the benefit. More particularly, that
activity is not rendered discretionary by the fact, described in the appeal, that "the
Commission must closely examine the varions documentation submitted by the persons
concemed, assessing it in terms of its probative value and relevance, and may even take
further evidence of its own motion" 1
, since the exercise of discretion implies that the public
-·---------------------------·---
1 Translator's note: I assume the quotation ends here, though this is not entirely clear from the Itaiian text.
- 4-
aut11orities2 take a decision on the basis of a carefully-considered assessment of conflicting
interests, whereas, in this case, the whole of [their] activity consists exclusively in examining
an objective situation, in accordance with specifie legal guidelines, in the light of the availabie
evidence.
On the basis of the above considerations, there are no grounds for objection to the judgment at·
issue, since- relying not on the worèl"1ight 11 ["diritto"] contained in DPR 2043-63, but on the
finding that the benefit, which is payable to Italian citizens affected by National Socialist
measures ofpersecution, for one of the reasons and in the ways precisely defined, consists in
a share in a sum of money, as well as on the fact that the public authorities are accorded no
poWer of discretion -- that judgment fmmd tbat the position in respect of which Marg:herita
Lippi, predecessor in tit1e to the eunent appellant, brought an action, eonsisted in an
individual right and, sinee this was not eaught by the subject-matter reserved for the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Council of State, the action was declared inadmissible. As regards the
costs in these appeal proceedings, the United Chambers considers that, since this dispute is of
a new nature, as already noted by the Council of State, the parties should be ordered to bear
their own costs.
The Court, sittihg as a full bench, rejects the appeal <md orders the parties to bear their own
costs.
Rome, 30 October 1986
ENTERED IN THE REGISTRY ON2 MARCH 1987.
2 The text uses the acronym "PA", presumably refeuing to "pubblica amministrazione" [public authorities or
admirristration J,
·=~.:.~~·.·=
Annex 8
List of aH pendîng judîcia1 cases against Germany
1. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
C!aim
2. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
3. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
CJaim
Ferrini, Luigi
Forced labour case
Federal Republic of German y
Regional Court Arezzo (since 1998)
Court of Appeal Florence
Court of Cassation
minimum of€130,000
-----~------------- ---------------~--------------
SoHnas, Francesco
Prisoner ofwar /forced labour case
Federal Republic ofGermany
Regional Court Sassari (since 2004)
Court of Cassation
Minimum €1,000,000
Maietta, Liberato
Prisoner of war 1 forced labour case
Federal Republic ofGermany
Regional Court Sciacca (since 2004)
Comi of Cassation
Left to the discretion of the Court
-----------------
----------------------------------------------
4, Claîmant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
Mante Hi, Giovanni et al. ( class action)
Forced labour case.
Federal Republic ofGermany
Stiftung ,Erinnenmg, Verantwortung und Zukunft" (Foundation
,Remembrance, Responsibility and Future")
International Organ1zation for Migration (IOM)
Daimler Chrysler
Regional Comi Turin (since 2004)
Court of Cassation
Minimum €1,000,000 each
-----~--~----------- --~---------------------------
5. Claimant
Defendant
Couds seized
Claim
6. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
1\'lazzucco, Natale
Prisoner ojwar 1 forced labour case
Federal Repub1ic of Germany
Regional Court Bolzano (2004 ~-- 2007)
€25,000/discretion ofthe Cami
Mazzucato, Giovanni
Prisoner ofwar 1 forced labour case
Federal Republic ofGermany
Regional Comi Padua (since 2004)
Claim
Court of Cassation
Minimum €50,000
2
---------~------------ ----
7. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Ciaim
Corosich, Olga et aL (5 single actions)
Forced labour case
Federal Republic of Germany
F oundation "Remembrance, Responsibility and Future"
Regional Court Trieste (2005 - 2006)
Minimum €1 0,000 each
--------------------------------
S. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
Mazza, Francesco et al. (7 single actions)
Forced labour case
Federal Republic of Germany
Foundation "Remembrance, Responsibility and Future"
Regional Court Mantua (since 2004)
Court of Appeal Brescia
Minimum €10,000 each
--~------~~---.-----
9. Claimant
-Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
lO. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Ciahn
NoveHi, Paola et al. (class action)
A.fassacre victims case
Federal Republic of Germany
Regional Comi Massa (since 2004)
To be determined
Toldo, Paolo et al. (3 single actions)
Forced labour case
Federal Republic of Gennany
Regional Cami Florence (since 2004)
Court of Cassation
Minimum €25,000 each
-----------------------------.----------------------------
11. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
OresoH, Pietro Luigi et. al (2 single actions)
Forced labour case
Federal Republic of Germany
Foundation "Remembranee, Responsibi!ity and Future"
Regional Court Milan (since 2005)
Court of Appeal Milan
Minimum €1 0,000 each
-------------------·---------~-------~-~-~-------- -------
12. Claimant
Defendant
Robotti, Seconda
Forced labour Case
Federal Republie of German y
Courts seized
Claim
13. CJaimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
14. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Ciaim
15. Claimant
Defendant
Courts scized
Claitn
3
Regional Court Florence (sinc:e 2005)
Court of Cassation
Minimum €25,000
---------------------- -----------------------
Maroso, Corrado et al (2 single actions)
Prisoner of war 1 forced labour case
Federal Republic of Germany
Regional Court Florence (since 2005)
Co mt of Cassation
Minimum €25,000 each
----------···-~-----------------~
Sciacqua, Vincenzo
Prisoner of war 1 forced labour case
Federal Republic ofGermany
Regional Court Bari (since 2005)
Comt of Cassation
Minimum €25,000
Angius, Gaetano
Forced labour case.
Federal Republic ofGermany
Regional Court Sassari (since 2005)
Minimum €1 ,000,000
---------------
------------------ -------------- --------------~---------- -------------------
16. Claimant
Defendant
Courts scized
Claim
17. Ciaimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
18. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
Del Gaudio, Massimo
Prisoner of war 1 forced labour case
Federal Republîc of German y
Regional Court Lagonegro (since 2005)
Regional Court Potenza
€50,000
Proni, Gino
Prisoner of war 1 forced labour case
Federal Republic of German y
Regional Court Balogna (sinc:e 2005)
€100,000
Bartoli, Rita et al. ( class action)
Prisoner ofwar 1 forced labour case
Federal Republic of Germany
Regional Court La Spezia (since 2005)
Left to the discretion of the Court
19. Oaimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
------------~-
20. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
21. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
4
Delle Foglie, Michele
Prisoner ofwar /forced labour case
Federai Republic of Germany
Regional Court Bari (since 2005)
€25,000
Cerbai, Duilio et al. (2 single actions)
Prisoner ofwar / forced labour case
Federal Republic of Germany
Regional Court Florence (since 2005)
Minimum €25,000
Pennisi, Maria et al. (class action)
Prisoner of war 1 forced labour case
Federal Republic of Germany
Regional Comi Catania (since 2005)
Court of Cassation
€500,000
------------------- ----------------
22. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
De Guglielmi, Vincenzo
Prisoner of war 1 forced labour case
·Federal Republic of Germany
Regional Court Turin (since 2005)
Court of Cassation
€41,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
24. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
25. Claimant
Lotto, Adriana
Forced labour case
Federal Republic of Germany
Foundation "Remembrance, Responsibility and Future
Regional Court Belluno (since 2005)
Minimum €10,000
--- ------------~-----------~-----------~--- -----------
Bonaiuti, Ugo
Forced labour case
Federal Republic of Germany
Regional Court Florence (since 2006)
Co mi of Cassation
€123,004.35
Giorgio, Angelantonio
Prisoner ofwar 1 forced labour case
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
5
Federal Republie of Germany
Regional Court Modena (since 2006)
Left to the discretion of the Couzt
----------------------------
26. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
27. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
28. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
29. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
Reich, Giovanni
Prisoner of vvar / forced labour case
Federal Republic of Germany
RegionaJ Comt Brescia (since 2006)
Court of Cassation
€1 00,000
---~------------------------------------------ --------------
Mignone, Romeo et al. (2 single actions)
Forced labour case/ descendants
Federal Republic of Germany
Regional Court Genua (si nee 2006)
Left to the discretion of the Court
Gianni, Libero
Forced labour case
Federal Republic of Germany
Regional Court Siena (since 2006)
Regional Court Florence
Left to the discretion ofthe Court
Amcndoia, Salvatore
Prison er ofwar 1 forced labour case
Federai Republic of German y
Regional Court Paola (since 2006)
€25 ,000/or discretion of the Court
---------------~------------------
30. Ciaimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Ciaim
31. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
·--·-· ----------
Cümtem, Enrico
Prisoner of war 1 forcee! labour case
Federal Republic of Germany
Regional Court Rome (since 2007)
Left to the discretion ofthe Court
------------------------
Curia, Serafino et al.
Prisoner ofH'ar 1 forcee! labour case
F ecleral H .. epublic of German y
Regional Court Rossano (since 2007)
Minimum €1,000,000
------------'-------------
32. Ciaimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
6
Rosa, Jo!e
Prisoner of war 1 j/)rced labour case
Federal Re public of Germany
Regional Court La Spezia (since 2007)
Left to the discretion ofthe Court
--- ---~---~----~-~~~~~-~-~--~-~-~~~~~-~~-~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~----~------
33. Ciaimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
34, Claim:mt
Defendant
Courts seized
Ciaim
35, Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
36, Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
Gamba, Spartaco etaL (class action)
Forced labour case
Federal Republic ofGermany
Foundation "Remembrance, Responsibility and Future
Regional Court Mantua (since 2007)
Regional Court Brescia
Minimum €24,000 each
Bottazzi, Lorenzo
Prisoner ofwar 1 forced labour case
Federal Republic of Germany
Regional Court Rome (since 2008)
Minimum €825,000
Daugenti, Giovanni
Ptisoner ofwar 1 forced labour case
Federal Republic of Germany
Regional Court Bari (since 2008)
Minimllrn €100,000
Rkchutni, Gio Battista et al. (class action)
lvlassacre victims case
Milde, Max Josef
Federal Republic of German y
MlJitaty Court La Spezia (since 2006)
MiHtary Court of Appeal Rome
Court of Cassation
€250,000
~--~-~---
----~~~---- --~-~-----------------------
37. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Clahn
Biondini, Faliero et al. (class action)
}vfassacre victims case 1 descendants
Hantschk, Herbert
Federal Republic of Germany
Mi!itary Court La Spezia since 2006)
Military Court of Appeal Rome
Un:known
38. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
7
Oligeri, Robe1i.o et a!. ( class action)
lvlassacre victims case
Bichler, Huber et al.
Federal Republic of German y
Military Court Rome (since 2008)
Unknown
---------------------
39. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
40. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
41. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
42. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
43. Claimant
Defendant
Courts seized
Claim
Pergantas, Klearchos
Enforcement Livadia Decision
Federal Republic of Germany
Comi of Appeal Florence (since 2005)
Court of Cassation
€2,934.70
Perganjas, Klearchos et al.
Enforcement Livadia Decision
Federal Republic of German y
Court of Appeal Florence (since 2006)
Court of Appeal Florence
€60,000,000 + € 38,000 legal expenses
Fiorentino, Silvana
Jewish deportee
Federal Republic of Germany/Jtaly
Regional Court Rome (since 2008)
Left io the discretion of the Court
Currà, Gennaro et al. (class actions)
Prisoner of war /forced labour case
Federal Republic of Germany
Regional Court Mantua (since 2009)
At least E: 24,000 each.
Alberto, Ottavio
Forced labour case
Federal Republic of Germany
Regional Court Florence (since 2009)
€97,200
------------------------- -----------------------~
44. Claimant
Defendant
Pergantas, Klearchos et al.
Enforcement Aeropag Decision 1 Livadia Decision
Federal Republic of Germany
Courts seized
Claim
8
Regional Court (since 2009)
€50.000.000
--~---~-~~~-----------------·
Annex 9
Areios Pagos
Prefecture ofVoiotia v. Federal Republic ojGermany
Judgment of 4 May 2000
English Translation: 129 ILR, 514
514 GREECE (COURT OF CASSATION)
PREFECTURE OF VororrA v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
(DISTOMO MASSACRE CASE) l
(Case No 11/2000)
Greece, Court of Cassation (Areios Pagos). 4 May 2000
SUMMARY: Thefocts:-In]une 1944, German occupation forces in Greeœ
massacred more than 300 in habitants of the viUage of Distomo and burnt ~
village to the ground. In 1995, proceedings against Germany were instituted
before the Greek courts, by over 250 relatives of the victims of the massacre,
daiming compensation for Joss oflife and property. The Court ofLivadia hdd
German y liable and ordered it topa y compensation to the daimants. Germany
appealed to the Court of Cassation, on the ground that it was immune from
the jurisdiction of the Greek courts. ·
He!d (by seven votes to four):-The appeal was dismissed. The Greekcowts
were competent to exercise jurisdicrion over the case.
(l) State immunity was a rule of customary international law and con--
sequendy a generaHy accepted rule of international law which, purswmt to
Article 28(1) of the Greek Constitution, formed part of the Greek legal order
and had superior force. The institution of State immunity was a consequence
of the sovereign equaiity of States and was aimed at avoiding disturb:mœ of ·
international relations (pp. 515-I 6).
(2) It was now accepted by European countries thar Stare immunity \WS
not absolu te but relative, applying only to sovereign acts performedjurt' imptrii
and not acts jure gestionis, performed by the State in the same mann er as privàte
individuals. Restrictive immunity was enshrined in the European Conventio~
on State Immunity adopted in Basle in 1972 ("the Basle Convention"). Whlle
only eight European States (induding Germany) had ratified the Convention,
all other European States accepted the doctrine of restrictive immunity.
The Basle Convention had also infiuenced devdopments in many other non..
European States (pp. 5 I 6~ 17).
(3) Article Il of the Basle Convention provided thar aState did not possess
jurisdictional immunity in proceedings reiating to tort daims if the facts at issue
had occurred on the terri tory of the forum State. There was now a generally
accepted rule of customary international law thar States were cornpecent to
exercise jurisdiction over daims for damages against a foreign State, in rdation
to torts committed by its organs against persons or property on the territoryof
the forum State, even if the acts in question had been performedjure impnii
(pp. 517-18).
l For related proceedings, see pp. S25, 5J7 and ~5(, bclow.
PREFECTURE OF VOlOTIA v. GERMANY 515
(4) State immunity could not be dispensed with in proceedings rdating
to milimry conflicts between States where harm to civilians was a necessary
consequence. The resultant daims were normally dealt with by inter-State
agreements. But an exception to the immunity rule should apply where the
acts for which compensation was sought (especially crimes against humanity)
had not targeted civilians generally but rather specifie individuals in a given
plaœ who were neither direcdy nor indïrectly connected with the milimry
operations. Furthermore, the right to immunity was tacidy waived wherever it
could be established that the acts in question had been performed in violation
of the rules of jus cogens (pp. 5 19-21).
Dissenting Opinion: Four judges, induding the President of the Court,
conduded that Germany should be entitled to jurisdictional immunity. The
exceptions to immunity for daims in tort contained in the Basle Convention
and the United Nations Dra& Articles on Jurisdictional Immunities of States
did not indude daims arising from situations of armed conflict. This term was
to be broadly understood and extended not only to conflicts between States
but also to armed resistance against occupying forces and the response to such
resistance, however disproportionare. Furthermore, an exception to immunity
could not be based on the violation ofa rule of jus cogem since there was no
rule of customary international law that such an infringement constituted a
tadt waiver of immunîty (pp. 521 ~4).
The following is the text of the relevant part of the judgment of the
Court:
This appeal, based on Article 559 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has
been brought by the Federal Republic of German y against Decision No
13 7/1997 of the Three~Member Court of First Instance of Livadia.
Pursuant to Artide 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court
of Justice in The Hague (1946), one of the sources of international
law is international custotn, as evidence of a general practice accepted
as law. Accordingly, in order for an international custom to exist, two
elements are necessary: (a) "a pragmatic external one, which is constant
and uniform practice'' and (b) "a psychological element, the conviction
that this practice is consistent with a concrete legal obligation or right
(opinio juris sive necessitatis) ".
Acco~~ingly, whe~ St~tes in thei~ r~lations foUow a certain practice,
pos1t1ve or negauve, 1n the convtcnon that this constitutes a legal
obligation under international law, then they create a custom. In the
formation of international custom, by the nature of affairs, a bigger
influence is exerdsed by those countries which are more dosely connected
to its subject. In determining the value of the State practice, the
516 GREECE (COURT OF CASSATION)
element of time must also be taken into consideration, since duration
shows both consistency in application and confirmation of the value
of the customary rule, without however exduding situations where, for
the formation of a customary rule, a long period of practice is not necessary.
It is of fundamental importance first to establish the existence
of an international custom which, as a generaHy accepted rule of international
law, will then constitute an integral part of Greek law and
prevail over all contrary provisions of law, pursuant to Article 28(1)
of the Constitution. As to the evidence to establish a custom, in 1951
the International Law Commission of the United Nations drew up an
indicative list which indudes decisions of international and national
courts, diplomatie correspondence, opinions of legal advisers of States,
international conventions, internai (national) legislation, as wei! as the
practice of international organizations. Attention is· drawn to codifying
conventions, through which a customary rule already in force becomes
crystallized or by which such a rule is created, as weil as judicial decisions
ofboth international and national courts which contribute to the
determination of the existence and the content of rules of international
law. Finally, jurisprudence and especially the teachings of prominent
internationallawyers of various nations (Article 38(1)(d) of the Statute
of the International Court of Justice) constitute subsidiary means for
determining rules of law.
The extraterritoriality or sovereign immunity of foreign States, meaning
their non-subrnission to the international jurisdiction of the courts
of the forum State, is a rule of customary international law and consequendy
a generally accepted rule of public international law whkh,
according to Article 28(1) of the Constitution, constitutes an integral
part of Greek law and takes precedence over any contrary provision.
In its contemporary version, the institution of sovereign immunity
constitutes a consequence of the sovereignty, independence and equality
of nations, whilst its aim is to avoid the dis turban ce of international
relations. It is now accepted by the international legal community that
the immunity of foreign States does not cover all their actions (absolute
immunity) but merely those actions which constitute an exerdse
of sovereign power in relation to third parties (acta jure imperii). It is
n~t ~pheld for those acts which the foreign State carries out as a focus
w1th1n the framework of its relations un der private law (acta jure gestionis)
(relative or restrictive immunity). The distinction between actions
performed jure imperii and jure gestionis is made on the basis of the law
of the forum State and the criterion for making this distinction is the
?ature of the act of the foreign State) meaning whether the act itself
1nvolves the exercise of sovereign power. In addition, the international
PREFECTURE OF VOIOTIA v. GERMANY 517
tendency to limit further the immunity of foreign States has led, within
the framework of the Council of Europe, to the signing (in Basle on
16 May 1972) of the European Convention on State Immunity. This
Convention in eludes a codification of the previously in force customary
international law of continental Europe and has been ratified by eight
Member States of the Coundl of Europe: the United Klngdom, the
Federal Republic of German y, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Luxembourg,
the Netherlands and Sweden.
The non-ratification until today of this Convention by other European
countries does not necessarily mean disagreement concerning its
basic prindples, since European countries in their entirety accept and
customarily apply the doctrine of restrictive immunity and indeed sorne
of those countries have been amongst the first to apply that doctrine,
for example as in the case of Ital y, France and Greece.
According to Article 1.1 of this codifying Convention, a Conrracting
Party cannot daim immunity from the jurisdiction of a court of another
Contracting Party in relation toits civilliability to provide restitution for
damage caused by torts against the person or property (induding bodily
harm, whether caused intentionaHy or by negligence, manslaughter,
destruction of property, arson, etc.) irrespective of whether the tort was
committed by the contracting party acting jure imperii or jure gestionis.
An additional prerequisite for the establishment of the tortious liabHity
of the foreign State is the existence of a link with the State of the
forum. In particular, it must be established cumulativdy that (a) the
act or omission occurred on the terri tory of the State of the forum and
(b) the author of the act or omission was present on that terri tory at the
time wh en the facts occurred.
In addition, the European Convention of 1972 has inspired and
influenced a significant number of foreign States which have introduced
legislation on foreign State immunity, exduding immunity for
daims against foreign States relating to tortious liability, provided that
the same conditions are satisfied, which constitute an expression of the
principle of te~ritoriality (comn:ission of the tort on th~ terri tory of the
forum State wtth the author be1ng present on that terntory at the time
ofits commission). Such an exceptionfrom immunity is provided for by
the legislation of the United States (Foreign Sovereign Immunities .Act
(FSIA) ?f 1976, Article 1605(a)(?)), the United Kingdom (Sovereign
Jmmun.tty Act (SIA) of 1978, Arude 5), Canada (SIA of 1982, Article
6)$ Australia (FSIA of 1985, Article 13), South Mrîca (FSIA of 1981,
Article 6) and Singapore (SIA of 1979, Article 7). In addition, in 1991
the International Law Commission of the United Nations (ILC), composed
of the representatives of thirty-four Metnber States, induding the
518 GREECE (COURT OF CASSATION)
United States, Canada) Brazil, Egypt, the United Klngdom, Germany,
France, Ital y, Greece, the former Soviet Union, China, In dia and Japan,
submitted for adoption to the General Assembly the finalaDraft Articles
on J urisdictional Immunides of States and their Property", which it
had started to work on in 1978. This important text, which refl.ects the
opinion of the international community on matters of sovereign immunity
and is also inspi.ted by the prindples contained in the European
Convention on State hnmunity; p.tovides, in Article 12, with wider and
more thorough expression, for an exception from immunity in rtlation
to the tortious liability of a foreign State under exacdy the same conditions
as those mentioned. above, that (lthe act or omission was committed
wholly or partially on the territory of the other (forum) State and that
the au thor of the act or omission was present on that territory at the
ti me of the act or omission'~.
In the interpretative comments of the special rapporteur attached
ta Article 12 it is darificd that this provision is based on the prindple
of territoriality and concerns torts committed by intention or negligence
(even political assassination) against persons on the territory of
the forum State by organs or agents of the foreign State, irrespective of
whether those acts were performed jure imperii or jure gestionis. Identical
to the above draft of the International Law Con1mission is the
resolution (also of 1991) prepared by the Institute of International Law
which also recognizes (in Article 2(2)(e)) that the organs of the forum
State are competent in respect of proceedings concerning the torts of
causing dea,th or persona! injury or loss or damage to property, which
are attributable to activities of a foreign State and its agents within the
territorial jurisdiction of the forum State.
In addition, the national courts of a number of countries, and in particu1ar
those of the United States, have handed down decisions asserting
jurisdiction over daims broughtby private persons against foreign States
for damages for tortious acts performed jure imperii on the terri tory of
the forum State by au thors who were present on the terri tory of that
State ar the time of their commission. For example, the following cases
are referred to: Letetier v. Republic of Ch ile ( 488 F Su pp 665 (1980)),
in w~ich the United States courts asserted jurisdiction over a case concernmg
the assassin~tion of the former Ambassador of Chile, Orlando
Letdier, in a bomb attack in the United States which had been ordered
by the Government of Ch ile at the time and carried out by its organs, in
~ther words an act performed jure imperii in contravention of human
ng~ts and contrary to the principles of international law. Similarly,
Umted States courts asserted jurisdiction in Liu v. Republic of China
(642 F Su pp 297 (1986)); whichconcerned the execution (by shooting)
PREFECTURE OF VOIOTIA v. GERMANY 519
on United States territory of the Taiwanese anti-government acdvist
Henry Liu by agents of China acting in the exercise of State sovereignty
(jure imperii).
This exception to immunity is also adopted by a large number of
prominent writers on international law. In view of these facts, a general
practice of the States of the international community accepted as law is
thus verified, amounting to the formation of an international custom
which, in accordancewithArtide 28(1) of the Constitution, constitutes
an integral part of national law with superior rank. This rule requires, by
way of exception fron1 the principle of immunity, that national courts
may exercise international jurisdiction over clain1s for damages in relation
to torts comn1itted against pers~ns and property on the territory
of the forum State by organs of a fore1gn State present on that terri tory
at the time of the commission of these torts even if they resulted from
acts of sovereign power (acta jure imperù).
[The majority of the Court considers] that State imn1unity cannot be
dispensed with in relation to daims for damages arising [from military
action] in situations of armed conflict, which generally involve conflict
between States where harm to civilians necessarily results and where
resultant daims are normaHy dealt with through inter-State agreements
after the war has ended. But the exception to the immunity rule should
apply where the offences for which compensation is sought (especially
crimes against humanity) did not target civilians generally, but specifie
individuals in a given place who were neither directly nor indirect! y connected
with the military operations. In particular, in the case of military
occupation arising in the course of an armed conflict, Article 43 of the
Regulations on the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the
Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 confirms that (in law] there is neither
transfer of sovereignty nor, in normal circumstances, any abolition
of the laws in force in the occupied State, which the occupying forces
are required to respect.
Furthermore, ex:traterritoriality (State immunity) does not caver the
criminal acts of the organs of such an occupying force, where they are
committed as an abuse of sovereign power, in retaliation for acts of
sabotage by resistance groups, against a specifie and relativdy limited
number of completely uninvolve;I ~nd innocent civilians, something
which is anyway contrary to the prmc1ple, generally accepted by civilized
nations, chat no one should be punished for the acts of someone else
(see also Article 50 of the above-mentioned Regulations, which provides
that no general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shaH be inflicted on the
inhabitants of the occupied country on account of the acts ofindividuals
for which they cannat be regarded as responsible).
520 GREECE (COURT OF CASSATION)
In these proceedings, in the absence of the defendant S~ate, this Court
regards the following facts as accepted: The Germans, realizing that the
successes of the Alliecl Forces on the war fronts would result in the
steady increase of the resistance of the Greek Liberation Forces, began
systematic terrorism with group "dean-up" operations and executions
of innocent people, in order to bring clown the morale of these fighting
forces and to decrease the intensity of their efforts. Therefore, on 10
June 1944, the Germans serving in the Gestapo and the Livadla SS
dressed up twenty of their soldiers in Greek dress and headed towards
Arachova in two cars with other German cars following. On the way
there they were shooting and killing every Greek they met. They arrived
at Distomo towards noon and started the destruction. Then theyheaded
to Stiri viHage. On the way there, however, the disguised Germans were
an1bushed by Greek resistance men, who killed eighteen of them and
one of their Greek drivers.
Subsequently, in order to take revenge, the Germans went back to
Distomo where they ordered a curfew. They then encirded the village,
put guards on the exits and started a collective massacre, equal to which
in atrocity and cruelty humanity has hardly known throughout the
centuries. Senior officers, junior officers and soldiers, having executed
the twelve hostages that were with them, were rhen divided into groups
and went from house to house attacking the poor inhabitants ofDistomo
like wild beasts, raping, butchering and killing. Oid, young, women,
boys, girls and even infants were the victims of their blood mania.
From the total number of the victims of this vindictive mania of the
organs of the Third Reich, wh ose successor is the defendant State, 201
are particularly identified as members of the families (parents, children,
brothers, grandfathers, grandmothers, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law) of
the plaintiffs, who are daiming, amongst other things, sums for moral
injury, suffered in the above-mentioned circumstances as a result of the
loss of their relatives.
(The majority of this Court considers th at] these crimes (of murder
which, at the same time, constituted crimes against humanity) were
~ommitt~d against specifie persans of relatively limited number, living
In a spect.fic place, who had absolutely no connection to the resistance
~roup which, within the framework of its resistance action, was respontable
for the killing of the disguised German soldiers participating in
the operation to terrifY the local population. These cruel murders were
objectively in any case not necessary for the conservation of the military
occupation or to redute the resistance action and were carried out on
the terri tory of the State of the forum, by organs of the Third Reich, in
exces~ of their sovereign powers. Because organs of the defendant State
were mvolved in the commission of these crimes, the relevant daims
PREFECTURE OF VOIOTIA v. GERMANY 521
for damages and pecuniary compensation fall within the international
jurisdiction of the trial court, as exceptions to the prerogative of immunity
in accordance with the nor rn of customary international law which,
as conduded above, has acquired the force of law.
Consequendy, the trial court was entitled to rule that it had international
jurisdktion over the relevant daims for damages and pecuniary
satisfaction brought by the plaintiffs, albeit: on the different ground that
the defendant State could not invoke its right of immunity, which it
had taddy waived sin ce the acts for which i t was being sued were carried
out by its organs in contravention of the rules of jus cogem (Article 46
of the Regulations on the Laws and Customs of War Annexed to the
Fourth Hague Convention of 1907) and did not have the character of
acts of sovereign power. The trial court therefore correccly conduded,
as to the result in relation to the question of the existence of its international
jurisdiction, that the plea of lack of international jurisdiction
was inadmissible.
Accordingly [the majority of this Court condudes that] the grounds
of appeal must be dismissed in so far as they refer to infringements of
procedural provisions (Articles 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure)
in relation to the international jurisdiction of the Greek courts. In particular,
the argument constituting the first ground of appeal, that the
trial court was wrong to recognize an exception to the immunity of
foreign States based on customary international law, cannot be upheld
and the appeal is dismissed ...
DISSENTING OPINIONS
[A minority of five members of the Court (President Matthias and Judges
Kromydas, Rigos, Bakas and Vardavakis) dissented on the following
points:] . . . The European Convennon on State Immuntty, 1972 does not consntute
in ail its provisions a codification of previously formulated customary
international law. The exception to extraterritoriality (State immunity)
for torts committed on the territory of the forum State by an
author present on that terri tory, where those torts are the result of acts
of sovereignty (jure imperii), do es not correspond to a generally accepted
rule of customary international law. Furthermore, only eight States have
so far ratified this Convention, and there is no other international
convention text which provides for such an exception. The fact that
the above-mentioned Anglo·Saxon States have enacted such an exception
in national legislation~ which limits the immunity of other States
before their courts, is of no significance for the deduction of international
eus tom, because these texts do not form pan of the international
522 GREECE (COURT OF CASSATION)
legal order but are merely domestic law enacted unilateraHy with regard
to the jurisdiction of national courts and not bilaterally. Consequently,
the two decisions of the United States courts invoked by the rnajority do
not docun1ent the existence of an international custom sin ce they apply
domestic legislation of the United States and not a norm of international
law.
Furthermore, the Draft which the International Law Commission
of the United Nations started to prepare in 1978 and submitted to the
General Assembly in 1991 (Draft Articles on Jurisdictional Immunities
of States and their Property) still today remains simply a draft, as do the
Draft Articles of the International Law Association. These documents
testîfy to the lack of a customary norm recognizing an exception to
State immunity for torts committed on the terri tory of the forum State
jure imperii. The failure to reach agreement on these draft documents,
and to render them binding texts, confirms that the regulations which
they contain, in relation to the exception to immunity at issue here,
do not constitute a generaHy accepted rule of customary international
law. Furthermore, in the Draft Articles on Sovereign Immunity for
American States produced by the Inter-American Legal Committee in
1983, the exception for torts comn1itted on the terri tory of the forum
State is restricted 'to torts committed within the fran1ework of commercial
activities and does not extend to torts committed jure imperii
(Article 6(e) in conjunction with Article 5(1)). Of significance also is the
jurisprudence of the English courts, in which the immunity of foreign
States is recognized in relation to torts committed jure imperii (Congreso
del Partido, 1983; Kuwait Airways Corporation v. lraqi Airways, 1995.
For more general discussion see Académie de Droit International, Recueil
des Cours, 1980 IL volume 167, Sir Ian Sinclair, pp. 141 et seq.).
[A minority of four members of the Court (President Matthias and
Judges Rigos, Bakas and Vardavakis) dissented on the following points:]
The exception to the rule of State in1munity for torts, contained in
the European Convention on State Immuniry, does not include torts
arising from armed conflicts. According to a clarification, induded in
the United Nations Draft Articles on the Jurisdictional Immunities of
States and their Property of 1991, in relation ta Article 12, the tort
exception does not caver any daim founded on "situations involving
armed conflicts". This expression is very wide. It does not refer merdy
to action or incidents in war but to all kinds of armed conflicts under
aH circumstances. There is no distinction between attacker or victim of
the attack, nor in relation to the kind of conAict and its results, nor
dep~nding on whether it was Jimited to fighting between military formations
or also extended to civilians. This wide expression is justifiable
PREFECTURE OF VOIOTIA !.•, GERMANY 523
because the States signing international conventions on sovereign
immunity or considering the drafts of such conventions obviously want
to enjoy immunity not only in relation to daims for damages arising
from organized military conflicts but also in relation to ali daims aris~
ing from armed conflicts ... Such conflicts constitute expressions of
dynamic confrontation in various forms, including armed resistance by
the occupied country as well as efforts by the occupying country to
suppress such resistance by force. Attempts to break down armed confficts
into different phases, sorne considered as fallingwithin and sorne as
falling outside the notion of armed conflict, are artificial and do not correspond
to reality. Consequencly, according to the dissenting minority,
it should be accepted that States enjoy immunity from all daims arising
from a situation of general conflict between countries. This interpretation
is supported by the fact that, despite the many recent wa.rs and
many atrodties carried out during them, there do not appear to have
been any successful judicial daims for damages anywhere in the worid
and, in particular, rdying on an exception to the rule of immunity.
[A minority of the same four above-mentioned members of the Court
adopted the following dissendng opinion:]
In all the drcumstances described above, the group killing of the
civilians at Distomo, as horrible and cruel as it ist was direcdy connected
to the armed conflict between the Greek resistance and the military
forces of the enemy. Indeed, it is dearly acknowledged that:
(a) The terrorist acts and "dean-up" operations and executions of
innocent dvilians were carried out by the German forces of occupation
"in order to bring clown the morale of the resistance and
to reduce the intensity of their fighting" because "the successes
of the allied forces on the war fronts would result in the intensification
of the resistance by the Greek Liberation Forces"; ,
(b) The Germans shot and klHed each Greek they met in orcier to
fulfil the above aim ... and this activity formed pan of military
conflict;
(c) On the way to Stiri village the German forces were ambushed by
members of the Greek resistance who kiHed eighteen Germans
deariy within the framework of the same military confHct;
(d) Subsequendy the Germans, in orderto take revenge, went back to
Distomo where (. .. ) they endrcled the village ( ... ) and started
the collective kHiîngs.
Consequendy, these collective murders are also incorporated into the
same armed confiict, They are connected in time and cause with the
killing of the eighteen German soldiers which preceded them, since they
GREECE (COURT OF CASSATION)
constitute a reply to that im.mediatdy preceding act of resistance. Whilst
that reply was, of course~ disptopottionate and cruel, it nevertheless
dearly came within the armed conHkt since it took place within the
framework of group retaHation against opponents [of the occupation].
Furthermore, an exception to the immunity of the German State cannot
be founded on the infringing of international norms which constitute
jus cogem, givcn thatthere is no customary rule establishing that such an
infringement constitutes a tadt waiver ofState hnmunity. Consequenrly,
according to the dissenting opinion, the daims at issue were not subject
to the jurisdiction of the Greek courts because the German State, in
relation to those daims, enjoyed extraterritoriality (State immwüty).
Consequendy the appeal should have been allowed ... , the judgment
of the trial court should have been quashed and the daim should have
been dismissed ...
[Report: Judgment of the Court of Cassation {Areios Pagos) in Case No._
11/2000 (English translation prepared for the International Law
Reports from the unpublished Greek text)]
N OTE.-Following the dismissal of Germany's appeal, the judgment of the
Court of Fii·st Instance of Livadia awarding compensation became final. The
German authoritles did not corn ply with the decision so the plaintif& sought
to enforce ir against German property in Greece. Such enforcement against
a foreign State required the consent of the Minister of Justice under Article
923 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was not granted. In a judgmem
of 14 September 200 l, the Court of Appeal of Athens uphdd an objection
to enforcement lodged by Germany on the ground that Article 923 pursued
an aim in the public interest, namely to avoid dist:urbances in international
relations, and was proportionate to tha.t ai m. Neither did Article 923 constitute
a deniai of the right w effective judidal protecdon1 contrary to Artide 6 of
the European Convention on Human Rights, since it was not an absolute
prohibition on enforcemem but merely a requirement for prior governmem
approvaL An appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed on 28 June 2002.
The plaintiffs then lodged a corn plaint~ un der Art ide 6( 1) of the European
Co?vemion on Human Rights, bdore the European Court ofHuman Right:s,
aga~n.st the_ refusal of the Greek and German aurhorities to corn ply with the
decisiOn of the Court ofFirst Instance ofLiV'.tdia (see Kalogeropoulou v. Grr~ce
and Gennarry, p. 537 below) and proceedings in the German courts (p. 556
below).
~ critical co~ment on the above judgment of the Court of Cassation by
!"fana Ga~ouneh appears in 95 AJIL (200 1) 198. The effect of the majority
Judgment m Marge/fos v. Germany (p. 525 below) is to reverse the decision in
the above case.
Annex 10
Procura. Generale della Repubblica pressa la Corte di Cassazione
submissîon of22 November 2007
12-NOU-2008 17=28 AA REF 507
PROCURA GJJ,NER..\LE DELtA REPTJBBLICA
P!UtSSO LA CORl'E DI CASSAZIONE
N. R.G. 28420/2005 + 249/2006
N. P.G. 3359/2006
IL SOSTITÙTO PROCURA TORE GrjNERALB
+49 1888 171555 5.01/19
Con atto di citaziorJ.e de1 13 aprile 2004 alcuni civili, o l 1oro eredi, deportati in Germania
nel corso dell'tlltima gu:erra mondiale e. costretti allavoro coatto nella fabbrlca Dairnl0r~
Benz sita uelle 'lti.cinrm.ze de1·1a.ger di intemamcrnto, conveniva.no in giudizio !a O.M.
Organizzarione futemariona!e perte Mig:razioni, la Pondazione ''Memorie, respoosabilita
. e futum", la Repubblica Federale di Germa.nia; ta Daimler-Chrysler A.G. (già DaimlerBenz),
forn:mJando nei lore confrrmti le segueoti richieste:
- dlchia.rarsi, ai sensi e per gii effetti dt:~IJ'ari. 1453 cod. civ., ta risoluzio-:ne per
1naden:rpimento di ogni accorda intc.-rcorso con la Fondazione ''Memorie, respon.sabilità e
futoro'' ela O.I.M., organizzarione partner delegata niill'ambito del programma tedesco di
indenrrlzzo per lavoro forzato;
~ conseguentemente dichiarars~ ai sensi e per gli cffetti degli artt. 2041 e 2042 c.e.,
l'indebito arricchimento della Repubblica Federale di Germania e deUa Daimler-Chrysl~·
A.G., per aver, senza una causa legittima, !ocuplctato risparmio di spesa e ingenti Lltili da(
lavoro coatto reso dagli internati;
u per 1' effetto, colidrumarsi la Repubblica Federale di Gertnania :o.onché la Daiutl.~­
Chrys1er A.G., in solido lJ/tJ in via altemativa, al pagamento dell'inden.nizzo dovuto per lo
sfruttnmento del lavoro forzato degll indicati intemati, oltre ai dauni tutti, anche non
patrimoY:J,ialt, rnoral.i ed' esistenziaü, pure in viâ equitativa, trattandosi di orirnini contra
1 'utoanità. in misura non infé.riore ad Euro 1.000.000,00, in favore di ciascun av;;mte diritto.
12-NOV-2008 17:28 AA REF 50? +49 1888 171556 5.02/19
A so~cgnQ qi tali riçhieste;espnnevar:~o quanro stigue.
Côn cor.nunïcazion:e 24.01,1989 la Dàifiller-Beu1l kG. rioonos~ .di aver utiliziatd il - ' ' '
la~oro degli ex futemati itaUE!ni Mf1o stabUimemo. di Ga1;1genau.
Con s:entenz;e :rtn:, 391/98;. 716/01. 1292;/01, 41.9/03, · la. Cotte dcl Conti, setioue
giU:rl$1iz1onale per l~ RegioM Piemonte! ai seusï deUtt legg{'l 791180; accertava- le
circostmze di cui sopra: e !a ua:!.:ura di sterminfu di3l campo di GA$§®.~
.L!J gravltà di tùi· criWici ern sta~ ti:conosciuta daDa stessa O~a. la quaie aveva
lstituito, con H ooncorso delle imprese tedesohe che avevano bene:ficiato def1avoro coatto
(fra. cui la. Daiml:~-Bem:), una fondazione, denom:inata; ''Memorie, respommhilità e futuro"
allo sobpo di mrmtenere vivo il ricoœo <lell' accaduto è dl assicurnre alle vit:tinie un
inderrnizzo, con un fonda di circa 10 miliard.i di marchî, subo:n:lirumdo l'indi'ltiduazione
degli aven ti diritto alla ricorrenza di deten:ni:nati requisiti.
Omseguenternente, la O.I.M. -. Orgrmiz:zazione intf'4Da25imale per le llrlgr.azioni .~·
incariœta dalla Fondarione tedesœ, invimro. agli indi:rizzi degH: ex intèrnati un modulo di
domand.a di indennizzo, :.o.eJ1a quale •. a fron~e dé[ relati.vo pa;gmn~to~ era prevista la
rhnmcla ID.-evocabile a far valere qualsiasi prtitesa al di fuori della legge tedesca.
Allo stato nessun pagamento eta si:ato effettuato, ed a!runi interessati avevano J:ice'VU!o un
form..alé diniego.
' Senzn. esito erano rimaste le diffide al conso·1ato teclesco e le ulteriori mi:ttative per
a:ddivenire ad una so1nrione airuchevo1e.
Essf.. pertanto~ non a:vevano pi.ù. ttl<mn interesse a mantenere l'impegno assunto cou la
r.o.M..
In conseguem:a dell'inefficacia giurldica del programma di ind~c tedesco, ritenevano
di poter agire uei confronti. della Repubblica Federale Tedesca, trattandôsi di crirnixri
intemnziona~, commèssi in Italia, lesivi dei d:iritti fandamentali della persona umana, per 1
qurui già le Sezioni Umt~ con In .decîsione p mar.ro 2004 n. 5044, hanno- ricouosciuto
PtmJ.missibilità delP!i.Zio·ne dint.l11Zi al. giucl:lce îWiano.
!no1tre1 lo sfrtJ.ttamento del Is.voro coatto- vietato dall' art. 6 deUo S'tatnto f3xmato a-Londrn.
l'S agosto 1945 ed ancor prima daU'art 52 della Convenzione de il~ Aja del18' ottobre 1907
~ legittimava essi attorl ad esperire un' azian~ generale di ;ttriochimento sen:za causa ex artt.
2041 e 1042 cod. ci v., avendo la Germania ela D'ai.J:nler-Benz realizzato-serua ti tolo,_. titi
2
1
l
ï
i
12-NOV-2008 17=29 AA REF 507 +49 1888 171556 5.03/19
J)otevollssimo risparmio di spe.sa1 con couelativo gra:vissimo depaupera.uHmto psico-fisico
degli i.o.terna.ti.
futervéniva in g:iud:izio il sig. Bertino Crescente Enzo, formulando I"' medesime domande
degli attori.
Si costituiva, in gi~o la RepuhbHca Federale dl Genrmnia ohicdendo, EJJJZitutto,
dichiamrsi i1 difetto di giurisdizione del giudice italiano per la vigenza ne! d!ritto
intemazionale.:PubbUco dd principio della c.d, imrn\lnità ristretta, ribadiro, pur dopo la
cita!:a sentenza delle Sezioni Unite, dalle Com Sup~eme franoese 1 tedesca e statunitense;
Eccepiva~ alt·esi, la improponibilità della demanda, alla luce delPart. 17, c. IV, del Trattato
di pace del 10 febbf".tio 1947, cou ü · quale 1 'Italia rintirl.dava, a suo nome ed a nome dei
citi:adini italiani, a qu.alsiasi dorna:ada di risÈrcimento nei confronti della Germania. pei fatti
accaduti in tempo di guemt, improponibilità riconosciuta anche dàlle Sezioni Unite con la'
sente'n.za 285/1953.
Peraltro,in data 2 giugno 1961 veniva sottoscritta tra la Rep1.1bbHca Federale Tedesca e
l'1talia. una convoozione, resa e3ecutiva con D.P.K 1961 n. 1263, nd1a quale il govemo
italiano dichiarava che erano state de:finite tutte le rivendicazioni e ricbieste delia
RepubbHca. italiana, o di persane fisicbe o giuridiche italiru.1e, anèom pendenti n-ei confronti
della Repubblica Federale di Germania o nei confronti di persone fisicJ.le o giuridicb.e
tedesche, purcM derivanti da diritti o ragioni sorti nel periodo tra: il 1 o settembre 1939 e 1'8
maggiD 1945.
TI Govema iÙJiano si impeg.nava, nel contei:npo, a tenere ir.deruù 1a Repubbllca Federale di
Germania e le persone fisiche e giuridiche tedesche da ogn.i eventuale a.zione o altra pretesa
legale da parte di persone fisiche o giuridiche italiane per le rivendicazioni e rich.ieste
suddette.
E poiché aveva versato all'ltalia, a tiiolo di risaroimento ed a fronte della condusione degli
acconli di Bonn, Je somm~ di denaro concordate, nell'ipotesi di ritenuta proponibilità della
doma.nda, chiedeva l'autorizzazione a chiamare in giu.d.izio la Repubblica itaJiana per
es sere della stes·sa manlevata.
La Dairnlet-Chrysler AG., costituendosi in giudizio, eccepiva i1 difetto di giurlsdi:done
sotte ulterio:ri profili
3
12-NOV-2008 17=29 RR REF 507 +49 1888 171556 S.\'14/1.9
infatti,_ che- la d~Q.nè; clel1~- SS.UU, n. 5044 affronr.ava la questiôrl.e
'i:mrnun.Hà dello S~.o e t;iélla g:imisdizione Ulï.ivers~Je in pr.esen.2:a di crim.frll
rntexnaZ!onali oon1.m.el)5i dallo;$~o:;
'Nel Bl):O <:Mp, di~' E<Î. itâ~ di.1!.1Jl'aZitin~.col'Jtro ~ S<ISg\"!ttO. giuridico privato
· re!ativa al p-reteso. arrl~~tô fn~to ~i ~le soggetto, e quii:Jdi Ia. giurisdiûone andava
d~ sulla l:la.Se: di ~cipiordhwi.
fi8,ttwdosi di una controversii!, tnte~i!!ziona!e coinvolgea:~te sôggeili app.art.enenti à Stati
mémbri della C.E. e v~do l;àl~ c..<:~ntroyersia in mater:îa cîvHt~~ net caso di specie trovava
app1icrucioùe il regola!!!e~o Cll :::t 44/2001, che ha sostitui±{31~ Convenzione di Bruxelles
del 27,09.1968.
L'art. 2:1 di detto regolementa stabillste che, salve le dis;p:oili:il:mi speciali, le persone
domici:liate nel tettïtorio di un d~e:rm:hlato StatQ membro sono convenute. a presciruiere
dalla loro liazionalità, daVmtti ~tgt"mlici di W~ Sm:t:o membr<;>. ·1E4 ai sensi d-et successive
rot 60 il domicilia di tina p~f:}n~ gimiclica ê individuato- net tuogo in cui si ttova, ra sua
sede statutaria o la. mm a,~sttaz-ionc central~ o i1 ceo,tto di nttività principale (perla
Daimler-Chrysler, Stoccarda).
Quanta aUe compet.enze speciali ill cui ~!Part . .5 - -1a cui eieuca:tlone, p·er co.sumt"'
giurisprud.e:n.za della Corte di Giustizia, ha carattere tassattvo "- fra di esse non rient.Tano le
e-ontroversie in mate.ria di amccbimento se~ eau-se, su cui si fondano le pt:erte.<re degli
attori.
Pemitro, q:ualor:a si fosse ritenuto che detta aziou~ rierrtrava fi·a !(~ materie per le qu.ali si
applicano i criteri speciali la soltcioJ.ï.e no-n sarebbe stata divers a.
:tnfatti, ove ia controversia fosse rit~nuta di n:atnra contrattu.l!le> ai sen.s1 dell' art. 5 .1.2, si
aY~:elJbe la giurisdizione del giud:lce de.l tuogo in cui t'obbligazi{lue dedotta in giudizio è
stata o deve e:ssere eseguita. Oc:carne quindi $bUire qusle è la legge (tede.~c.-a o itallana) in
base a cui deterrnimwe il luogo di a.dempimento, e per f.ar cio fm: riferimento aile n-orme di
diritto mtemaziouale privato della lex fori, e dmque a:Ua legge 199.5 n. 218. L'art. 61 di
tale Iegge stabiHsce che l' amcchimento senz:a caùsa è sottoposto alla legge dello Stato in
cui si è Verificato H fatto da cui deriva l'obbligazione~ Poiché H fatto da cui deriverebbe
t'obbHgo restltutorio a titolo di arrièohimento senza causa è consistito nello s:fruttamento
dél lavor.o degH attori in Gennru:tia, dovrebbe C(lncludersi che la !egge appHcabî1e fosse
.queUa tedesca, !a quale prevede, in manc.Hnza di accordo-, che !a prc;stazicme deve essere
·1
.,
1[
; - '•
12-r~OlJ-2008 1?: 30 AA REF 507 +49 1888 171556 5.05/19
effettu.ata nel !uogo in cui il debitore aveva la residenza al memento in cui è sorta
Fobbligazione (e quindi in Gennrutia, sede del preteso debitore).
Sempre in subordine, ;mc:he se si ipotizzasse l'applicazione dell'art. .5..3 del Reg. 44/2001,
che individua la com.petenza dei giudice in caso di iUecito, si an1verebbe comunque alla
competenza d-el giudice tedesco, in quanto l'evento dannoso satebbe avvem.üo i_u Germmia
ove U 1avoro ooatto è stat:o prestato. E 1o stesso ove si configurasse una responsahi1ità ex
ru:t. 2043 c.p.
La competenza del giudice tedesco rlsu1terebbe anche ove si volesse far riferimanto alla
legge 218/1995.
Jnfatti l'art. 3, l .:~ c. della citàta legge stabilisee ohe 1a giarisdizione italiana sussiste quando
i1 convenuto è domiciHa.to o residente in IW.ia. o vi ha un rappresentante che sia a.utoriz.zato
a stan~ in giud:izio a uorma dell'art, 77 c.p.o. o negH altri oasi previsti dalla legge.
La Daim1er-Chrysler non. è domicniata in .Italia e non ha. neppure un rappresentante . .
autorlzzato a .stara in giudizio: infatti la Daimler Ch:ryster [tatia s.p.a. è un diverso soggetto
giuridlco.
ll seconda COmnla del ci tata art. 3, inoltre, ài titti della detenninazione della giu.risdizione,
sancjsce 1 'applioabilità. della convenzione di Bruxelles del 1968 (che ha contenuto analogo
al Reg. 44/2001 che l'ha sostitUit.a) e, quindi, per effetto dei criteri snbititi nel
regolfmlento, sussisterebbe comunque la giu.rlsdizione del giudice tedesco.
· In ognl caso, l'az1one nci suoi con:fronti doveva rltenersi improportibile o i.wprocedibile sia
in rda..?Zione all' nrt. 77 c, 4 del Trattatr; di pace, sia dell' acootdo in data 2.6.1961
sottoscritto a Bonn, cu-i venne data esecuzione con il D.P.R. 14 a:prile 1962 n. 1263.
Nel merita eccepiva la maturata .prescrizione del vantato · dlritto e contestava la
quantificazione det dsrmo.
Anch'essa c:hiedE:1t-a di essere autorizza.~.a chiamare in causa la Repubblica italiana.,
Si costltuiva in giudi.zïo anche l'OJ.M. (già comitato intemazionale per lé migrazioni
europee), deduc:endO per f;,.'lS/l la Cafel1.Zà di giurisdizione del giudice Îtaliano net suoi
roufronti,
Afferrnava, înfatti, di essere una. organizzazioile intergovernativa (di cui è rnembro anche
lo Stato halimo) che gode delle. immunità e ·dei privilegi accordat.i in Italia alle
Organizzl.iZioni interreg:ionali in applicazione della Convenzione del 21 novembre 194 7 sui
privilegi e le immunità delle. istituzioni special.izzate ador:tate dalla Asse--.nblea generale
1: :;:LNt}iJ-2008 17: ]0 RfèJ REF 507
delle Nazioni Unite con risôluzi&ne~l novembre 1947 nonché deg!i an.uessi Iiguardal1ti le
singole istituzion:i (legge 24,7,19Sl 11. 1740).
Rilevava, inoltre, che !a R.epuhbllc.a Federali5 di Germania, con !egge 2 agosto 2000. aveva
istituito una fondnzione dcno:m:inata "Memorie, responsabilità e ftthrro" allo scopo di
rnettere a disposizione, attraversô orgWlizzttz:ioni parlner.s; fonti di finanziamento per ra
concessiane di prestazioui agli ex 1àvoràtorl forzati ed ai coiptti da altre îngiustizie nd
periodo del regime naziona:twfSOcta!ista._
Tale indermizzo v eni va stibiliw a favore di persane aventi detorrninati precisi requisiti e
con telativa procedum pet il loto acèert!!me-.nto.
L'O.I.M., considerati i Emoi 3oo:pi statutari, veniva indioata per Pas.sisumza umanitaria alla
detta pratica di indennizzo e q_uindi mçh.1deva nel suo programma e b-llancio per i1 2001 il
programma pet compens~one !avota.torl mrzati in Germania. cui si è poi a.ttenuto.
Ne eonseguiv.a che :1a sua pm:teci-pMlone a detto programma costituiva una sua attività.
statutmia, come tale immuntl dalla prodtlZitz:oe italiana.
Si costituiva la Presidenzadel Consiglio dei Ministri, chiedendo, per essa, la declaratoria. di
impmpon:ibüità ed il cigetto deJle dornaJ:J,de attrici e, di conseguenza., delle r:ichiestc
avanzate nei con:frùnti deUo Stato itaHano.
·Prima deU'udienza di predsazione · deUe conclusioui la Repubblica di . Gennama ba
proposto l'odierno ricorso per regolamento prcVentivo di giurisdizione.
Ha, iananzitutto, ribadito il difetto di giurisdizione in conseguenza al1a rinunci:a alle
rivendicazioni di carartere economico, per effetto dell'art 77, c. IV del Trattato di pace del
1947 (effetto già riconosciuto dalle SS.UU. con la sentenza 285/1953) e dell'art. 2.
ddl' Accorda italo-tedesco del 2.6.1961, tratta..ti ohe, sicura.mcnte al momento della lora
conclusione, non potevac1o ritenerSi ln conflltto con una norma irnperatîva del diritto
internazionale generale (art, 53 Convenzione di Vienna su diritto dei tra.ttati de! 1969),
anche perché il quadro norm.ativo intemazionale posto alla base della sentertza delle
SS.UU. 5044/2004 non è: cranologicamente riferibile alla sitnazione internazionale Vigentt:
all'epoca
Ha chiesto, inoltre, un riesaroe del principio di diritto enunciato neila sentenza 5044/04
delle Sezîoni Unite, in· quanto noo conispondente allo stato · attua.le del d:iritto
inter:naziona!e.
12-NOV-2008 17:31 +49 W88 1?1556 S.0?/19
Infatti, dopo la predetta pmmmci~a sono interverrute, a conferma delle · norme
consuetudinarie in rnateria di hmnunità deg.ll Stati, pur in prc.senza di gravi violazioni di
obblighi in~emaZionali posti da nonne è.ogenti, Ie pranuru:;e deite Corti Supreme greca,
francese e tooesca.
Anche la Corte Europea dei diritti dell'uorno, contre decisioni, ha ribadita l'applicabilità
della regela dell'immunità pur in preseDZa di violazi.oni di norme di c.d. "jus cogeru;••.
Di contra, le sentenze delle Corti IJS.A., citate dalle Seziolli Unite, si basano sn ill1
crnendamento dei 1996 del Foreign Spvercign Immnnities Act, che stahiliva 1a deroga
all'~unità dalla giurisdizione degli Stati speciùcamente lndicati come "sl'onsor.s" del
tetrorismo. La norma.tiva prevede ohe I.a. deroga deJI'irnwunità si applichi a condizione che
la vittima o ttattore siano cirtadiruU.S.A. al rnomento del fatto e c.he quest•ultimo non si
sia. verifi.cata nel tenitorio dello Smta tenorlsta. Tmttasi cb.1ari3J11ente di normativa dertata
da esigenze del tutto particohtri di tmo Stato coinvol.to nelle azioni terroristîche e che,
peraltrô, ha suscltato moite perplessità circa !a compatibilità. con il diritto intemazionale.
Ne1 contempo, in nm:nerose altre sentenze statunitensi è · staro ria±fermato 11 principio
cleU 'immunità, principio ribadito, in più occasicni, .anche dai giudici dellà House of Lords
diLondra.
Da u.ltirrw ha rilcvato che La Convenzione sulla inumlnità degli Stati in seno alle Nazioni
Unite, approvata il 9.11.2004 (quindi successivamente alfa sentenza delle SS.UU.) noo.ha
previsto alcuna deroga all'immunità anche in. caso di violazioni dei diritti umani.
{ adrlirittura sono stare espressamm:1te escluse le aziorn di g11erra. co si come era avvenuto
perla Convenzione eumpea guJl'i.n:lnïunità de11976).
Si è costituita la DaimJer-Chrysier A.G., pwponClido anchê ricorso incidentale:, c
insistendo perla dedaratoria del difetto di giurisdizion~ sotto un duplice profila.
Innanzitutto per aver rinunèiato l'rtalia, anche a nome dei cirtadini itiliani, a qualsiasi
pretesa contro 1.a Germaoia e i cittadini germanici sia coi Trattato di pace di Parigi del. 1947
sia con gli Accordi italo:..tédeschi di Bonn dell961.
In seconde luogo perché in relazione alle demande proposte nei suai confromi difetterebbe
comunque la giuri.sdizione del gi1.uiice: italiano, per essere competente il giudice tedesco, in
applicazione del Regolarnr;uto CE n, 44/2001, che ha sostituito la Convenzione di
.fuuxelles de127.9.1968. ·
7
12-NmJ--200a 17:31 AA REF 507 +.ci9 1888 171555 5.08/1'3
[n diritto
I due ricorsi (principale e inoide.-.ntale), iscritti con muneri di malo diversi, devono essere
r:ii111iti; giacchè investono il medesimo processo1 a norma dell'art. 273 o.p.e. che trova
applicazione anche nel regolm:nento preventive (Cas~. SS.l.nJ, 17823/2007).
ll rie-Orso incidenta!e della Daim!er-Chrysler A.G. è rimale: irrfatti, ancorchè il regolarnento
.di giurlsdizione non costituisca mezzo di impugnazione, esso comporta, uondimeno, la
necessità di ccnoentrare in UQ m:ùco giudizio tutte le questioni attinenti a.l1a giurisdizione,
con la couseguenza che il controricmTente, il quale intenda proporre a sua volta tale
regolamemto1 deve fatlo nelie forme e nel termine del rlcor.>o incidentaie ai sensi deU'art.
371 c.p.c., al quale rinvia l'art. 41 c.p.c. (Ca.ss. SS.UU. 2003 n .. 19667).
Semprc proiiminarmente· va rileva.to che i1 :regolametJto preventivo di gütrisdizione deve:
ritenersi aromissibile relativrunente alle questioni sulla sussistemza o meno della . 1
giurisdizione itruiana nei confronti di soggctti slrar:ùeri, sen:Za che vi osti la circostanza che
l'art. 31 o.p.a. - cosl come modificato dalPart. 73 L 1995 n. 218, che ne ha abrogato il
comma 2 ~ meuzloni il d{fetto di giurisdizione del gi.udlce ordinario neï soli confi:onti della
p.a. o dei giudici specia1i1 giacchè il riuvio recettizio operato daH' art. 41 c. p.c. all' art 3 7
dello stesso codice per la determina.zione del campo di applicazione del regolau:iento dt
giurisdizione deve in tender-si ota riferito ill1che all' art. tl della stessa legge n. 218 del
1995, che disciplina; appunto, la riieva.biHtà del difctto cU giurisdizionc: dd giudiœ itaiiano
(cosi: SS.UU. 24.3.2006 n. 6585). Ed anco:ra che i[ regolarnento è proponibile anche
quando miri alla statuizione del difetto di giurlsdiZione di qualsiasi giudice (SS.UU. 2002
n. 8157).
Sotta il profila strettsmente pNcessuale, va evidenziato che essendo il regolamento
preventivo una fase incidentale del procedimento nel corso del quale viene proposto, i!
ricorso, qualora le cootroparti siano mppresentate 1n giudizio da Un unico d:ifensore, puo
essere notiiicato a quest'l.lltimo mediante consegna di u.na sola copia, a norma dell'art. 170
o, II c.p.c. (Cass. SS.UU. 29.5.2003, n. 8ï01).
Venendo, quind.i, ad esmn1nare le questioni di giurisdizione prospmtate, deve evidenziarsJ,
anzit'Jtto, come gli attori, nel giudizio di merito, abbi<nlb fornm[ato una serie di domande
e:terogenee., qmdi ta risoluz,one e;<". art. 1453 c.e. degli accordi intercorsi con la Fondazione
tedesca e l'O.I.M.; l'indennizzo per indebito arriochlmento, ex artt. 2041 e 2042 c.e., da
(
Rr=! REF 507 +49 1888 171555 S.09/19
~·della RepubbHca dt (]ESttf!a'rti>l ~ dcl1a:JJaim1e{-Cb~~r.W A.C. per li.1 sfumamento dei
W. V orO furzatD degli mtemâfi~ :il fi~im~ 4ei dim.n,i, anche non pamruoruiill, ttatfartdosi
di Crimim cantr6!'~1~
Otbene• non: essendovà. fra le we domanM rapporto di priorità logiim o di su:bordtnaz:kinè,
.m.a sè'Jffimai di ahernàtivi.ti. .,~ cs~tr~inata, S:ttZiWtto1 la question:e della sussiste;nza délla
giuri<;dizione CiVile 11ei conflt~.ntt ~ll<t S'fçttotedè!ico.
Oeeqrret al riguardo preroettere t~he la Corle di giÛStizia delie Comunità èurop.ee3 con
recente prommcia del 15 febb:rzrlo 1D07 (in cama C'-292/0S),· nell'ambito di una
controversia instaurnta da~ti a:1lë Amodtà· giudiziarie grec he tra ~ parent! delle vittime di·
azioni delle. forJ.iè a.tmàte tèdes~he dttr8.'llt~ l'occupazioue della Grecia da parte delle forze
na:z:is'tel e ta. Repul.:iblica Fedetafu di GeMacla per ii risarcirnento del danno patrlmoni"llJe e
morli1e da k:ro subito, ha rlbaitlto il }H:incipio che le norme. in ma:teria di c0mpetonza
~trnciate dalla CMveozio~ diBrï.lXdl~ de[ 1968 (oggi Reg. 44/200! CE); devono esSere
interpretttte nel seoso chb non rient:ta nel1à mater! a civile l'ali one giudiziaria promossa da
persone flsiche in u.na Stato ci:mtœente nei. oonfronti di un a!tro .stato oontraente e volta nd
ottenere il risarcimooto del danno subito daUe vittirue. di azioni delle forze 1.1l."'rn.ate
neWamb.ito di operazioni di guerra.
La decisione, ovviamenté, 1a:Scià bnpregiud.icata la que$tione se, una · volta dichia.rata
ù:lnpplicabile b. predetta tonvenz:l()ne; sussfsto l'ltnmli!iftà degli S.tati daJJe · pretese
risaroitorie.
Rit:o:rrente e controricorrente deduc:o·no, anzitutto, il difetto di giurisdîzione come effetto
f. della dausola di cui all'art. 71 c. IV del Tn].ttadn di pace del W rehbraio 1947, in forza
della q~a:le l'Italia rimmda.va, a suo nome eda nome dei cittadini iwi~. fra l'altro, a tutte
le domande (.ii risarcimento di perdite o di dauni occorsi durante la guerra.
L'accorde, corne .à noto, ba costituim oggettb di i.nterpretazioue da parte deUe Se:doni
Ucit~ CiVili della Corte di Cassazione, ron 111-'.ienten.za 29 germaio l953n. 235, la: qurue ha
rl1.e:vato cbe a: s'eguito deHo stesso - rèso esecutivo in ftaüa con il d, lgs. 1947 n. 1430 ~·il
~mUee itali?!lo difetta di giurisdizione a conascerè dellJJ dom.aoda, proposta da cittarlino
imfim:u:} al fine di ottenere 1l risarcimento drumi.
NêU.'occasione la. Suprema Corte, dopa aver premesso cheia rlnun~ia non poteva ritenersi
li~tata alle rlomande ptoposte in giudizio e:pe.i1deill:i ai!a dam delr8 ma.ggio J 945, silioene
ci:ferlta. a tuffe. le pretèSe esistenti a detta dat<4 o· comtmque ricollew..nte-.si a. rnpporti o fatti
:t2-h!O'r2008 1?: 32 +49 1888 171555 5.10/19
sorti o ·vé:rific.atisf rlo:pQ Ft sëttènil;!r~ 19S9,. ha ,aftenna:ro,t.hé: làprooeij:a rinimd~ trarlo.tta
· . per effètto d~U-a. s_~t.a pt;onttil~on~ dt!Ho stA!Is~ci 1~; îrt una regge dello Statoj
spieg11.va ta &rua effit<-al.i!~a, an~he· nef 4tlrttfroofi: dcl citt~dhû ita1iw. (si pateva disèutcre,
s~, sul· se Sl···~tD di··~e r.int.lïlZi~ fl Govemo· hruiâno (lisse t'enuto o meno ad
iq:den.n:!:zzare i. prùprl l~ttad:tai. del. pregi:udiZio âd essi detivato, ma swl:o: forza operativa
della stessa non potev.a cader dubbi{)).
*1 1961 fra il Govern:o: d~ll~i Re.pubblioa i:tal.ia:na ed il Gov~· della Repub'b1ica Federale
'
di Germania interv®i~ ultl:}riori ncèordi sugli indem:ùz:zf a favore dei cittadini ital! ani.
Atali act:;Ordi Veiùva da"fa 4-ttuUknle, anz:il'Utlo, con :il D'JlJ~:. 1962 u. I 263, il cui artico!o !
prev~.deva· il versamento di:l!La Getms.ni.a all'Itàlià., a definiYJat't~ detle gestitmi eoonomiche
pemdooti, della sbmtl'l..a di 4-0 ID.iliotrl dt ~ ted~chi. e i:'ltHPart. 2 si dava atto che il
Governo üaliano diehi.a.r~:va 4èwnte- tutte. le ciwndica;ziom e ric,bieste deila Reptlb-blica
itallana, o di persone fid:ehe o git,tt'idiclte" italian~, deri;v~nti da diritti o mgiorti sorte ne:!
p1'5riodo bellico, e ~;on il O,PJt n. 2043 del HHi3; con. il. quale la Repubblica italiana ha
provveduto alla tip~e &.eUe ~Gœ:me dcevute fu .!J:i;gul'to agli accordi intemazionali
raggiunti con la R.F'.T., anche a favore dd c.d. "lavorawri non velontui" deportati in
Gennauia.
E' di palese evîdenza, q1rind1, c:he agH .aecord1 del 1%1 - oo ai re!a.tivi prowedimenti ' . '
nonnativi di attuazioue interna. - da rite~rsi integrati"Vi di qu:e:Ui di eni al Tmttado di pare
del 194 7, possonn p1!!1i1:!a!mente mutuarsi i prin: ci pi af'fenn~ti datle S'e:âo.ru Uni te nel 19 53,
e che trovano sastanzia1e oonfenna. ndia suocessiva prouoo,t,f:! d:eUe S.U. 2: marzo 1987 n..
2188.
L'obbligo. di conformarsi alle pr~te convenzloni intema:rltmali cortituisce attua.ziooe cid
fon&tm.entale principio di diritto internazionrue H pama &lut servanda" sancito
espressamen:te· dal1a Convenzione di Vièl:lDà del 23 mau!o' t9ô9 {tatificata anche· da!
rlos.tro paese). e la cui permanente v-alldità ê stata anche di r~emte n'badit0 dalla Corte
europea dei dmtti dell'uomo ~n la decLsione 30 giugt~o 2005· ·~ Bbsphmus Hava Yo!la.1y
Tur.izm c •. Irela:nd.
' Né po-t::robbe f.nvocarsi: oh~ trnttasi àl- dausolit ntilla pcit~é in c()n;flïtto con norme
imperative del diritto · internazionale genera!.e (j~s ·~g~ns); ai sehsi dell 'art. 53 dcl!a
QOnvenzione; ·~ cl-o sia.· perché il diritto al risarcimento dei dt:mno civile non fa parte del
·can:teml.ttl della aorm~ Inderog.abilG (potendo essere, a ctiffeienza del diritto alla vi tao alla
1.2-NOU-2008 17:33 t=::R REF 507 +49 1888 171556 5.11/19
s<Ill.!.k.,; ·Oggetto di. rinunda elb·~.US'aiibn:e), .sia r,Jerché, ove l'lrtViili(Jilà sussist~se sarebbe
Gërtlm:lèl:it~ éotl:s·~gu~ de!Pevolu:zione- del quadro intemazian:!Ïe e quindi non
infi~ebbe la validHà:.dei fatti,sott9~cri;ttl dui due Stati {cfr. Corte Œtistizia CE r6 giugno
l9M n. tô2)~ D'altronde, gli aoomxH predetti (arialq:gw. a q.uel1i rntervenuti. tra altri Stari
belligC.·tanti ai tcnnme del secondo · cpnfHtm · mondiale) costftuisoono un equo
èOfltenlpèrnmento fra i dfritti fl)nclrunenf:ili dd!'ind:irv:idt:!o e r es~genza dt difendere le
reciproqhe savrauit14 di favorire Ic buone relazioni fra, .. gH Stati ei di evftate rncuirsi delle
conilittualità: irt quest'ottica,. possono reputmsi süccedwei1 èd in rapporti di sostituîbilità
cari il rlmedio. dell 'azione giurisdizionale dir.étt'a.
Potrebbe, peraAtro; sostenJ..."rSi che le disposizioni conteuute nei trattat1 del1947 e del 196"/,
cosi come forrnulate, siaoo ~eribili esc[usiwmente al rapporti di diritto sosl:alnzi:n:le e non ,1
alla giurlsdizione1 giaccbè diversamen.te opimmdo diffieilmonte si spiegbèrehbe l'impegno
assunta daTia Re~mbbi:ièa italiana di "tenere indenne, hi Repubblîca. Federale di German:la
dao~ eV'entuale azione o aJtm·pretesa legale'~.
Cotnunque il p1ublema della esisterrz:a (o mena) deJJa gturisdizione del giudioe ita:Uano
deo;re essere risolto in applicazione del principio di . diritto inremazions.le in tema di
ilnm.unità degli Stati.
Tale principio e ri.masto a Iungo fermo neira giurisprudenza delle Sezioni Unite.
La sentenza ô giugno 1974 n. 1653 affermava che in virtù dei prindpio cbru;:uetudi:nario
''par in. parom rion habet jurisdictionem'\ uuiversalmente accettato, e rientrante
œil a
previsione dell' art. 10 primo comma dena Costitt1Zi9nej gl.i Statl. ~"'tr:.ri non sono soggetti
alle. g..furisdiziooe itali.ana neppu.re per gli atti c001:piuti nel territorio della. Repubblica,
purchè si t.r-atti di umt a:ttività diretta alla rcaiizz~one de11om fini pub.hlki".
rn telünini anche SS.VU. I979 n. 3062; 1994 n. 556$;1996 n. 919; 1999 n. 328; 2005 n.
11225.
Nella senten.za 530 de1 3/8/2000, rlgw:trdante i danrri cagionati durante le e:sercitazioni dei
veHvoli da guerra statunitensi sul o.ostro terrltorio (casri "Cerrois") te S. U. hanna
puntuaiizzato alcuvi significativi principi:
~ iJ precetto .deU'immunità della giurisdizione civüé dello Stàto estè:ro, iri pre.senza. di
attività jure inperi. - pur se intrinsicamente idonea ad moidere .su. dirltti fondarnentllli
dell'uomo, ed in psrticota.re sul diritto alla vtta all'inc~fumità perscmale ed alla salute- é
1
1.
12-N0\!-2008 17=34 88 REF 50? +49 1888 171556 s, 12/19
sa:ncito da una.norma con.oroetudirtaria irt~onaley ~siS'tm!t~ ap:"entr;;J;ta in vigo:te del! a
Custituziotte itlilia.tia, ed ha asm.tnt.O va:lore ~tQ ne.l nosP'O' ~r&intm1ento in vittt"'. della
dansa fa di adegruawento a:utomatico a1ie nonne de! clli!tto fri;t~onhle genemùriient<::
rioonoscii:ltè d~a dàU'ait, 10 comma. r della Cost, e non rn fm2ia di una. norma. avente
eijicilcia di legge ordinati<li
- né deriva cbe q:uellà regalà ê stata. recepita ne! nostro ormnru:nento neUa. Slla! interezza; e
' .
che; -rl;Spefro ad essay non si pane, né· si puô porre, la q,uesti.otte d:i compatibUità ccm il
!W'sti:'O sistema COStitu.zicm.ale tauto alla stregtla: del principioy a!'fennato dai giudioe delle
Ieggi nella se11tenza 12 .giugno 1979• n:. 48, secondo mû. per le norme di diriito
i.ntetnaziotlâle generàlmente riCO·nosdute anteriori alla chrla df entrata. in vigore della
Costituzione, !a disposbione di cui ai primo comma. dell' art. 1 0· ne determina I• automatica
rict:.zione piena e sei:l.Za limiti; ed il prob!em.a della coe:rerwtt dette omo!oghe norme con i
prmcipi fundm:nentili della Costituzione si poae soio pet Je nnnnfl che siano venute ad
esisten:za do-po que!la data::
né in wntrnrio pub valere la previsione di clli, an•art. & dena Dichlanzione universale
dei diritti dell'uomo approvate da111 A.ssomblea gen.enale dette Ntizioni Unite il 10
dicembm 1948. net!a parte fu ctti ri.conosc>.e il dirirto di ogn1)llo di .ricorrere davanti al
competente giudice' nnionale co:ntro gli afu <::.ommessi iu viol.azione dei diritti
fandamerttali riconosduti dalla Costituzione e daile le.ggi. Ci à per.thé- anclie a nqn tenet'
conta che siffatta regala non l>4t valbre preeettiV() i.rnroediato ed è rivo!to agli Stati- certo
ê che la stessa mira a d:i.scip:li!'U!re s:oitanto i rapporti tm L'individuo e 1o Smto del quille egli
1 . è cittadino (ne! senso che ogci Stato deve riconoscere iti proprl cïtlooini la tutela gi'l.idiziaria
dei loro.-diritti fondam.entatf) è non anc-he a regoiare li:!. dlvetSa qu.estion~ della rlserva della
giurisdizi:one di ciascun Stato in ordine aUe attività poste in essere io estrinst}cazione deUa
propria so'V'racità, né ad ~dudere o timitare il prin:~pio delri.tr:u:uunitâ. giurisd:iz:ionale
nsp~tto agli a11ijtir6 !.mperii.
Ad identic:h.e conclusio::ni sono pervenute le Sezioci Unite eon la suc:cessiva smtenza 5
giugu'O 2002 n. :8157~ nell a qus.le hrumo riafferrnato il prmciplo che "gli atti c:he ven go no
compiüti da:llô Stato uella coriduzione -di ostilità. beUi;;:b.e si sortraggono totalmente al
sindacàto si a della g:iurisdizione· ordJnaria che della gi-nrisdizione. an:rmrnfstrativa, in quanta
œstituisoono manifustazione di' _una fu.nzione politica cisperto alla qual.e. non é.
12
12-1-!0l)-2008 17:34 f--iA REF 50? +49 1888 171555 •:;. 13/19
1
1
oonflgurabile 'tJ.!là sit:uatiœe dl in~re:s.se prot.etto a cbe. g!i ;ml; in cui d.étl.a fu.nzi.one si
manifesta, a.Ssutnru:w o meno 1ln d~t~tfto. contenuto.
Senonchè, proprio in urt ca~o di clttnrû cl'\lili arrecati dalle truppe rul.'ciste rlu:r:ante Ia seccnda
gu.em mondiale;. si' è soc~sivam.ente reglstl:'ato un "revin)ment ... da;.parte della Suprema
Corta, oon la sentenza tl mano 2004 n. $(M4.
Le Ene.e argomentative su.l.le qvali si f'ooda dett.it decisionè sono le ~eguenti:
- -}a configurvlone came ·~crlmme rutemazionale" della de:portazicme e
del1'assoggcttam~nfo dci depo:rtati al !êrvoro forzato U:ova. cbnferma nei principi e neUe
c:onven:ûoni di diritto intemaziona1e;
• é dcorrente i'!ti:Thnnati.Me \7lhe i m~i in.W!.itW1ionali ''ruimicclano l'umsnità intera e
nrln:mo Ie tblitdamertta ~e della ~~a i.trtenlazionaie''; si tratta, infntti, d:i ddltti
che si oo:ru::retmo n.èUa vio!azione. partirolrume::!!te grave~ per intensità e sistematicità, dei
· diritti fondamenta.H delt'l p~na unmna, la crri. tutcla 6 affidll:ta a norme inderogabili che si
cotlocano al vertice defl~ordlnam@tc fnter:rum.~:maJe, prevruetl:do su ogrù altra ncmna, sia di
carattere convenrio~e che· consuetudmario; per questo ne è stnta so.ncita
~'imprescrittibWtà e si è riconosciuto che ogni Stato pu6 reprimerü,. indipendentemente dal
tuago dove ;iùno Mati c:oiiliUessi, seconde i principi de!lll. giurisdlzione universale; per !a
stessa 1-a.gione non si dubita che il prin:cipio della universai1tà della giurisdîzionc valga
anche per i process1 civili che. ttaggono origine dn tali rc:ati;
• i1 riconoscimerHo deU'imrnùJiÎtà della giurisdizione in favore degü Stati che si slano resi
re.sponsahili df tali misfatti si pone ln palese contraste con i dati nom1ativi ern.ergeuti dalle
conve:nzioni intemazirmali [n materia di fC"I,ll'eSSione dei crimW i.ntet11azionaH, poiché detto
riconosdmcnto, Jung:[ da! favorire, nstaœ1a la tutda di valori, che hanno assunta orrnai: il
rat1go di principi fuud1Utl.eutru.i den'o·rdi:rJ:ï.mènto intern:a:rioncle, la cui protezione è da
cDnBiderar:e essenziale -per 1 'lntem Comun]tà fnternazional'e.
In effetti il . privilegie dell'um.ani~ de-Ua giurisdiz:icne si pône in ~m tappôrlo
partioo1armente critico con il dirii:to fondamentale dell'individuo a dispocre di effettivi
rimedi giurisdizionali o. tutela delie sue posizioni giuridiche soggettive.
Senonché Io stess,o ordinamento inter:nazïonale, cou rego.!e consuetudinarie e
convenzionall,. pressoché unanimamente recepite da corti mtemazionali e ::;tatali, in
dedsioni intervenute anche dopo le pronunc1a: in marne (ed il cui sigruficato giuridico non
è certamente. inciso dalle moitepUci citazioni ëontenute nel!a sentep.za del 2004) hu
!3
1
AR REF 507 +t'j9 1f3813 1?1556 5.14/19
èL:l'stantèroénte ri'baillto la ''fooqfm'i:entcde?' esigen:za di ru:ruuet:l:et.;: l"es'énzione ,dalla
gfurisdi:ziO'tie territorirue degji. . Stati sttani{,!ff e d~li aifri: sog,getti dell'ordînainento
medesfulo, ailo së.o'po di difèudere le reeipro,che·setvrau-ità, di favorite le buorie tdazioni fra
qi e5irl e di evi tate l' S9Uirsi di oonfuttualftà.
L' knpedimento~ insi:tll n:el rioona(Séerç l'imm'qn1ta· dall.a.potestas indicand.it ê: funzib:nale
agli obblighl geu~ dl non ingerenza. ~cerne pure -si ê sostenutc, di ris.Ohrzione pacifica.
dey_e cc;.atrovers!e fu.ternazionali, e .ràppresentll.:, altresi, il riflesso del prlncipio della
separazitme: de~ poteii. in base al qua!e P·autorità giurisdizionale dello Stato territoriale non
poo i.ntluire sulle soelte-, di politica estera del Governo a del Parlamento rigu.:rrdo aUe
refàZ).oru esteme cc:mJo Stato ché fulisè~ ddPimmuni.tà.
Con rifmmento alla giurisptudenza dell~ Cortf nazilonali di altri Stad. a.Ss!llil!)OO particolace
signifioo.to ~
- la dëcisione del 1.7 oottembm 2002 delia. O::irte Snprema speciale g;recii che ha
riafferma:to· il p:ci.ncipio deUa immunità giurisdmoncle con riferimento ad un 'azione civile
per risarcimento d~ deterwml\ti cleU • occu.prn:ione mill taro tedesca del J 944;
. ~ la decisioàe, doUa Cri~ Fer.if.i.wl~:: dl Cassa.?;icm.e tedesca, . .in dàt1il 26/6/200:3, che. nel!a
stes-sa mareria, ha. ribadito Pesau:cio~Se dalla giuri .. sdizJo:oe an~he: nel caso di violaziooe dl
.nonne cogenti di diritto in~onme, esdudendc che possa ~sersi formato riguardo a
taie escltisione un ''dmtto rm~azionàle vigente";
- la decisione della CE;~rte di C~one fran.cese 16 dicern!Jtc 2003, che h.a rigettato la
demanda di .pagamento d.i œm.~i e rissrcimento darrui pert~ 1àvoro forz:ato in Germania
durante la set:Onda gu.~ m.ondialè in appli:c:azîone de~ principio della immunità
giurisdmcnale della RepubbUca.Tedese$.., .succeduta a! Ter.to Reich;
- l' immunità. deUo Stlsro fu re!.aclone a dotrlan.Oe di rlsarcimr:il!O dei damù subi ti a segui to
d1 torture - crin~ o~ettQ di t.m:a r1opna dl jtm oog~ e p:w:rito i.ncond.:i:rionatamente nei
confronti dell'lndividoo ~ or~ àJltt">re. defl:à e:ondotta. ~ ê statà SO$tenuta nel1e
••opinions'' d~tta Hom~ of Latd:s t~èl proëeqim,ru1~o Pinotjbet, nell'affa:rc AJ~Adsani
(conf~e prii ~Jla Corte Europea dei dtrltti âe!Put)mo)e, di recente in data 14 giugrw
1006. nella C'.&usa Jones v .. ?vllrustry of intmor AJ-Maulaka Al-Arabiye AS Saudiye and
ethers, dove v1ene !S'II'olta un'mnpia. p:mo~atnic<! sulla giurisprudenza internazionaie sul
tema. e. menz!onàta Critrcam~nt~ 1a s~tenza ''Ferdni'~ dalla Cassa.z:ione italiana ("la
sentenza Fetriru?' non puô cioo.sîderirsi- W:l'csatta applië2Zionè del dmtto ihtemazioœJe
14
12--t'-IOIJ-2008 17 : 35 +49 1888 1?:1.5:55 s, 15/19
1
i
~
cam~- generatinente in~r.~t"*to1 ~ SU:U,"'t. ~wgola:. ~-5ièn~: noo -ct:ea una rega~a di diritt6-
int6011l:rlonal~");
- un.~ Mal:lsf simi1e :à q:ue:lla sê!t!~ drule C\)rti e!Ur\7~ è st~t:a: compiuta, nei 2002, dalla
Superior Court of Justir:e dell' Qn{1ifri.Q. neU~ cwsa "Hcmsha:n~ Bouyari'.': ta Corte canadese
ha a.Y'J:tt"t!.esso che il &vteto di tortura è p0s:t0 M una ncirma di jus co gens, U1.a ha negato che
do .cO:mporti !'affenr~o:oe de-lla gfutisdizione_ neii cr.m:fronti dello StfllO estero· per azioni
cti', risard:roe:nto danni; ha ri1ev~to - nono.stante ! a pretienza di :una normatiw nazi ouate in
mi!teria- che l•eii!'Jteilza di mm aèrl:)ga. andava riscontrata flttil~ prassi intemazionale ed ba.
pe:rcio esam:h:tato la giurisprudet~Za nazion.aie ed intema:ciilnate:, clluchulendo che, allo stato
)rttuale, n.· dmttd êonsuetl.idmarl~ non prevede un'eoersrtone di qu~t tipo;
- anche in nurnernse_ decisioni m1ottlll.te da gfudici d~iifi St:tti Umti (ut! 'ampia elenœzione
ê OOUWTitUl:à >aff.. lg._t9 dei· :doorso) ttovasi $;ffmn:ato espress.amente il principio
deU'immütlità degli ~àti d~llià giurisiliZione ci'Vile, anabe in presenza di gre:vi vioiazion.i
dei diritti umani;
~ altre decisioni di se~o oo:ntmrio si bas!lno su un em-endam.erito del 1996 al Foreign
S$vereign Immtr.oit!~ ,Act del i 976, che irrtroduca una derog-~ all'immm'tità nel caso dl
azioui civili nei. confto:r1tl di ii.J~ Stati, sp-ecificamente indioati dru Segr-etmio di Stato
come ''sponsors" ®1 ten:orurno, p:er cisarcimento dei danni alla p«sona. caLW.ati cla tortura,
esa."t!Zioci sommari'e, s~-ho~g:l di aerei, presa di osmgg:i (il ricorrente: o la vittima devono
essere cittadi.ni statl.l.ti..liensi al 'm(lmento del fatto, e questo non deve essenti veri~cato sul
tmitorio delJo Stato terrnrl~?-1}: .lli !:rattl, tuttavia, di un dnto ambiguo, in quanta l'esigel:!Ia
deU'emendamentO sembr& piuttd~1:o deporre a fuvore della mancam:a di ·uua regoia
altrimenti Vi.gente (e, peraltro, ta coîttpatibilità dclle i:n:iziativ~ ~;.,-unte d.agli Stati Unîti in
materia di lotta at terrorisme ê tttttora. oggç,tlo di ato:pio dibattito c:ritico nella ccmunità
gitlridic.a intêtl'lUltHl~Je),
Passand6 ad estm:ù.tm:re gl:t onent~inenti dei1e êo·rti mt~oilllli. con riguardo al diritto
internazionale consnemd.in:ario, la Corte em:opea dei dîrltti deH'nomo, in diverse d'ecisioni;
(21 novembra 2001 Al~Ach,_q;rû e Oov. Regne !ltlito Gtll.ll Bretagna e Irlanda dei Nord; I 2
dicembre 2002 Knlageropcukru t!C. C. Oreola e Gèrmania; 14112/2006 Markovic c. ftaliail
caso già. dedso dai!e S. tt ~on ia sènten_z:a 2002 n. 2157) ha ~ffer.mnto ise guen ti principi:
- 1' esistetiza di una immurutà non !ncide sui dirltti sos-î:m:l:dall.;
. (
12~1'10\H2008 17: 36 f1A REF 507 +~9 1888 171556 5.16/19
.. il diritto .di accesso ·at Trib~.oon à a.~soimo;,;;lS~Q pü5 èsiiere sottoposto ~ 1fu:Ptazioni
da:gli S~ ohe in ·m~ .~~0 lii usa mar~ di appr~o~ spetta alla· Corte
. acc:ertnreche iili.lim:itwoni non. pr~gitl:tiidhlmtla 5ost:anza detdiritt·o, che esse tendono âd
ûUO seopo l~~ eH~i~ pa~r-4~t~:mJI'lsqopc.pe.rseguî.to;.
- la ccneessione d~U,.rnm;lli:titi dclla gil.l.risilizione civile ad uno. stato straniero pétilegt!e
lo seo po legitti.l'no di ôS!il:~i;) il.dhitto internazi6naie per- f,worire 1e: buone relazioni tra
S~ati attraverso il· rlspett(1 d~na sl)yrru:ùta· àl&:ui;
~ 1~ Convenzione ~~ea d~v~ ess-ere interpretata sulla base dei principi e11undati dalla
Con:vènzlope di Vienna de1l959 ~>ul diritto dei trattati, il cui art. 31 par. 3 lett. a, stabilisee
che occmre tener oonto di·ogni nonua cH diritm futemazionale pertinente, app!icabile alle
telazioni fra 1e pa.rtk fprowedimeüti ad6ttati da uno Sfato cQntraente della. Convenzione in
ottemperan:z:a aile· re~g~l~ cli.dirltm inrer:naziorut!e che dispongono l'immuniti degli Stati
Sf:nmieci della gitmisd!zi*n.on p~no eSsere considera te limitazioni sproporzionate;
~ l'obbliga ·enuncfOl.tQ :drill'art. 3 de1la Con:venziooo di non so1mpo11:e neSsuno a tortm'a ué
a pene o l.J:'a<tttunènti ù.1um.ani ù degradanti consawa. un: valore fondamootal~ delle socictà
demomatiche e eostit"J.isr:.e U confenuto di tma nol'l!W: irn:perativa del dirirto intemazionale
p·emue;
~ uella ri:eent.e prassi deg!i Starl è apparsa un:a tendenza a date pal$c.olare rilievn al
divietc di tQrt'llrn. ma. non si puè rltenere che ne1 dîritto. intemazionàl.e si sia affemiata la
regolar clie esclude l'imn:tlmitâ. degli Stad dalla giurisdi?ione dvi1e rispetto aUe azioni dl
cisarcimento dei danni per atti dltorture.commessi al di fuori dello Stato del faro,
Si rende~ pol, necessario cbiarire che l'e$1s.tenza di UM norma di diritto con..<metudinario
viucolante per i s:oggettf intemazionaii non poo desumersi dai. quaci'to uo:rmetivo . 1!:
gltuisdiziorarue che sanziona Ie responsabilitâ: penali indiv!duali Distinzione che risulta
chiara alla Corte intemnziotlale di giustizia, !a quale; in più decisioni (v.sent 14/2/2002
Repu:bblica demc:cratica del Congo .. c. Be1gio;. sent 3/2/2006 Repubblica. de!nocratica dei
Congo c, R~) ha escluso che una vio!azio:rm dêHo jus cogen.s sfa. sufficiente per
<tttribufrela giurlsdizione nei confronû di uno Stato.
Per, quanto concerne il diritto intemazio·r.iaie fattizio ancbe 1a n•w,cnte, convenzioue delle
Nazicru Unite sulie immunità giurlsdiziona!i degli Stati. adottata dall'assemblea generale il
2 ~cetubré 2004 e non W:lcom èntiata in vigore, non prevetie àl~urià ecoezione al principio
r-:11~ REF 507 +49 1888 1.71556 5.17/19
deUa irnmti:cità: dëgli Sœti _.nelèM:i:l: di 'ViofllZilln.f::J dei dititti nmani, nonosttrnte. il tema
a~~e. c6stitutto6.gg~t<;~ di ~Sàm~'da parte del1~apposim _gntppo dt:lavoro •..
Dai· da ti testè riportati - môi'd. dcl· qüali, rlp.etesi, .succ:essivi ;a;U~· prob.oocia del 2004 ~ si
di!No piansihimiente dedm:re dfie . .'fil)n è a,ffa!w agevole :rlfeiTI;U3!~ che nelFardine:mento
1n:t:mmzio-nale-sl sian;o·fonna,te,-tegol:e eonven2Jomill o co~uerudfnarle·stt:èo'ndo le quaH
Pitr:rtmm.im deUa gfurisdfriGnè vierie meno- quruom si i.uvoohl !.a n'esgoni.;ahilità civrie delia
Sf.àl9 perla. corn.mfssion:e di crim:irrl mternazionali. .
Consequenzial.e è la non op#r~tività ·ciet ·principio di: adattamemo smciro daU:art. 10 ·
comma primo dellâ C&ne Co~ti{Wi(iruûe,
Né p1l!O .obllterarsi l'aff~a:tiôno del giudice deUe 1eggi, con la sentooza "Russel." del 12
giugno 1'979 a. -43; seoondo cu:i il princip:io deU'inrrm:mitâ degli Stati., foùdato ·su nm:me
intemazio'ill'rli gen.er.almen.te rl~nt1sciute anreriori alla data d'entrata in vigore della
Costituzione, prevale a.:ttclî~ sui. lfuitt! fondamootali da quert'ultima contePlplati, con !a
CO~~guenz!Hlhe l'operatJ:vità del J'tiet;;œl)irmlO de!l'adeguatumento al.rf.DmatlCO si pone solo
pel:' le norme ch& sia:no venute ad esistenu. dopo quella data.
La Daimlt;lt'chrysler AO, con il ricorso i.ncldentale, ha soilevato q_ue:stionB di giurisdizione
in ordme alln. demanda, pmposta nei suoi cc-n:frQntl. di. lndemizzo per arricchlmento
iriginstificato (artt. 2041~2042 cod. civ.) oonseguente allo sfruttmrtento dellavoro coatto,
Uecœ:tione di diferto di giurisdi.zion~>', cottettru:nente fo:rmu!aro memante dchiamo al
regolam.enro CE 22/12/2'000 n. 44, appare fondata.
La domanda attri.ce, infat!:i, non appar~ ricunrlucibile ne1raivoo del c.li fore generale di cui
aJl'art. 2, non rlsultando (la relativa pmva. i11oombeva sngii attori: Ca•:s. 1974 n. 2004) -
che la sodetà convenuta abbia in Itnlm sede statuta:ria o amministrazi.one centrale a il suocrntro
di attività principale (art. 60:reg, CE)t o, comunque, ai s'ensi dell'art, 3!; 21811995,
un rappres.œtante ilntorizzato a stare in giudizio.
Né pcisi:anel t:rova.1'e- applicazione i crl·teri spedali di cui aH' art.. 5 reg. CE.
· Sicurarnente non trattasi di materia contrattuale, avendo ta Cort·e di pi.l.stizia delle:
comunità Europee (v. sent. 5/2/2004 in causa c. 265/02) costantemeute affermato che: alla
:.nm:ena contrattualè non possano pcondursi situezioni in cui difetta.un obbligo Hberamente
assunto da una patte nei confront:i dell'aitro;
Nessuna delle altre: iptitesi elencate neUa norrna· speoiale ri~t.trda l'a.t.r:!çchlmento sema
~tma~ cb.e l'art. 61 de.Ua normativa· itttliana sortopone alla legge dello Stato in cui si è
11
1
1
i
j
1
j
12-NOlJ-2008 1?=3'7 !=lA REF 513'7 +49 1888 171555 S.lB/19
;.1
verificato. il "futto di cui deriva l'cibhli~otte (e, q;uindi, ueUa speaie, it hi.voro œatto svolto
fu_G~),
Ed eg~.!.iltnenfu deve 4iiei ove si rltenëSSa appll~bU'e il êrlterio special~ di cui an: art. 5 rt. 3
Reg;. CE, atteso che l'evento dan.noso imputato alfa ~ocit}tà (lo· sfruttamen:ro del M!voro
cootto) si è·<;'ecificato interritori.o tedèsoo.
Non costitui~>c~ o-ggetto. di esam.e la questionc di gfurisditione · sol1{Wata nel giudizio di
m~ dilUa O.LM.., la qmûe, com'llPque, ave rilevasse pêr gli wentuali profili di
oonnessione é<>n·.le. domm:l.de formulate nei confronti degli altri couveouti, appare fonds.ta
al1a !uce di quanta previsto dana. Cmï•J~one .sui priVilegi e le im.munità delle istitm:ioni
spooializzate. wottata. dall' Assemblea ·gen.ernle delle. Nazioni Unite con rl~oluzione 21
novembre 1947, rroncbé degH armeS-si rlgùardanti le singole istituzioni (cfr. Cess. S.U.
1975 n. 1266; 1973 n. 291 0)
p.q.m.
visto Part. .375 o.p.o.
ohiede cbè, previa riucicne dei procedimenti. nn. 28420/2005 e 249/2006} Ie S!(;',zioui Unite
CiVili della Cort~ SuprGna di ~~~one, it~. aotc>glim.~nto dei cicorsî deLla Repubblica
Fedeœle: di Getmruli~ e delt-a !l~er~er AG~ dlchiarioo i1 difettc di giuri'sdizione
dell'autcrità giuifitiaria 1Wittt1a süÙ.t11 dQll!laade pro:poste nd oor:rfromi di es si ricorreritï.
1 ,~
RA REF S0'7 +49 1888 17155f.'l s. 19/19
:(
GESAt·îT SEl TEN 1 g
Translation
PROClfRA GENERALE
AT THE COURT OF CASSATION
No R.G. 28420/2005 + 249/2006
No P.G. 3359/2006
'THE ASSISTANT LEGAL AD VISER
By application of 13 Apdl 2004, vmious civilians, or their heirs, who hacl been
deported to Gennany dming the last World War and undergone forced labour in the
Daimler-Benz factory situated near their concentration camp, brought an action
against the Intemational Organization for Migration, the Foundation for Remembrance,
Responsibility and the Future, the Federal Republic of Germany and DaimlerChrysler
AG (fon11erly Daimler-Benz), seeking declarations that:
- within the meaning and for the purposes of Article 1453 of the Civil Code, al!
agreements between the Foundation for Remembrance, Responsibility and the Future
and the IOM, a partner organization in the context of thé Gen11an forced labour compensation
programme, should be rescinded on account ofnon-compliance;
- Consequently, \Vithin the meaning and for the purposes of Articles 2041 and 2042 of
the Civil Code, the Federal Republic of Gem1any and DaimlerChrysler AG received
unjust enrichment, without due cause, because of the savings made and huge profits
eamed from the forcedlabour ofthe camp internees;
--- therefore, since these are crimes against humanity, the Federal Republic ofGermany
and DaimlerChrysler AG, jointly and/or in the altemative should be ordered to pay
equitable compensation for having exploited the forced labour of the abovementioned
internees, in addition to all damages, including non-material damage aüd moral prejudice,
in the sum of at least EUR 1 000 000,00 per claimant.
In support of these claims, the applicants stated as tàllows.
- 2 -
In a communication of 24 January 1989, Daimler-Benz AG admitted having used the
labour of the former Itahan internees from Gaggenau.
Injudgments nos. 391/98,776/01, 1292/01 and 419/03, the Corte dei Conti, judicial
section for the Piednmnt Region, ruling pursuant to Law 791/80, verified the above
circumstances and the nature o:ftbe extermination at the Gaggenau camp.
The seriousness of those crimes was recogrüzed by Gem1any which, with the help of
Gennan undertakings which had profited from forced labom (including DaimlerBenz),
set up a Foundation called "Remembrance, Responsibility and the Futme'' in
order to keep alive the n1e:rnorit::s of what had happened and to pro vide compensation
to victims from a fund ofaround 10 billion Gennan marks, provided that claimants
could satisfy certain requirements.
Therefore, the International Organisation J:àr Migration (IOM), at the request of the
Foundation, sent a compensation claim form to the addresses of the former intemees
in which, in retum for the paYJnent in question, they were required inevocably to
renounce any further daims outside Gennanlaw.
At the time no payment had been made, and sorne applications had been for:mally
tumed dû\v:n.
Injunctio:ris addressed to the Gem1an consulate and subsequent attempts to reach an
amicable solution failed.
They were therefore no longer interested in honouring the commitment entered into
with the TOM.
As a result of the legally ineffectual nature of the Gemmn compensation programme,
they took the view that they could bring an action against the Federal Republic of
Gem1any, in respect of international crimes, committed in Italy, against fundamental
human rights. In decision no 5044 of ll March 2004 the Combined Sections [of the
Court of Cassation] uphe1d the admissibility of the action before the Italian courts.
Furthem10re, the exploitation of forced labour-· prohibited und er the S tatute signed in
London on 8 August 1945 and even prior to tbat by Article 52 of the Hague Convention
of 18 October 1907 entitled those claimants to bring a class action for un_just
- 3 -
enrichment under i\Iiides 2041 and 2042 of the Civil Code, since G-ermany and
Daimler-Benz hacl, will:mui justification, made considerable savings, and in so doing
caused severe physicalar!.d psyc:hologkal harm to the intemees.
Enzo Bertino Crescente intervene(l:, maldng tlte same claims as the applicants.
The Federal Republic ofGerm.any made an application to the courts seeking a declaration,
principally, that the Italian court lacked jurisdiction due to the applicability of
international public law on the so-called principle of rcstticted immunity, a p1inciple
upheld, eveii following the decision of the Combined Sections, by the French, Gem1an
and US Supreme Comis.
Germany also ohjected th:.::t the application was inadmissibîe, pursuant to Article
77(4) of the Peace Treaty of 10 February J 947, whereby Italy waived, on its owrt
behalf and on behalf ofita1ian nationals, the right to make any claim against Gem1any
in respect of events arising düring the war, an inadmissibility \Vhich was upheld by the
Combined -Sections in judgment 285/1953.
Moreover, on 2 June 1961, the Federal Republic of Gem1any concluded a convention
with Italy; which entered into force under D.P.R. no 1263 of 1962, whereby the Italian
Govcmment stated that ali outstanding claims and applications by the Italian Republic
or by Italian natural and legal persans against the Federal Republic of Gennany had
been settled, provided that they derived from rights arising in the period between 1
September 1939 and 8 May 1945.
The Italian Government undertook at the same time to indemnify the Federal Republic
of Germany and Gennan natural and legal persons against any action or other
claim in law brought by Italian natural or legal persons in respect of the above claims
or applications.
Since Gem1any had paid Italy, by way of compensation under the Bom1 agreements,
the agreed sums of money, if the application should be deemed admissible, it sought
pen11ission to bring an action against the Italia11 Republic on account of having been
released from its obligations by the latter.
DaimlerChrysler entered an application objecting to lack of jurisdiction on other
grounds.
- 4 -
It pointed out that decision ncL 5044 of the Combinee! Sections had examinee! the
question of the immunity of the State, and universal jurisdiction in respect of crimes
committed by the State, whereas in its case, on the other hand, it was a matter of an
action brought against a legal entity under private law in cmmection with the alleged
unjust emichment of that entity, and so jurisdiction had to be determinee! on the basis
of ihe principles of ordinary law.
Since this is an international dispute involving subjects belonging to EU Member
States and since the dispute concems civil matters, Regulation (EC) No 44/2001,
which replaced the Brussels Convention of27 September 1968, applies here.
Article 2(1) of that regulation states that, subject to the special provisions, persons
domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of
that Member State. Within the meaning of Article 60 ofthat regulation, a legal persan
is domiciled at the place at which it has its statutory seat, central administration or
principal place of business (in terms ofDaimlerChrysler, Stuttgart).
The cases of special jurisdiction listed in Article 5 -- which are exhaustive pursuant to
the consistent case-law of the Court of Justice - do not cover disputes involving
unjust enriclunent, on which applicants' claims are based.
Moreover, even if that action were deemed to be covered by the special critelia, the
outcome would not be any different.
If the dispute \Vere he1d to relate to a contract, the courts for the place of perfonnance
of the obligation in question would have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 5(1 )(2). It is
therefore necessary to eslablish on which law (Gem1an or Italian) a determination of
the place of performance should be based, and for that purpose to refer to the ml es of
international private law on lex fori, namely Law no 218 of 1995. Article 61 of that
law provides that unjust emichment is subject to the l:nv of the State in which the
event giving rise to the obligation takes place. Since tl1e event giving dse to the obligation
of restitution on account of unjust enrichment is the exploitation of the claimants'
labour in Germany, it must be concluded that the applicable law is Genmm law
which provides, in the absence of any agreement, that payment is to be made in the
place in which the debtor resided at the time at which the obligation arose (thus in
Gennany, at the seat ofthe alleged debtor).
- 5 -
Still in the altemative, even if A1iicle 5(3) of Regulation 44/2001, which identifies
jurisdiction in the case of tort, delict or quasi-delict, were applicable, the German
courts wou1d still have jurisdiction in that the hannful events took place in Gem1any
where the forced labour was undertaken, The same applies in the case of liability
under Article 2043 ofthe Penal Code.
The Gcnnan courts have jurisdiction even by reference to Law 218/1995.
Article 3( 1) of that law pro vides that the jurisdiction of the Italian courts prevails
where the defendant has his domicile or residence in Italy or has a representative there
who is authorized to be a party to legal proceedings und er ATticle 77 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, or in the other cases provided for by the law.
Daim1erClrrysler is not dornici1ed in Italy and does not have a representative there'
who is empowered to represent it in comt. DaimlerCbrysler Italia S.p.A is a completely
separate legal entity.
Moreover, for the purpose of determining jurisdiction, Article 3(2) recognizes the
applicability of the Bmssels Convenüon of 1968 (whose content is the same as that of
its replacement, Regulation 44/2001) and there:f:ore, pursmmt to the criteria laid down
in that regulation, jurisdiction still lies with the German courts.
In any case, DaimlerChrysler daims that any action against it is inadmissible and nonprosecutable
both in relation to Article 77 ( 4) of the Peace Treaty and to the Bonn
Agreement of 2 June 1961, which was irnplemented by means of D.P.R no 1263 of
14 April 1962.
As to the substance, it maintaîned that the alleged right had been extinguished, and it
disputed the amount of the claim. It also asked for permission to sue the Italian
Republic,
The IOM (fonnerJy the International Committee for Migration) also filed an application
claiming that the ltahan comis lacked jurisdiction with respect to it, on the
grounds that it was an intergovemmental organization (of which Ital y was also a
rnember) which enjoyed the privileges and immunities granted in Ital y to intenegional
organizations under the Convention on the P1ivileges and Immunities of the Specialized
Agencies, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly by Resolution of 21
- 6-
November 1947, and the relevant annexes eonceming the individual agencies (Lavv
no 1740 of24 July 1951).
lt also pointed out that the Federal Republic of Germany had, by means of the Law of
2 August 2000, established a Foundation lmown as "Remembrance, Responsibihty
and the Future" in order to make finance available, thxough partner organizations, for
granting benefits to fom1er forced labourers and to those affected by other injustices
during the nationalist-socialist regime.
That compensation was intended for persans fulfilling certain precise criteria according
to a special verification procedure.
By viriue of its statutory aims, the IOM was eannarked to provide practical humanitarian
assistance in this compensation procedure and it therefote included in its progranmle
and in its balance sheet for 2001 the programme to compensa te those
engaged in forced labour in Gem1any, which was subsequently drav..'Tl on.
It followed that its involvement in that programme was a statutory duty and as such
immune from the Italian adducement ofproof.
The Presidency of the Cmmcil of Ministers filed an application before the court seeking
a declaration of inadmissibility and the rejection of the applicants' daims and
hence the rejection of the applications with respect to the Italian State,
Prior to the hearing to clarify its position the Republic [sic!] of Gerrnany brought this
preliminary action to establish jurisdiction,
H claimed, primarily, that it lacked jurisdiction as a result of the renunciation of financial
claims under Article 77(4) of the 1947 Peace Treaty (already recognized by the
Cori:lbined Sections in judgment 285/1953) and under Article 2 of the Italo-Gem1an
Agreement of 2 June 1961, agreements which, ceriainly at the time at which they
were concluded, could not be regarded as conflicting with any peremptory nonn of
general international law (Article 53 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of
J 969), and also because the international normative framework on wbich judgment
5044/2004 of the Combined Sections was basee! was not chronologically applicable to
the intemational situation at the time,
- 7 -
It also sought a review of the legal princip le propounded in judgment 5044/2004 of
the Combined Sections to the extent that it did not reflect the cm-rent state of international
law 0
Following that judgment, there were rulings by the Suprem.e Courts of Greece, France
and Germany confim1ing customary rules in cormection with the immunity of the
State, even in the prese11ce of serions violations of international obligations arising
underjus cogens.
Even the European Court of Human Rights, in tln'ee decisions, upheld the applicability
of the immunity rille eve11 in the presence of violations ofjus coger1s.
On the other hanci, the judgrnents of the US courts, cited by the Combined Sections,
are based on a 1996 amendment of the Foreign Sovereign Jmmunüies Act which provided
a derogation from immunity from jmisdiction in respect of States wbich sponsor
terrorism. 111at amendment provides that the ilmmmity derogation applies providee!
tbat the victim or the perpetrator is a US citizen at the time of the event and that
the latter did not occur in the tenitory of the ten·orist State. That legislation is clearly
dictated by the quite specifie needs of a State caught up in terrorist activities and its
compatibility with international law has been questioned in many quarters.
?v1eanwhile, numerous other US judgments have confirmed the immunity ptinciple, a
princip le which has a1so heen endorsed on severa! occasions in the House of Lords in
London which has recently he!d that the UN Convention on Immunities of States,
approved on 9 November 2004 (and hence after the judgment of the Combined Sections),
did not provide for any derogation from immunity even i:n the case of human
rights violations (indeed, as under the European Convention on State lmmunity of
1976, acts ofwar are expressly excluded).
DaimlerChrysler AG fi led an incidental application endorsing the lack of jurisdiction
on two grounds. First and foremost because Italy had waived all daims, on its own
beha1f and on behalf of ltalian nationals against Gennany and German nationals, both
in the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947 and in the Italo-Gennan Agreements signed in Borm
in 1961.
Secondly, because the Italian comis lacked jurisdiction in any case in relation to the
actions brought against DaimlerChrysler, because jurisdiction lay with the Gennan
- 8 -
courts pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, which replaced the Brussels Convention
of27 September 1968.
The two actions (main and incidenta1), registered under two different roll numbers,
should be joined because they eoncern the same case, pursuant to Article 273 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, which also applies to the preEminary determination of jurisdiction
(Cass. Combinee! Sections, 17823/2007).
The incidental application filed by DaimlerChrysler AG is a formality: in fact, even if
the dete1mination ofjulisdiction is not a ground of appeal it nevertheless means that
there is a need to focus all the questions relating to jurisdiction in a single judgment,
meaning that a defendant who intends to bring up the question of jurisdiction himself,
must do so in the manner and within the time-limits of the incidental action, within
the memling of Article 371 C.C.P., read in conjunètion with A1iicle 41 C.C.P. (Combined
Sections 19667/2003).
Still by way of a preliminary observation, it should be noted that a prior detennination
ofjurisdiction must be held to be admissible in con:nection with matters relating to the
existence or othenvise of Italian jurisdiction with respect to foreign nationals, and it is
no impediment that Artic.le 37 C.C.P.- as amended by Article 73(1) ofLmv no 218 of
1995, wbich repealed paragraph 2- refers to a lack ofjurisdiction on the part of the
ordinary courts solely with respect to the public administration or the special courts,
since the incorporation operated by Article 41 C.C.P. of Article 37 of the same code
for the purpose of determining the scope of the rules on jurisdiction must be understood
as also referring to Article 11 of Law no 218 of 1995, wh:ich govems the admissibility
of pleading a lack of jurisdiction of the Italian courts (see Combined Sections
6585 of 24 Mardi 2006). Furtherrnore, a decision on jurisdiction may also be
requested where it seeks a ruling that no courts have jurisdiction (Combined Sections
8157/2002).
From a strictly procedural point of view, it should be noted that since the prior determination
of jurisdiction is an incidental phase in the procedure during which it is
raised, the action may, if the defendants are represented by a single counsel, be notified
to the latter, in a single copy, according to Article 170(2) C.C.P. (Cass. Combined
Sections 8701 of29 May 2003).
- 9-
Coming now to an examination of the questions raised in conneetion with jurisdiction,
it must be pointed out, first and foremost, that the applicants in the proceedings on the
merits, made a se1ies of heterogeneous applications, such as the rescission under Article
1453 of the Civil Code of the agreements betv.reen the Gennan Foundation and
the IOM; compensation for undue enrichment, under Atiicles 2041 and 2042 C.C., by
the Republic [sic!] of Gennany and Daim1erChrysler AG, for having exploited the
forced labour of intemees; compensation for non-material damage, on account of
crimes against humanity.
Since these various applications have no logical arder of priority, being alternatives
rather than subordinate one to another, it is important, in the first place, ta examine
whether civiljurisdiction exists against the German State.
In this connection it must be pointed out that, in a recent judgment of 15 February
2007 in Case C-292/05, in the context of a dispute before the Greek judicial authorities
betv.recn the relatives of victims of acts perpetrated by the Gem1an anned forces
during the occupation of Greece by the Nazis and the Federal Republic of Gem1any,
for the purpose of obtaining COn1jJeosation for financiaJloss and non-material damage,
the Court of Justice of the European Communîties confirmed the principle that the
jurisdiction rules in the 1963 Brussels Convention (now Regulation (EC) No 44/2001)
must be interpreted as rn~:ming that "civil rnatters" does not cover a lega1 action
brought by naturai persons ü1 ii Contracting State against another Contracting State for
compensation in respect of the Joss or damage .suffered by the successors of the victims
ofacts perpetrate<l by anned forces in the course of warfare in the terri tory of the
first State.
That decision is wîthout prejudice, obviously, to the question wh ether, once that Convention
bas been ruled inapplicable, States aré stm intmune from claims for compensation.

The applicant and the defendant both plead a ladc ofjurisdiction under the clause in
Article 77 of the 1947 Peace Treaty whereby Italy waived on its own behalf and on
behalf of Italian nationa1s, aU c1aims fi)r compensation for loss or damage arising
during the war.
That Treaty was, as we know, interpreted by the Combined Civil Sections of the
Court of Cassation injudgment no 235 of29 January 1953, in which that Court ruled
- 10-
that pursuant to the Treaty -- which became operative in Italy under Legislative
Decree no 1430/1947 -- the Itahan courts lack jurisdiction to examine applications
made by Italian citizens for the purpose of compensation.
On that occasion, having stated that the waiver could not be regarded as app1ying
solely to legal daims outstanding on 8 May 1945, but to aH claims existing on that
date, or at any rate hnked to transactions or events which were entered into or
occmred after 1 September 1939, the Supren1e Court ruled that the waiver, which was
transposed by means of a State law publishing the Treaty, also applied to Italian
nationals (if anything, there was scope for debate as ta whether or not, following that
waiver, the Italian Govermnent was obliged to compensate its own citizens for harm
suffered, ,but there cou1d be no doubt regarding the applicability ofthe waiver).
ln 1961, various agreements were concluded between the Italian Govemmcnt and thè
Government of the Federal Republic of Gem1any regarding compensation for Italian
nationals. Those agreements were implemented principally by D.P.R. 1263/1962,
which provided in A1iicle 1 for the paytnent of 40 million Gennan marks by German y
to Italy by way of settlement for handling outstanding financial matters and, in Aliide
2, that the Italian Govemment declared that all claims and applications by the
Italian Republic or by Italian natural and legal persans deriving from rights ansing
during the war had been settled, and also by D.P.R. 2043/1963 in which the Italian
Republic made provision for dishibuting the sums received under the international
agreements with the FRG, including sums for so-called "non-voluntary" workers
deported to Germany.
lt is quite clear, therefore, that the p1inciples upheld by the Combined Sections in
1953, and confinned in essence subsequently in judgment 2188 of 2 March 1987;
draw their inspiration from the 1961 agreements- and the relevant implementing provisions
of internal law - which should be regarded as forming part of the 194 7 Peace
Treaty.
The duty to comply \Vith these international agreements constitutes implementation of
the iùndarnental principle of international law "pacta sunt servanda'' enshrined in the
Vien11a Convention of 23 May 1969 (also ratified by Italy), whose ongoing applicability
was recently confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights in its decision
of 30 June 2005 in Bosphorus Hava Yollary Turizm v freland.
- 11 -
Nor can it be objectecl that the instruments are void because they conflict with peremptory
norms of general international law (jus cogens), within the meanÜ1g of Article
53 of the Convention. This is pmily because the right to compensation for civil
damages does not fom1 part of the peremptory nonn(since, unlike the right to life or
health lt can be waivecl or tnms:ferred), and partly because, if the instrument were
invalid it wou1cl certainly be the consequence of a changing international environmenl
and would not undennine the validity of the arrangements concluded by the two
States (cf Court of Justice, judgment EC no 162 of 16 June 1996). Moreover, the
abovementioned agreements (sinlilar to those concluded between other warring States
at the end of the Second World War) offer a fair compromise between the fimdamenta1
rights of the individual and the need to defend reciprocal sovereignty, promote
good relations between States and avoid aggravating confrontation: from this point of
view the agreements can be regarded as substitutes, as a replacement for direct legal
action.
It could also be held that the provisions contained in the 1947 and 1961 treaties, as
worded, refer solely to substantive law relationships and not to jurisdiction, since if
this were not the case it would be difficult to explain the undertaking given by Italy to
indemnify the Federal Republic of Gennany against aU further actions or claims in
1aw.
However, the problem of the existeüce or otherwise of jurisdiction on the part of the
Italian comis must be settled by applying the principle of international law on the
immunities of States.
That principle has been a constant in the case-law of the Combined Sections. Judgment
1653 of 6 June 1974 confim1ed that pursuant to the universally aceepted customm·y
princip le "par in parem non hab et jurisdictionem", which is incorporated in
Aliicle 1 0(1) of the Conslitutîon, foreign States are not subject tb Itahan jurisdiction
even for acts executed in the telTitory of the Republie, provided that the activity is
aimed at achieving their public pmposes. This principle was further endorsed by
judgments of the Combined Sections nos 306211979, 5565/1994, 919/1996, 328/1999,
11225/2005.
lnjudgment 530 of3 August 2000 conceming damage caused by the operations of US
aircraft stationed in ltaly (the Cennis case), the Combined Sections clarified various
impmiant principles:
- 12-
-the precept of the immunity of a foreign State from civil juriscliction, in the presence
of activities jure imperii - which are inlJerently likely to affect funclamental human
rights, and in particular the right to li fe, physical integrity and health- is enshrined in
a nonn of customaty international law, a nonn which existed prior to the entry into
force of the Italian Constitution and has taken on peremptory status in our legal.order
under the measure providing for automatic adaptation to the generally recognized
mies of international law contained in Article 10(1) of the Constitution, and not pursuant
to a rule having the effect of ordinary law.
-- it follows 1 that that precept has been incorporated into our legal order in its entirety;
also that the question of compatibility with our constitutional system does not and
cannot arise in com1ection with that precept, both in the light of the principle, upheld
by the giudice delle leggi in judgment 48 of 12 June 1979, whereby Article 10(1) of
the Constitution provides for the automatic incorporation, without restriction, of generally
accepted rules of international law predating the entry into force of the Constitution;
and because the probiem of the consistency of homologous nonns with the
fundamental princip les of the Constitution only arises in respect of nonns which came
into existence after that date;
-nor on the contt'ary is it possible to invoke Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights approved by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, which
recognizes the right of everyone to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals
for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him hy the constitution or by
law. This is because -- even disregarding the fact that that rule is addressed to States
and does not have immediate mandatory e.ffect- it must be held that it seeks solely to
regulate relations between an individual and the State ofwhich he is a national (in the
sense that every State must afford to its own citizens legal protection of their fundamental
rights), and cloes not also seek to regulate the different matter of the reservation
of jurisdiction on the part of every State with respect to ac ti viti es \V hi ch are an
expression of their sovereignty, nor to ex elude or limit the principle of the immunity
fmm judsdiction of actsjure imperii.
-The Combined Sections fonned the same opinion in a later judgment 8157 of 5 June
2002 in which they confirmed the principle that acts perpetrated by the State in the
conduct of hostilities are cornpletely precluded irom review by the ordinary and
administrative courts, in that such acts constitute a manifestation of a political funcTranslator's
note: the Ttalian literally sa ys "nor does it follow th at". It would appear fTom the sense
of the previous paragraph thal the accent on "né" is a mistake,
- 13-
tion with respect to which it is not possible to envisage a protected interest situation
towards which tho se acts, being an expression of that function, have any specifie re levance.

However, in a case conceming civil damages caused by Nazi troops during the Second
World War, the Supreme Court did an about-tum in judgment 5044 of 11 March
2004.
The main arguments on which thatjudgment was based are as follows:
-- the classification of deportation and the subjection of the deportees to forced labour
as an "international crime" is confilmed by princip les and conventions of international
law;
- it is recognized that intemational c1imes "threaten humanity as a whole and undermine
the foundations of international co-existence"; these are in fact crimes which
constitute a particularly serious violation, in terms of their intensity and systematic
nature, of fundamental human rights the protection of which is enshrined in peremptory
no1ms which are pre-eminent in the intemational order and prevail over all other
nomJs of customary and conventional law; they have therefore been held to be
immune from prescription and it has been recognized that every State may punish
such crimes, ÏlTespective ofwbere they \Vere comrnitted, according to the princip1es of
universal jurisdiction; for the same reason there is no doubt that the principle of universai
jmisdiction is also applicable to civil proceedings arising as a result of such
cnmes;
- recognizing the immunity from jurisdiction of States which have perpetrated such
crimes clearly conflicts with nonnative precepts in international conventions on the
punishment of international crimes, because such recognition hinders, rather than
promotes, the protection of values which have by no\v assumed the status of fundamental
principles of intemational law whose protection must be regard cd as essential
for the international community as a whole.
In fact the privilege of immunity from jurisdiction is in a very delicate relationship
with the fundamental right of the individuai to ei1ective judicial remedies in order to
protect his subjective legal position. Nonetheless, the international legal order, applying
n1les of customary iomd convei1tional lavv almost universally accepted by international
and national courts, even Ü1 decisions handed down aller the judgment in
question (whose legal significance is ce1iainly not affected by the numerous citations
in the 2004 judgment), bas consistently reaffirmed the "fundamental" requirement to
allow exemption from the territorial jurisdiction of fhreign States and of other entities
·- 14 -
subject to the international order, in order to defend reciprocal sovereignty, promote
good relations between coun1ries and to a void aggravating confrontation.
The obstacle, which is implicit in recognizing this îrn:nmnity, is essential to the general
requirement of non-interference and, as has indeed been maintained, to the peaceful
settlement of international disputes, and it also ret1ects the principle of separation
of powers, whereby the territorial jnrisdiction of the State cannot affect the foreign
policy choices of the govenm1ent or parliament concerning external relations with a
State which benefits from immunity.
Regarding the case-law of the national courts of other States, the following decisions
are particularly relevant:
-- the decision of 17 September 2002 of the Greek Special Supreme Court which
upheld the principle of immunity from jurisdiction in connection with a civil action
for damages as a result of the Gennan military occupation in 1944;
- the decision of the Gennan Supreme Court of 26 June 2003, on the same matter,
upholding exemption from jurisdiction even in the case of violation of peremptory
nonns of international law and precluding the possibility of the existence of an
"effective international right" against that exemption;
~the decision of the Fre:nch Court of Cassation of 16 December 2003 rejecting an
application for compensation and damages in respect of forcee!· labour in Gennany
dming the Second World \Var, pursuant to the princip le of the immunity from ]misdiction
of the German Repubhc [sicl], which replaced the Third Reich;
-- the immunity ofthe State in the face of claims for compensation in respect of hann
su:t1ered as a result of torture - a crime covered by jus cogens and unconditionally
punishable with respect to an individual acting as an agent of the entity authorizing
the conduct - was upheld in the opinions of the Ho use of Lords in the Pinochet case,
in Al-Adsani (later upheld. by the European Comt of Human Rights) and, more
recently, on 14 June 2006, in Jones v Minisfly of Jnterior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya AS
Saudiya (the Kingdmn of Saudi Arabia) and others, which examined a broad range of
international case~law on the matter and criticized the judgment of the Ita1ian Comt of
Cassation in Ferrini ("the F'errini decision cannot in my opinion be treated as ah accurate
statement of international law as generally und.erstood; and one swallow do es not
make a rule of international law");
-in 2002, the Court of Appeal of Ontatio made a similar analysis to that of the European
courts in its decision in Houshang Bouzari; the Canadian court m1ed that the
prohibition of torture is a nüe of jus co gens but denied that !hat implied the existence
ofjurisdiction against a :foreign State in actions for compensation; the court held that
- 15 ..
-- despite the existence of national legislation on the matter-- the existence of a derogation
went against intemational practice; it therefore exmnined national and international
case-law and concluded that, at the current time, customary intemationallaw
did not pro vide for a derogation of that nature;
-- many decisions of the US courts (an extensive list is gi ven in paragraphs 18-19 of
the application) have expressly confim1ed the p1inciple of the inununity of States
from civil jurisdiction, even in the presence of serions human rights violations;
-- other decisions to the contrary are based on a 1996 amendment of the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act 1976 which introduced a derogation from immunity in the case
of civil actions against certain States, specificaUy indicated by the Secretary of State
as being sponsors of ten-orism, in respect of personal injury causee! by torture, summm.-y
execution, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking (the applicant or the victim must be
a US citizen at the time of the terrorism act which does not have to occur in the territory
of the ten-odst State): however, this is an ambiguous element in that the existence
ofthe amendment seems to militate in favour of the absence of an otherwise valid rule
(and, furthem1ore, the compatibility of the measures adopted by the United States in
m1 effort to combat teuorism are st]ll widely criticized in the intemational legal cmnmunity).

Moving on to examine the guidelines provided by the intemational courts regarding
customary intemational law, the European Court of Human Rights has in varions
decisions (21 November 2001 Al Adsani v United Kingdom; 12 December 2002
Kalogeropoulos and others v Greece and Germany; 14 December 2006 1\larkovic v
ltaly --·the case settled by the Combined Sections in judgment 8157/2002) upheld the
following princip les:
- the existence of inm1Un.ity do es not affect substantive rights;
- the Iight of access to a legal remedy is not absolute; it may be subjected to limitations
by States, who have a margin of discretion in the matter; it is for the Court to
ascertain whether those limitations affect the substance of the law and to ensure that
they have a legitimate purpose and are proportionate to thè objective pursued;
~ the confetnl on a foreign State of immunity from civil jurisdiction pursues the
Iegitimate objective of complying with intemationallaw and promoting good relations
between States by respecting their sovereignty;
- the European convention must be interpreted on the basis of the princip les set out in
the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law ofTreaties, Article 31(3)(c) of which provides
that it is necessary to take account of any relevant mles of international law
applicable in the relations between the parties; the provisions adopted by a State Party
to the Convention pursuant to mies of intemational law which provide for the immu-
.. 16-
nity of foreign States from jurisdietion may not be regarded as disproportionate limitations;

--the obligation in Article 3 ECHR not to snbject any person to tmiure or to inltuman
or degrading lreatment or punishment embodies a value which is fundamental to all
democratie societies and constitutes a peremptory norm of international crimina.Ilaw;
- there bas been a tenclency in the recent practice of States to place particular emphasis
on the proh:ibition of torture, but it cannot be maintained that international law
ensbrines a rule which precludes State immuniiy from civil jurisdiction in the case of
actions :tor damages relating to acts of torture committed outside the forum State.
It is therefore necessary to clarify that it is not possible to infer from the nonnative
and judicial framework which penalizes individual criminal liability the existence of a
rule of customary law which is binding on international entities. This distinction was
clearly apparent to the International Court of Justice, as evidenced by various decisions
(c.f. the judgments of 14 February 2002 in Democratie Republic of Congo v
Belgium and 3 Febmary 2006 in Democratie Republic of Congo v Rwanda) in \Vhich
it held that a violation otjus cogens was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction against a
State.
As regards hypothetical international law, even the recent United National Convention
on Jurisdictional Immunities of States, adopted by the General Assembly on
2 December 2004 and not yet in force, does not provide for any exception to the principle
of the immtmity of States in the case of human rights violations, although the
question was examined by the relevant working group.
It must reasonably be assmnecl from the above rulings --- many of which postdate the
decision of 2004 - that it is not at all easy to confimJ that there are conventional or
customary mles of international law whereby innmmity from jurisdiction is diminished
in the face of an alleged civil responsibility of the State for commission of international
crimes,
As a result, the principle of adjustment upheld by the Constitutional Court in respect
ofArticle 10(1) carmot apply.
Nor must we forget the opinion of the giudice delle leggi in its judgment 48 of
12 Junel979 in Russell to the effect that the princip le of the immunity of States, based
on generally recognized international rules predating the entry into force of the Constitution,
overrides even the fundamental rights ensbrined in the latter, with the result
- 17-
that the operation of the automatic adjustment mechanism only applies to rules created
after that date.
In interlocutory proceedings, DaùnlerClu·ysler AG raised the question of jurisdiction
in relation to the application against it for compensation on account of its aUeged
unjust enricl1111ent (Articles 2041~2042 of the Civil Code) as a result of exploiting
forced labour.
The objection of lack of jltrisdiction, cotTectly fom1ulated on the basis of Council
Regulation (EC) No 44 of22 Decembei· 2000, appears to be well-founded.
The applicatîon ]nstituting the proceedings does not appear (the burden of proof resting
with the applicants: Cass. 1974/2004) to fit the so-ca1led general fomm requirements
of Article 2 of that regulation since the defendant company does not appear to
have its statlltory seat, central administration or principal place of business in Italy
(A:tticle 60) or at any rate a representative authorized to be a party to legal proceedings,
within the meaning of Atticle 3(1) of Law 218/1995.
Nor is it possible to app1y the special criteJia in Article 5 of the above regulation.
It is certainly not a contractual matter, since the Court of Justice of the European
Communities hele! in Case C-265/02 of 5 February 2004 that the concept of matters
relating to a contraet is not to be understood as covering a situation in which there is
no obligation freely assumed by one party towards another.
None of the other situations listed in the special provision concerns unjust enriclmJent,
which Article 61 of the Italian legislation subjects to the law of the State in which the
events giving rise to the obl[gation (the forced labour in Gennaoy) takes place. The
same assessment must apply even if the special cr:iterion in Article 5(3) of the EC
regulation were to apply, given that the hannful event attributed to the company (the
exploitation of forced labour) took place in Germany.
There is no cause to examine the question of jurisdiction raised by the IOM in the
proceec!ings on the merits of the case, a question which, in case it shou1d be relevant
due to its possible cotmection with the applications made against the other defendants,
appears to be weli-founded in the light of the Convention on the Privileges and
Immunities of the Specialized Agencies, adopted by the UN General Assembly by
- 18 -
resolution of 21 November 1947, and the mmexes concerning the individual institutions
(cf. Cass. Combined Sections 1266/1975, 2910/1973).
On the above gronnds
Having regard to i\rticle 375 C.C.P. ;
lt is requested that, hav1ng joined cases 28420/2005 and 249/2003, the Combined
Civîl Sections of the Supreme Court of Cassation, in admitting the applications fi1ed
by the Federal Republic of Gem1any and DaimlerChrysler AG, should declare that the
Italianjudicial authority lacks jurisdiction with respect to the complaints made against
those applicants.
Rome, 22 November 2007 The Assistant Legal Adviser --Pasquale Ci ecolo
Annex 11
Secretary-General ofthe Presidency of the Italian Council ofMinisters
letter of24 April 2008 to the Avvocatura Generale dello Stato
12-NOLJ-2008 17 : 25 AA REF 507
12-NOV-2008 13•43 ..... , .,., •• .,_...., t oJo.JW'I.,.n.,Jr- ..J-...JJ..,.!C::
Prcsid•~•• ~êl Cons!gljo d«t ~~~~&t~l
usa 0001~ P-4.17.21
~~~ii~ ~iiÏ!1illllll
1<~9 1888 171556 ~3. 01/02
Roma, 24 aprlle 2008
All'Awocatura Oenetal~ dello Stnto
(o.a. A w. :Oiatl.ll Ranuooi)
Roma
Oggetto: CT. 5804SI05~ Cl'.Ua44J061 CT. U.JSl/1}6, CT. 11349/06, CT, HJ429106,
cr. IS55ll/0611 CT. 18il.l9/06, CT. 18434/06, cr. 27142106; cr. 11036/06,
CT. 15904/06~ cr. J4l/07: Controversie pro~~e dagli ~ TMl nei ccnfronti
deil!~ R.epubblioa,FederalA di G~. Corte di CQ!laazione, Seziaci unite.
Udienza 6 ma~ 2008.
-Si m ri~ellt() lill~:: COllt!ro\'l:li'Sie: i.ntentntt nci oouftonti della Rqnzbblica Federale
di Germ.ru:tis., Mlle q_uaH Vi è intervento dcl!D Sr..sto Ita.lia.no, concemM.lti domande risarcitorie
per at:ti.vità l.avotatiVa. ~~ fOl'Za.ta:mentc al itetVi.zio detl'màustria bellica dèl Govemo
tedescn a ~guito dell~ d~~one m ùertna.u.ia di inte1":t'mti militari itaH!Wi nell'uitima fase ~· n
della. secortda gu~moniij~e.
n pro~c 15 ma.F si GE!lebrerit ~ alla Corte di CI!.'!SaziMe., :e. Sezio:rü unite,
l'udien.za per la disr;US!ione dei regolame .. ;'1rl preventivl di giurisdi:don~ promoss:i dalla
Rcpubblica Fll'lderalé.! di G~a per la d~olatatoria cle1 dlt'etto assoluto di siurisdizione de!
giudice ita1iax~o i:rJ v!rtà di:~ princlpio consUMUàinul.o di diritto mternazionale dcll'immurritè.
dello Stato,
A qu.~sta Pm!fidwa sono ~te cmnllcictrte le r.onclusioni assunte dalla Procura
generllle pressa la Cortr~ di Cnssamon~ che si ~rimono ne! seoso pr'ospettato d:alla Repubb)Jca
fe&rale tc:desca e, quindi, per il difottl.:r assoluto di giurlsdizione ..
Ad avvt~o di ~ta Pt<wi~~ del Consiglio, tale ~à.sunto deve ~sser~ çondiv(so.
In pa.rticolar~, puo co:ndivi~ l'~;~rientamento per il quw~ l'ordin&mento
intemazions.Je, con :regoJe oonsuetudinerle e oonvenzionali> pressoché ummimemente recepite
+49 1888 1.7155S 5.02/02
__ ..,...,...,.,__...,111,,...,.,.._,.."""' ..___,\D u._.1 '-'.J
da Corti itttt.tnazionali. é! str.ttWi, rirono~e la "ro.ndawenwe'' e:;igen.?A di ammettere
J'e~e:~one dalJ~ eiurlsdizione temtorlalt;: degll S'tati membrl ~ degli altri soggetti
dell'ord.ll:mmento med.esimo, allo soopo di difendm le tecip:tonhe s!:rvnnütà, di fuvotirç- le
buone relaziori~ tra dl essi e di ev:itm raeuirsi !:li ~;:oni'littualità". n rioonoscimentp
dcll'immunità dalla porestas judl~cmdi e dowto alla neeessi1à di rlspettare gli cbbHghi
gëttemli di non ingarenza nef rapJ»rtl tra Stati e riflette il pr:încipic d~::Ila sep:ID12icme dei
poterl, in base al qurue Pautorlti giurlsdi:zio:uale dello Sta.to territoriale non puà ingerirsi nel1e:
scelm di politics estera asmnt€: dal Gove:mo o dal Par!am.ento nelle re1a.zioni estemt con lo
Stirto a O\.li é ricoMsciu~ l'immtmltà.
Nc:l Sex:tiW sopra indi~to deve ritQ;Oetsi sciolta la rlserva rn mcrito alle conclusioru cta
adottare n~Ue controv~sie !'::imre in ogge'l:to.
"
GESAI'1T SEl TEI'-1 0~'
Translation
[Seal]
The General Secretary
of the Office ofthe Prime lY!inister
[stamp ofthe Prime Minister's Office
USG 0001850 P-4.17.1 J
General
of 26 April 2008]
Rome, 24 April 2008
To the Office of the Solicitor
(attention Diana Ranucci, Esq.)
Rome
Re: Case T-58048/05, Case T-11344/06, Case T-11351/06, Case T-11349/06, Case T-
18429/06, Case T-18550/06, Case T-18709/06, Case T-18434/06, Case T-27142/06,
Case T -11036/06, Case T -15904/06, Case T -342/07; Cases brought by fom1er Italian
prisoners of war with respect to the Federal Republic of Gem1any, Court of Cassation
en banc.
Hearing of 6 May 2008
We are writing with reference to the actions brought against the Federal Republic of Gennany
seeking compensation for forced labour in the German goverm11ent's war industry following
the deportation of Italian prisoners of war to Gennany during the last phase of the Second
World War, into which actions the Italian State has intervened.
Next 6 May, a hearing will be held before the Court of Cassation en banc, in the proceedings
to establish jurisdiction brought by the Federal Republic of Gem1any. Gemtany argues that
the Italian Cmuis have no jurisdiction in the case, by virtue of the customary principle of
intemationa11aw concerning the immunity of States.
This Office bas been informed of the conclusions presentecl by the Pub lie Prosecutor's Office
at the Court of Cassation, vvhich are in agreement with the argument made by the Federal
Republic of Gennany, and thus, argue the absolute lack ofjurisdiction.
In the Prime Minister's opinion, that argument should be adopted.
In particu1ar, we concur in the view that the international legal system, with its customary and
conventional rules, almost unanimously adopted by intemational and state courts, recognizes
the "fundamental" need to acknowledge the exemption from territorial jurisdiction ofMember
States and other parties which are pmi of the legal system, in order to "defend reciprocal
sovereignty, promo te good relations between states and a void àn escalation of cm1flicts." The
recognition of immunity fi:om the potestas judicandi is due to the need to respect general
obligations of non-interference in relations between states, and reflects the principle of the
separation of pmvers, which holds that the jurisdictional authorities of a territorial state may
not interfere in the foreign policy choices made by the Govermne1:t or Parliament with respect
to relations with .the State for which immunity is recognized.
Our position regarding the conclusions to be adoptecl m the case referred to JS to be
consideree! as set fmih above.
The General Secretary
[signatme]
Translation
rvlinistry ofForeign Affairs
Note Verbale
Rome, 28 April 2008
Ref. No. 061-P-0148958
The Min:istry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Federal Republic of
Gennany, and following the meeting held between the Italian and Gem1an representatives at
this Ministry last 22 April conceming the question of the legal proceedings in the Italian
courts against Gennany for events wbich occuued in the period 1943-45, and based on the
letter of commitment sent by the Gem1an Autborities to this Ministry on today's date, bas the
honour to transmit a copy of the letter sent by the General Secretary of the Office of the Prime
Minister to the Office of the Solicitor General prior to the en banc hearing of the Court of
Cassation set for next 6 May.
The Ministry of Forejgn Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the Federal
Republic of Gem1any the assurances of its highest consideratioi1.
Embassy of the
Federal Repub]ic of Gennany
4 Via San Martino della Battaglia
Rome 00185
[se al] [signature]
Annex 12
A vvocatura Generale dello Stato,
Submission to the Corte di Cassazione
28 April 2008
(
AVVOCATURA.GENERAl,;~ 'O:ELLO St'A.'tO
Stl'P'REMA CORTE' Dl CASSAZlONE
· · · · SEUONl uNtl(,t.. ~/If:) .
Udillrt:tn tam~t'Stle delli rnnggio 2008 .. r.g.~- Cons. Dr. 'Mordh
5.01/06
. 1>1li!MOIIJA .J1J J . A-t. c;., .~ I~E'R 1 ·
La f'residrmrA del Çonstiglîo cl6i Minlstri {~:t pcnoon d~.!l Prc:~:dd@nte: pra
tèmpNe, rappreset'lW!o ë dlftSe ope légis da.ll'Awcctl.t"Ura.Cene:rale d.elTn Stato
presso i o1.1i u:ffiel domicilia in Rx:~:na ~l!a via dei Pcri:e~g;Mesi 1.2 , nei ticor.so
~)~'~::po!rto dall~
DI
d()U'Amb~~-=ir..tof'~ p.t. ra:ppresertttim e d\f~~a clzlll'Aw. Ac:hllle At;colt! Œl ~
Augusto Do~sena
V!\:rrgcmo alt'MEm~~ dl qucsta Bcc.rna Corte l ·rtt~o.lamentl dl ghtrlsd!zicmo
Pt'opo~ti cl!!.l!a rept~bb!k* 'P"::::d.:~:HlJ:~ 1'edesca ne!l'èunbito dl giudi~ di
risardrnento danni,. !lz;1onlîtÎ da ~li: lntt,r.rns.tl miliwi ltaii:mi avanti a.i Giudic.l
i 1:a1 io:ni, con cltazloni not1fic~te si a rul:l oanfrond del! il. Rep~1bbliea di
Gernw..,r.a che: eol'ltro ~~ industrie s.noora e.:listenti che hann~ 'tmtto all"cpoca
profitttJ dru l:>tvoro deg!i ital!ani tn~natl.
Come è nota og~ecro de! giucii:tio, in r<::!azlone ai q~mli la ricarrente ha.
pn.1posto il regolamt::nto di giuril:dizione. è t'aziane risnrcitoria s.vnnzuta d~gli
eredi di :aofdo.ti itn1iliil'l! 1nt~ma~1 n~l cam;pi di concentrnmento ccrml!: ~Mg,!oni>:::ri
dt guem .• ma. impiegnti in tm nipporto di rnvorl) coutto eomc 'llVlli.
05--MR I --2088 16 : 40
l?JZ-MF=!G--2è08 H: 45: Dll; AUU. PURXL.t.C': ~.JO~tir-"1
NeJ giucl!zio proposro · dlll.H'odierno intiroato ava:nd al t"!'lbu.nale, la RepubbHca
di Gt!:tml'lnla, c:ostituendo~i ht gJudtzio. hn e:ce~pito il dife.tt<:~ wsoluto di
gh.~,rtsdlzic:me del Œudil::e ita\iano, invoca!!ldo ll prindpio èonsuetudirmrio del
dh:1tto 1nte:crulziona.le d~U'lm.munlt\l deHo Stat.o (ln virtù de! quale $U$slut;;;
l'obbltgo di astene:rsi d;;,.!l'es>erèita.re ii potet:~ g;iurh:diziolutl~ nei confronti
dt::gl\ stat1 stranieri), ha 3-h:re~l ecc~piro la pt~!lori;done del diritt! vantati red ha
~hiam~to ln cn.J,Jsa H Oov~mo lta!ie.no pet ess~e mnnlevata ne! oaao di
aceogl!mr::nto della domanda dsru-dtoti~
A :~osteg.nr,; dèl r~;:a~·:::~-s de:d~c$ obe :
l) con l'art.. i7 oo.4~;~ de! Trnttato di -~~;;::.~::~del 10 febbraio 1947 !'ftaHa hrt
rf.nunciato, ~ suo ~x:m:::~~ ed a nome d'*i o!t:t::-:.dir.li italll'l'ni. a q:.::::::.!::;JS~..Si ~:::;-mancle dl
n'sa.rdmœnto nd c:~Jnf.h:mti d~lta Ge:rmtmia pendente al.la data del 8,5.1945! e
che 11 cli~po::>to d1 cui :sll'<'!rt. 77 ~\ ,:n:!i.~e uheriorme:nte eo~i.floatQ neWr<..rt. 2 del
·rrattato di Bonn del 2.6.1 ~61, ~ro é:::::~:::sttti:::'>.:l ~}:::·::1 il D'PR n. 126.3/1962;
i) ::;;Hrc Suprerue Corn Europee, quaH U Supremo Tribum~l~ Speoia!e Greco. la
C(Prte Feclerlile di C~~one ~d:::~ la Corte cH Cas~a:ôone fh.\ncese1 si sono
S~tl, mt::~ll'!doîili dli \'alcrtnr~ :i!tti ~:!pres$ion~ deHl\ lora çondoUîl. sovr·::::.:'l.a,
La ~rOC:J,lf:!t V~\"'ê!t'ale p~eJi\:!i!Ô ta c:~~,:n:e dj c~~~:;::::~.r.ioM ha dep·:)s!tafo memoria con
~~ qus.le ~hiede la. b;S.ttf.!~il:me cie! doorso in Ce.t'f'lern dl C.{;r:~ig!i~, ai .~ensi
del!' art. :175 o.p.e •• ôe!IA eonsid~œzlone delli;'! mt~.nlfesra fondn.te~;;:;:?t del ricoT:so
proposto dal]~:~, Repubblica Federale: di OermMili.,
Lu V'rc:siderr;:a d~l CortSiglio dei M!nistrî, ut supra rap?resenmta ~ difesa,
aclèriSJce aUe. richiestu della proc~o~t01 CeMrfi!.ie per! 9eguenti
1 }ln vh preHmimxr~ appare lndispens11.bilc osserv·.!!.re ehe la Repubb!1èL.l
îede::ca h.a pro-pcsto UM seri'~ di clcorsl 1de.ndci nel c~;'mt~nuto, !llcuni dei
3.02/06
p:' 6·'~(21
i ( \ .
1
i
05-t·~A!-2008 16=41
82-MRG-~~~o •··~c ~ "U" "'""'-~ """''""'"' '-'"':Fl v,f:"~WRilL.Q ~
. A:3S 855 ~9ei82 ,......, ... ~, - - - , ... , """ J &\.
qtleH vengono li' !'ruttï;!.Zione nel!u. tt)edesima camera. dl cons1gli~ del 6.52008~
sulla brule dellè conc!~;sioni assunte dai dive~si prOt:l\tra.tt'lri · denerG.li c-he a1
occupano delln. rnat·Qria. Coru:.Jusioni che D.1t1:avia, non l)U6 ornetrersi di not'il.re>
sorio in parte cllvtrB~nti 1 ar~Cso che a.Lcuni '?,O. hrm!io ohiesto Pa.a:cog!1mento . .
r.lel rlcot$o perché manlibil1ta.m1!mt~ fondato, altri tnveee ln declaratorl~ di
inamrnb:dbilit! a.t Sï~ntti <.l~Zl!'art. 366 bLs o.p.e., non esS~tndo ilt.ii.t.O formuU:Ltci i!
qu~siro.
L' ~oezion~ pt'Oœ:::i.::~t~e av~.~ dti Un!l. !)ürte della '?rMtlœ. Genemle ap~:mre
ructavifJ. hd!:mdsta. ~!la tU«tl< W!:U11. str::::i;:-'::3. g,hrrigpn.u:ienw di questn Corte { c:fr.
Sez:. ün. N. 2.?.059/lOO?j ehe hà riren.wro h,!!pp!ionbile il dispost(l deli's.rt. 366
bis c.t;J.c. al reg:.ll3f(l~r!t'O [;lf.~entivo di glurlsdî~on6.
2) Ne! mc-rito i! rie~~o: ~ funcle.to. Sul punto pm·~ ~~·;-::::~:;_'}rtt.mo ~gombem~ ii
Ôfl..n1pO dag[i eq:u\voe1 irtB!!!t>::m:,ti dalla $i'$hl.'enz~ n • .5044/04 di ques!R Corte>
pronuru.::ie.~ sul e..,~ ••F~•m:Î(IP~ , ahe ha ritenuto chf!: le no!"!tl.e ::t1.ll.la immunit!
dulla ~iurlsdlziont: ·tm'l:'l po~s~no uovarc ~ppU(;azkltll! qt;.:mÔQ si tra.rt'i di
valutate ~tti !!S.&tinti in !U'!Ve vioh~ziol"'e dî obb!ighi lntein~.€::f,ionalî postl da
norm~ ~>:)sé't'tt.i, q<:-s!ific-abiH qutnl'li ;~rn~ ~rimir.ti tt.tem~zi~î~:ûi, com~e: mH
impt!Z~~ttibili e: ~o~tenf ~:d p:doc.:ipio d:a!la gii..!SV.:dlzlone univers.'l!~.
La Procu1'~ C·e:~~::::r.a.llt e:8f!:1.t~:mel~te d1evm. oorne tàlfl e5::!·:::;~:ûone, ln q~m.le pernltro
costltuLscc 1.a; un;icwn ;-:.::::! panor~::.:·::::a gitJriSp:!:\lt.:!~nz:1$.!e Sta nazietru~:le che
irrte'm~iomils, pur ~tt<iHnc:Mdo ~~;~;p~·tti di ri!levo, tiJît:~.via. r.on a1'paia ln tirii.'lî2.
con lo stato attuâl.~ del di.tlt:tô intemozlol'lil.lt'!, come:: è roso pa.Jese rhü âtto c!v~:,
dopo i.l2004~ lfOtlQ întl:'n'V!':tll.tt:e varie pretnunce1 di alcr~ Con:l Eurapee di segno
cHame!J"al.moute oppost.o. rn teattt.. ln dispacte i1 rillevo per cui la
. gfu.d1~prudett.t~ dc::hi(l;mata. nel t:Ct.So "'F.errirli" e posta a èw..';le deUs ~entenz111,
. stc:ss~. attiene per !o plù a dedsioni dell~ CCI-tti U.S.A. pronuncb.rc in punto
di l'Mponsa.b1!1tà pena!e degU lndlvî.dwi ·.a cnusa dl gravi v!ola.iionî dei dfr-ttti
foncl:lrnf!;rrtali clel!J;l !!Je:rsom~. c non, come flll~l!e. specie. di r'esponsabll1cà. civile,
qll21 che è vero è: che la critks..tt:r, declskme oor;trMt:a con il prindpio
5.03/86 IIZJUUJ
05-i•1R I -2008 16: 41
02-MAG-2B9t3 11:48 D'l: AIJIJ. PE:::r;:;:zl,LO ANCW~IfR
..,.. . ' ...
tn<lve-rsalment~ acceLiO,to delln. i!Tlrmmltê. (i!:;!g!i stati dalln giuris<!lzlone per gU
atti espressione di$!1$. !oro so:vr·anltà: i cd. acti h.ire lmper.ii, ( in te-rntinî Ccrtc
.Costit!.î.donale n. 4U1979),
Bf quest.a inf~d ta regola di giuc!izio alle st~gua da:lla ql.Hlk dove risolve-rsi H
quesito propo~tc do.!la Repubblien Te:dcsea, apptnndo~ in q~JéSta prospett)vll:;.
u!troneo. e: cernurii,'JI.le as:;orbito dalla pa!èso fondettez:c.a dei citato asst.mto~ il
ri~hl~nio a.ll' urt. 77 del Trr.:uaoo dl p~ d~l 194 7 e al!~ diS'j:!osiz1on.l. d~gll
aeél:.lrdi di T:J.on11 del 1961. rcoepicl in ltfllia con tiPP.,., M. 1263 e 204J, 11:'1. e:LJi
sf~ra di operativ!tà :!: :;::.:~:rnJ.roque r!ehiamsbi!e nella diversa angc~la.zfoM d.e!
prin.;;lp!o pe1eta sunt servm-;:ia,
C~:~me i~=~=rt~~ .. r:::;:::\:~ ~&Sel'Vti.to dru P.O. Dort. Cicoolc, neHe conc!usio~?i de!
27.11.2007. ·• il prectmo detl'ù;·ft'rrt-mità dal!a g!t.~rlsdh:.ion~ civil~; rit: /la Sb:tiO
~sfl:ro. in pr~.<:uaa >.:fi autvifà iur~ ü'f/'s;ril . tnJir' ,(Ce lrllrlr..w::ct:tmenl~ fticmr.'tA ad
i;u;.fdere $1-J dlrllll fimdtimf:iin/a/J .:~:-ill '®mo.\ è .~~>:=~·~r:Mo 111/('Jtfl dQ wu1 norma
r:OrtSUetud!Jnari~ ff'fl!f'n(/f'J:fOntr/e1 t;(~t::~::i;~f~n;Yt 111/J 'Mtn:-Jlf;r ln vi;~~~~;-·~;~ dt.dlo
Coslilwtionc iftJiiana, ~d ha at;:~~~~'-'lto va/on; cogenff! rrtl nostto orr:flru::xmemto rn
:.:·l:,.tù dalla dauJmla dl ~:=~·~,~~~§'::,:t,mtel1!fCJ !l:UMmatico aile m:.~rmdR de.! dirflto
Pakse IÎ! !a roth':· :1.i ~k prillc~pio, ::::f5.=~ ~ q:.i<~na dl :&rvc<:k~ le buone ::eiM·f::JI1i t"ru
~:rti, difenc!.ero te: re~ipfl)t:lhe sovrsmità, ev!tmt'lll t 'e~.cr.:lirsi di csontlittt.~alit.à. ne!
ri;:per.to d~;i princip[ d~t!a: :::·:~}2&re::a:lc·:'i<:: d~i ç;cteri e den~ !lM \ngerenz:1.1. oei
rl'!pportl trz. Stati~ ed af fine çJi evimr~ che: tlnr:t ttutorità gim~sdl~ionnil!: st.n<•ni~rtt
possa, in C(W!ilchc rni~u:rn, 1nflulre ~mll!!! so~!te potl1.khe di Lifl sl!.1'o Bt!àtCI
Di questo ~utt:j!.via 1a stessa Corte cH Cassezione mnstra di esser1:, pur c:M la 1
rh::(n'à.~a eç.cez.ione~ da. sempM ben ~nsa.pevolé, qua!ota si consideri che: ln
giiJtü,lprudenza nazkmale~ plù volte ~;hflÙ'!ll!li'll. l.'ld esprirryeroi sut tem~ ha, con
glnr!sprudew.a oonsc!idata) esc!!JSQ e-be 1! principio dell.!l lmnn.mit!. dalla
g!ur'isdi;:::ioo~ po$Sia. $UbiT'e deroghe pttr ln presc<xn:ea di ~ravi att! di viota:.:clone
ù.l dirhti de!là 'f'~l'Si;~nll.. fn qr..;esto senso é lâ cl~oisione 11, l6SJ del 1974. ~:ne,
05-MAI--2008 16:41
62-MRli-281118 .11: "19 0~: F'IUU, FETK1LLO I=!Nt;;i;:\:Ff
. ,.,,, ... .:... ,,., ........ ,._ - - ....
nel riMdi.te il pno.dpïo 11 par ln l,'are:m non hmbt;~tjurud!ctïonem'\ affGrmn ia.
p1~~,a. imn·u.mità dalla g;iurisdiziom~ in re!azione ag,li atti " dlre:tli alla
rcallzxc:zionè del !oro jin1 pubbUd ( d(Jg/i Stt~ti, nA,r.) 11
, mmch6, più di
;;eee!'lte, le sent!)IJZe. n, $:30/2000, pi'Mti.I'ICÏàta s.ul fumoso O<lSO '' C~;.rrnia" e !a
n. 81..57/2002, C1Ve, pitt tncisivamente~ ~i chiarfsce come " gfi ani compiwi
tmifigl(l'dbÎ/e (.!/~:w-sa silua:irmtJ di inlcrU:~e gl-urJdicamrmt~ itJNt/(Jbi/e, .ris:ché
si sottraggono to~a!rneme al sin.docat~ della gfurisdlzioM ",
Ta.ic pnncipio è condlvi&O ~:,::'l:chw ds.i!~ elurispnsdenza intemnionale: rn
questo seMo si è ~p~{r;::~ l' A:::;,z-c-,~~:~.~os ;}''~~L)o côn deeisione del 17, 5>.2002, e
SC)J)rntl;utto la Ccrrw d.l C~$a?ion~ t.i-a.ncese clet I 6, 12..2003, ohe ha dedinato lm
' ' • d' ' ' 1 .;-..,. " ' 1 o1 · . ..! · d A" propna gmn::; LZl<:::ne m ~:r.::~,:.<-::ge~. ~rosp~ce:, l'lS!ra.rvll :~:pf<Unto 111 .... om~m e {.!'
clsa.ccirnentc:~ d!1nnl p:;:;r lavot'o foœato în G:~~ia- d~tr:mte :::~ s.z~cmdtt gua:rre.
t:::::1[ qui pto$pt~{:>.:::l:~:::~ în r>~:}:tk:otll!rt: 1a CEDU di Sttnsbu.rgt:~ (~fr. i'G!:~t.enza de:!
14.1 i.ZùOtî, Matb:rv1'Q/!t..allti.), ne! r.i~~di~ G:Ome i 1 ::sPi:~~::~ dei repr;::t:>rti tl:'a dirhti
funclsmenmii d:;~U 'fncliv1d~:~:~;: él tct'i!'f::'::::1ttè. d~lla gîurî:~:~:Hzi.::tne C!egH $tati si a.
pElrtic-o[ar.mm"lt~ crltioo, ha t~tttavia .::;.!>i·:;;;l~~f!lo ne! $~nsè che " il dirifro di
lilr:ir~~loni dç,gli StaN". e: che ta c<>r::.aFJ.Ss.h::-,~,:~ dt.!ll'lrmrmllità dalla giut'lstilEirme
civil:: ad um; ,1Itafo .~rranüm; p&r:;~gwr:: la .vcopo Ù.iJ.~ifrirna. dl tMl~f';rvr;ere fi dtriua
In:fln10 la Cor!·e dî Q'Jus:ti~n, chiarnata 11 decider~ in VIE!. p~egh1cliz:i!Ue q~~e:~tlord
~octe nell'ambit.('l di az1oni dvHi lrtt6r1'!:.lte !n Clrech.! eonu'o la. Getrnanla 13er i
dannl derivaii da art"i !':i41mroe~I dà!l!$ uwppe redr:!ill.l:he durarrr:e 1•occupaziMe
della Creera. ccin lo. det;ision~ h, dP..ta l$.2.2007 ln caus~ C~292/05, pure
menzi.omn:a. dalla Prool.lra Û!1Znernle 11eHe sue cono!Llslt:ml, ho. contluso M~l
05-MRI-2008' 16:42
82-MAG~2GB8 11:49 0"': f.lliV. pg·;·::!!LLO ~f--!Dt:';b;A 00 ~:::r:::.~f3G0
.......... ,,__,, - .. , ..... - -.-..- .... ---
sen.;;o che " non rÎ!:;n.tra raella mr:uerla c:ivllt! l 'azlr:me gfutHt/orla promossa da
personet fl~~idu~ in Uf'IO Stara caNtra~n.lé$ m:d ccmjrCJrtll rJ./ un CJirro stato
ctmtraente a volta titi ouenr:r•e il Yf:ctm:lmt:!nfa del dm·mo subl!o dalla vittJir.e di
azfr:mi delleforze armate nell'amf)ira dl opti!rCJZiOrJi di guerra ··.
ln rale s~t,tt'!:n2a la. Corte dl Giusii~ül itt r~a.ltà nol'! sembr~ rispondcre: nl
dèll'irmnunüà dcgH St~ti dalla siori.sdi2!on·::: dvil:t. ma si è lh,ite:r:a a
ri;;ponder~ al primo, che rig\JJ.'l.rd~vEL învece !a compete:t1~, a.'Efemm.ndo chr! la
ma.toria rton è ~ivHe bemsl ''i%'::~ imperii '~ p~r. cui r.on ~î appHca l!!
Convenzione di 'Bm:l(e!Ies mllla competenztr. civile.
Non puà non <::::,:::œ:·rvatsi t~~:~t::~>·ia che, cosl n:'i{;.')tflt:\'l:"~"tdo. !~ Cotte dà.
impliclfam~nte arto ch:; questo g:~l'l~re di n::zioni tto~ rm.:~::::::::no t.:f!Se:re qoollfio~te
oom~ ~:~ioril ~i d.s~mlmento del d;AiHl:::J !n ~enso proprio, pr:r çui vieM in
dd1nitiva ribad-ito H pvinc1plo ~;:::::r ~u( {::;:::·:;tro uno St:!llo t~~tMo non vi. è ~:.:.:d~iî~i~
ind'ivîduele perle c~.:mseguer~e di ~tti beHlci da q~..~.etlo oom~=h~tt.
Alla 1 !..!CC doUe argorru~ntaziotli svo!te ~pa-re ~f~nte come il. pre~edente
regala di dirllto fnternarianale. ", ( cfr, COinclu:!!:Îoni P.G. clo!47.11.2007 y:=i:.:;,
l2) ~. di !leguito, :::t ~:-::~~·:;;; q<.~S~.le regola d) ~k:4!2!io nei1):;::?.:~·::::·,:'::::. ricorso.
rëgo!ru:nento di gtud:::d:izione rm~p-=>~>ro da1Ia Repubbllc:i).
Germa ni!\.
5.06/06
GESq!'iT SE! TEI'l 06
Translation
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF ITAl, Y
TUE SOPID~ME COlJRT OF CASSATION
EN BANC
Hearing in camera of 6 May2008- docket no. [deleted] 6247/87- Before the
Honorable Justice Mr. Morem
Amicus Curiae Brief
The Office of the Prime Minister, in the persan of the President pro tempore, represented ope
legis by the Office of the Solicitor General of Italy at 12 via dei Pmioghesi, Rome, in thematter
of the petitionlodged by
The Federal Republic of Gennany, in the person of the Ambassador pro tempore, represented by
Achille Accolti Gil, Esq. and Augusto Dossena, Esq.
FACTS
The Court is to examine the proceedings to establish jurlsdiction brought by the Federal Republic
of Ge1many, in the context of the proceedings for damages sought by former Italian prisoncrs of
\var before Italian Comis, with summonses issued to the [Federal] Repubiic of Germany and
those businesses still in existence which at the time profited from the work of Italian p1isoners of
war.
As is weJl-known, the petitioner's proceedings to establish jurisdiction concem the action for
damages brought by descendants of Italian soldiers intemed in concentration camps as prisoners
ofwar, but putto work as ifthey had been civilians.
- 2-
The defendant in the case, the [Federal] Republic of Gennany, appeared before the Court and
argued that the Ttalian Courts lack any jurisdiction whatsoever in these matters. It invoked the
recognized internatim1al law principle of sovereign innnlmity, which prevents the Courts of one
country from exercising jurisdiction over anotber sovereign state. The Federal Republic of Germany
also argued that the rights asse1ied have lapsed and moved that the ltalian Govemment be
held liable to indemnify Germany should the claim for damages be successfuL
Gennany submitted the fo1lowing arguments in support of its petition:
l) In Axticle 77, Section 4 of the Peace Treaty of 10 February 194 7, Ital y expressly waived, o:n its
own behalf and on behalf of its citiz.ens, ali claim'> to compensation from Gennany that were
outstanding on 8 May 1945. Tiw provisions of Article 77 were further codified in Article 2 of the
Treaty of Bonn of 2 June 1961, which was ratified by Presidential Decree No. 126311962.
2) Other Emopean Supreme Comis, such as the Supreme Special Court of Greece, the Federal
Constitutional Court of Gem1any, and the French Court of Cassation, have recently ruled on
analogons matters and have fmmd 1manimously for the international legal pri:nciple of (limited)
sovereign inn11muty, where it is held that the case concems sovereign acts.
The Public Prosecutor's Office at the Comt of Cassation has submitted an amicus curiae brief to
the Court which requests that the Court hear the Federal Republic of Germany's petition in
camera, given its manifest legitimacy, in accordance with Article 375 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Office of the Prime Minister, represented as indicated above, supports the position of the
Public Prosecutor's Office for the following
REASONS
1) In the fïrst instance, it should be noted that the Federal Republic of Ge1many has brought a
series of proceedings identical in content to the action llilder consideration, sorne of which will
- 3 -
a1so be considered by the Court during the in camera bearing of 6 May 2008. These regard
conclusions reached by varions Public Prosecutors. One cannat help noticing that the Prosecutors
have reached differing conclusions, since sorne of them have moved for the acceptance of the
[Federal] Republic of Germany's action, given its manifest legitimacy, while others have called
for it to be declared inadmissible under Article 366a of the Code of Civil Procedure, since the
question had not been posee!.
However, the procedural objection made by some of the Public Prosecutors would seem to be
ground~ess, given previous judgments made by this Court (Cf. En banc hearing, N6. 22059/2007),
in which it has held that Article 366a of the Code of Civil Procedure îs not applicable to pre-
1iminary proceedings to establish jurisdiction.
2) On the merits, the petition is well-grounded. In order to substantiate this, we should first
remove any confusion created by Judgment No. 5044/04 issued by this Court, regarding the
"Ferrini" case. This case established that the law conceming jurisdictional immunity is not
applicable when the acts in question are in grave violation of binding obligations under international
law, and thus constmable as international c1imes, which are imprescriptible and subject
to universal jurisdiction.
11te Public Prosecutor's Office very aptly points out 1lmt this ruling, although it highlights some
impœ1ant questions, no longer appears to be in line with the cuuent position of international law.
The judgment bas no parallel in case law at either the national or the intemational level and
appears even more anomalous in the context of various mlings by Emopean courts since 2004,
which reach diametrically opposed conclusions. In reality, apati from the fact that the case law on
which the "Fenini" ruling draws, and on, which it bases its judgment, is more relevant to
decisions by US Comts concerning the criminal responsibility of individuals, and not civil liability,
as in the case at hand, what is certainly hue is that the decision here impugned conflicts with
the universal1y accepted princip le of the immtmity of states from jurisdiction for acts that are an
expression of their sovereignty- so-called iure imperii (according to the tenns of Constitutional
Court ruling No. 48/1979).
It is this principle that forms the legal basis for resolving the question raised by the Federal
Republic of Germany. The references to Article 77 of the 1947 Peace Treaty and the provisions
- 4 -
of the Bom1 accords of 1961, as implemented in Italy by Presidential Decrees No, 1263 and 2043,
are therefore unnecessary, because the position is manifestly well fmmded and, in any case, these
iilstmments fall to be considered under fhe principle ofpacta sunt servanda.
As the Public Prosecutor, ML Ciccolo, conectly observes in his conclusions of 27 November
2007, "TI1e princip le of immunity from civil jurisdiction of foreign states, wh en carrying out acts
iure imperii, is guaranteed in fact by a recognized p1inciple of international law which predates
the ratification of the ltalian Constitution, even if the acts in question are inl1erently Iikely to
infringe upon basic human rights, This principle has now taken on bindü1g force in our contemporary
legal system because of the clause in Article 10, Section 1 of the Constitution stipuJating
automatic compliance with the generally recognized ml es of international law,"
The reasoning behind this principle is plain: it seeks to promote good relations between states,
defend reciprocal sovereignty, and avoid an escalation of conflicts by respecting the principles of
the separation of powers and non-interference in relations between states, with the aim of preventing
foreign authorities from interfering in the political affairs of fellow states.
Despite the "Fenini 11 case, the Court of Cassation appears to have been consistently mindJul of
this principle of international law and, in the cases where the principle has been considered at a
national judicial level, tbe varions opinions on the matter have built up a solid body of case law
which excludes the idea that the principle of jurisdictional immunity might be derogated in the
case of grave violations of the rights of the person, Judgment No. 1653 of 1974, for example,
reiterates the principle of par in parem non habet jurisdictionem, affuming the full immunity
from jurisdiction of "[states] acting in the furthenmce of their national interest", Thjs was
confinned by the more recent rulings No. 530/2000, regarding the well known "Cemia" case; and
No. 8157/2002, in which it is even more clearly stated that, "actions taken by states in the
conduct of the hostilities of war , .. constitute a manifestation of a political function which cam10t
be held to come nnder any interest safeguardable by la\v. They are therefore totally outside the
botmdaries of jurisdiction."
This principle is common to intemational case law: the Greek Areopagus upheld it in its decision
of 17 September 2002, as did the French Court of Cassation on 16 December 2003, when passing
- 5 -
judgment on a case conceming a very similar set of facts, namely a request for damages for
forced labour in Germany dming the Second World War.
Wc shou1d also recall ttte recent judgments of intemational courts which accept the principle of
jurisdictional immunity: particularly the ECHR in Strasbomg (Cf. the judgment of 14 December
2006, Markovic vs. ltaly). Altbough the ECHR reaffmned the importance of the relationship
between the fundamental 1ights of the individual and the jmisdictional ümmmity of states, it
nonctheless concluded that, "the right of access to a court is not absolute, but may be subject to
implied limüations ... and immunity from civil jurisdiction is granted to a foreign state in pursuance
of the legitima te aim of observing international law."
Finally, there is a mling by the European Court of Justice dated 15 February 2007 in case mm1ber
C-292/05, which the Public Prosecutor's Office also cites in its brief. When making a preliminary
ruling on issues raised by civ[l actions brought in Greece against Gennany for damages stemming
from acts committed by German troops dming their occupation of Greece, the Court conclucled
that '"civil matters' vvithin the meaning of that provision do es not co ver a legal action brought by
natural persons in a Contracting State against another Contractîng State for compensation in
respect of the loss or damage suffered by the successors of the victims of acts perpetrated by
am1ed forces in the course ofwarfare in the territory of the fù·st State."
In this mling, the ECJ does not appear to have responded to the second query, which directly
concerned the problem of sovereign immunity from civil jmisdiction, but restricted itself instead
to responding to the first query, which concemed whether the case came 1mder the Brussels
Convention on civil jurisdiction. The Court decided that the matter was not a civil one, but rather
involved iure imperii, and thus the Convention did not apply.
One cannat help noting, however, that by adopting this line of argmnent, the Court gives imp1icit
assent to the view that this type of action cannat be construed as an action for compensation for
damages in any tme sense. TilC Court therefore reaffirms the principle that individuals may not
take action against foreign states for acts cmmnitted cluring wartime.
In light of these arguments, it is evident that the precedent set by Court of Cassation Judgment
No. 5044/2004 is entirely unsuited to "establishing a rule of intemational law" (Cf the S.G.'s
- 6-
conclusions of 27 November 2007, p. 12), and, therefore, does not constitute a rule that should be
followed in the present case.
FOR WHICH REASONS
We request that the Comi of Cassation grant the Federal Republic of Gem1any's petition con--
ceming jurisdiction.
Rome, 28 April 2008
Diana Ranucci
State Attorney
[signed]
Annex 13
Corte di Cassazione
cases of Giovanni Mante !li and Liberato ]vfaietta, Orders, 29 May 2008
';
'i
2008
513
;~ :~i i~ {''1 .;:::
[1 -:: ,,, ,., :::: :~ ~i s ;~{ ~ ~; .•..
·:· >=:::;r ~~~:·!"1 ~~- ~ ~:·
Dott. rn:1cenzo ·• J?r:!.mo
Dott. Mario Rose.~~io Mô:.lt;LL! - Rel. Consialiere -
Dott. Giovanni
Dott. Gius.iappe - Gons.igliere -
Dott. Alde
- con.sigliere -
11a pronunciato segue:nte.
OR:DINANZA
DI in
lo studio
ra.ppresentata d&ll' avvocato ACCDLTI GIL
• Jl>!NRTNlT A' STA TO
'1'RANJiii'RO OA GrtJruSD!Zl'Ol'-
.fVIU:-R&i'?ONSA.tlll.ITA' Pf
Cl:~~-'i!Ni :OJ GIJERR.A •
~.:r.,:~iJ2:'iifCl'!'E- -
R.G.N. 2S420/0E
249/06
Cron. A Ct 1JYi
Rep.
t:rd,06/05/08
c.e.
................ ______ _ ·------··.·.···.·.-:···
f
'
DEI PORTOGHESI 12, pressa 1 'AVVOCA'I'URA
DE~LO STATO, che la rappresenta e difende ope
- contxoricorrente -
contre
Iv:!Ji.ROCCO LORENZO, BORELLO j\11~2\URILIO in proprio e nella
qua li tà di er ede di BORELI,O ACHILLE 1 FINO FBJ'lliCO 1
BERTll.SSO DOMENICO( SICCARDI FRA.t"'CO, ALLASIO OTTAVIO
BA'I'T ISTA PIETRO, GOFFI ERSTIIA, ODDENINO ELSll. - quest.i
ul tim.i due in quali tà. di eredi di ODDENINO RINALDO,
PANICCO l\.NNA fVI~"D,RIAr CARNINO RICCARDO, CARNINO I,ORENZO -
ques ti ul timi tre in qua li tà ài eredi di ct\R."f\iiNO
ELI.SIO, BERTINO CRESCENTE, elettivamente domiciliati in
ROMA, VIA NAZIONAI,E 204, pressa lo studio dell' avvocato
l'avvocato ALESSA~~DRO BOZZA, che li rappr.esentano e
difendono, giusta procura speciale del notaio dott.
Pierangelo Martucci di T'orino, rep. 72.785 del
21/02/07;
- xesisrenti con procura -
nonché contre
t:fi...ANTELLI GIOinlliN--I, OIM ·- ORGANI ZZAZIONE INTERNAZIONALE
PER I"E MIGRAZIONI 1 DAIHIJERCRRYSIER AG, FONDAZIONE
HOMORIA/ RESPONSABII.ITA' E FUTORO;
e sul 2" ricorso r.g. n. 249/06 proposto da:
2
1
1
-~
'· ·l .::.
AG, ·ln per:sona dei lega_li
pro-tempere, elettivamente domicilia ta
in RŒ-1A, VIA A. . DEPHETIS 8 6' pressa lo studio
dell' av1tocato PIETRO CAVASOLA, che la rappresenta e
di fende uni tamente agli avvocati FABIO BORTOLOTTI,
PAOLO MOLLEl\_ CEIRANO, CRISTINA IviA.qTINETTI, giust.a
p1:ocura .speciale del notaio dott . Oehrle di
Sindelfingen del 23/11/05, in atti;
controricorrents e ricorrente incindetale
cont:ro
MANTEU,I GIOVA..~I, Mt"'\ROCCO LORENZO, BORELLO ~ ..... ll.URILIO,
FINO FRANCO, BERTASSO DOMENICO, SICCARDI FRANCO,
ALLJ!.SIO OTTAVIO BATTIS TA PIETRO, GO FFI ERS ILIA,
ODDENINO ELSA., PANICCO ANNA . ~11\->UA, CARlU NO
CARNINO LORENZO, BERTINO CRESCENTE ENZO, OIM t:
REPOBBLICA FEDERALE DI GERMANIA 1 PRESIDENZA DEL
(;
1 1
'
ORGAlUZZAZIONE INTEfl~AZIONALE PER NIGRAZIONI,
FONDAZIONE MEHORIA, RESPONSABILITN E FDTURO,
CONSIGLIO DEI MINISTRI;
- :int:i:mati -
per regolamentb preventivo di. giurisdizione in
relazione a.l giudizio pendente n. 16123/04 del
Tribunale di TORINO;
uditi gli avvocati J:.ugusto DOS SENA per delega
dell 1 avvocato Achille Accol ti Gil, Pietro w\VASOLA;
3
-~-------------__..;,----------·---··----
i1 0 6/05/09 dal Ccnsigli;are: OC' tt. Har io
lette le c:onclu:non~ seri tte da.l Sost-ttuto !?rocurat:·o.re
-375 .;:i!J.n:t.:;;;ne dei
della Corte di cassazione, in accoglimento dei ricorsi
della Repu.bblica di della
Daimlerch.rysler cHch.iarino .n di
Fatto e diritto
\
Ri tenuto che - in relaziorie ad una cau~:.,~:. di ri ;;arcimenta
dan.ni e per ind<:mnizzo ~;<. <;frt. 2041 ç.c;" in_,
.staurata, d.avanti el TrJbunale di :t'erine; nei conf:ron·-
ti, rispett:iva.mente, della Repubbl.ica ,Feds:r<-ale di Ger-
;
i
.l altri cittadin.i. italiani che, deportati in Gerrnania dopo
1' 8 set:.t2mbre 1943, erano stati co$t:r.etti a1 1avoro
fcrzato al servi"Z~o dell' ind>Jstria b>!!!llica del .Reich
la :>tessa R. F .G. l con rLcorso illustr.ato anche con memento
preve:ntivo, per séntir. d.ickLL:n::·e.?:'e il difetto di
giurisdiziont-, nei suoi cont.:t.'OP.tir ::.kd. Giudice italia-
-----------·················.,---------
- che si è costituita la Daimlerchrysler con proposizione
a sua volta di ricorso incidentale che, ex art.
335 c.p.c., va riunito a quelle principale;
- che si è costituita anche la Presidenza del Consiglio
dei Ministri;
- che il P.G., nella sua requ.isitoria sçritta, ha
concluso per il difetto di giurisdizione del Giudice
italiano nei confronti della R.F.G.
Premesso, in limine~" che il regolamento preventivo
di giurisdizione deve ri tenersi arnrrù::;.sibile relativamente
alle qtJ.estioni sulla sussistenza o meno della
gi u.risdizione i taliana nei confronti di soggetti stra~
nie ri, senza che vi os ti la circo.stanza che l'art. 37
c.p.c. - çosi come modificato dall'art. 73 l. 1995 n.
218, che ne ha abrogat.o _il -comma 2 ·· menzioni il difet~
ta di giurisdizione del giudice ordinario nei soli confronti
della p.a. o dei giudice • 1 ' specla.~.J., giacchè il
rinvio recettizio aperato dall'art. 41 c.p.c. all'art.
3 7 dello stes sc codice per la determinazione del , campo
di appLicazione 'del regolamento di giurisdizione deve
intendersi ara riferito anche alli art. 11 della stes sa
legg-e n. 218 del 1995, che disciplina, appunto, la rilevabilità
del difetto di giurisdizione del giudice
italiano (cosi: SS.UU. 24/03/2006 n. 6585);
5
- che neppure asta, alla ammissibilità del presente
il fatto che esso non si concluda con la formulazione
di specifici quesiti di diritto, stante la
già chiarita non riferibilità dell'art. 366 bis c.p.c.
che tale formulazione conclusiva prescrive per i motivi
di cassaz.ione - allo strùmento del regolamento prevéntivo
di cui all'art. 41 p.c., il quale non costituisce
un mezzo di i.rnpugnazione, bensi uno stru1uento apprestato
per consentira alle parti di ottenere, già nel corso
del procedimento di primo grado - e a condizione che la
causa non sia stata ancora decisa né nel merita, né su
questioni processuali - una pronuncia àefinitiva sulla
giurisdizione (cfr. Sez. un. 22059/07 e successive conformi)
.
Rilevato che, a sostegno dell' eccepi to difetto di
giurisdizione del Giudice italiano, la ricorrente
R.F.G., in particolare, sostiene che:
- con 1 1 a:ct. 77, comma 4 del Trattato di pace del
10 febbraio 1947 (decreta legislativo del Capo pro\rvi--
sorio dello Stato del 28 novembre 1947 n. 1430)
l' Italia avrebbe" :rimmciato a sua nome e a nome dei
cittadini italiani, a qualsiasi domanda di risarcimento
nei confronti della Germania e i. ci ttodini germanici
pendente alla data dell' 8 maggio 1945, con la sola ec-.
ceziohe di quelle relative a diritti acquisiti prima
6
1
1
.l
1
~
j
<
' j
-~
f
J
J
i
1
i
i
1
1
i
l
!
i
!
l
i
' t
!
i
'
1
D.P.R. n. 1263 d*'l 14 apcile 1962) con il qua33::: il Go~
le";
·"· a seguito d.i. detto Accordo~ J.a ~.;zpu~blica It.aliana
1 con il DPR n. 2043 del 6 ottobre 1963 ~:r~eva provveduto
alla ripa.rt.iz:ione dali.::i ~cœ.ttta ricevuta anche in
fac-.njre <.lei ''lavoratori non volon tari"';
- la ccgnizfone, in ordine e.lla present·e cont:rlnre:rsia1
del Giud1ce italiano sarebbe comunque esclusa dal
qtlanto p.r:ees:ist:.ebte - v. Corte cos ti tuz:ion::ale n. 4S del
j_ 7
---------------··--····-----·-----------~
qua. le
C.:;,ssazicr:;:::
~~ile
,,
'""'
,...,
, .... ,
/::~.y ''/•' .. i ·ji· .. ··.'-"'
/ "' ; / /
· ....... .
i ~ ...... : ~ .... • ..
:ri) ;
i!l :::\::el
.. ·t· :!it .. ·· /
1
1
.Jl_~---9-
\
·)·n,., (~n-tr-"AO al qiUd.ice eventualm.ente adit:O decide.re i -·"" .::-:,_...~;;; ~.::!·•'-' ~ -
,! nel merito in ordine alle domande .::Jggerto della rinun-·
ci a. e, in prtmo .Lv cgc, alla data ~
·'1-i ... acquisizione del
diritto);
diversamente o-pinando non si EJpiegherebbe
.l' impii;>gno assunto dalla Repubblica italiarra. di ''tene:r:
indemne la Repubblica Federale di Gerroani.a da cs-ni
even tu-ale azione o altra pretesa legale", né fatto
che la stessa R, F.G. abb.La istituito, con il concorsc
delle imprese tedesche c-.he si erano avv-alse del lavoro
dei depc.ct.a ti, una fanda zione ( "Memor.ia respon.sabi li tà
e future") anche per assic::urare un indennizzo alle vit~
tirne;
_,__ • 1
~~ 1..l-. prospettato difetto di giuriscfizione del·
'rribunale adico neppure. puà dirai i.mplicato c::W:i princip.i..
di diritto i.nterna:?.ionale in tema di immunità degli
S~a~i dalla giurisdizione civile;
che, per tal profiJ.o, le decisioni delle Cé:lrti
supraile_, nazionali ed eux:opea rlchiamate dalla ricorrente
non al tro ~:'tan no a dimostrare che cio di cui queste
Sezioni unite, con la sentenza n. 5044 del 2004, s~
erano dich.Lar-ate (Jià "consapevoli"': il fatto 1 vale a
àl.ce, che non esista 1 allo sr:,ato, una sicu.ra ed esp.Iicita
consuetudine in·ternazic-na.l·e per- cui il princ:ipio
-~-----------------,..-..-.:-.~~...., ... ~.----·~·-~·--·.····-- ----------------·----
d'~lla .i.wr:mn.it.2! dello .Stat.o )' stranie.::o dalla giurisdizic-
~ ":l . '1 ' ' . ' ' 1 CLVL e per gLl a~tl aa
.... :~~~' ~
-- rii {tra i quali
medesiJno compiut.i
innegabilmente rientrano anche quel li,
in partic:olare, relativi alla conduz.i.o::lé delle attività
belliche: cfr, r s. []. n. 8157/02) po:ssa ritenersi de~rogato
a fl:onte di atti di gravità tale da con.figurarsi
come ''cr imini con t.ro l' r.trtr,ani. tâ"';
per al'trc, le suddétte decistoni (anche
ra·gione della peculiarit~ delle fattispecie considerate
e dei particolari contes ti in cui sono state adottatf!)
ne:ppure possonç, altrettanto sicuramente, reputarsi
~spressi ve di una cc~suetudine di segna cP._oo.sto;
- che· anzi - come, t:ra l'al t.r:o, ém:èrge anche dalla
Relaz.ione di minoranza allegata alla sentenza CEDO .2l
novembre 2G01, ü1 ca.u.:::a Al- Ads.ani v. Reg .no Unito (che
trae nat ur a del divieto di tortu.r:a
l'inefficacia della regala di imrnunità) e da un significativD
obiter in :mot.ivazione della sucees siva sentendella
stessa Corte europea, 12 dicembre 2002, in
causa Kalogeropoulou and o_thers v; G.reece and Ger:many -
un principio liufi r.:ati llO dell' immunità dello St:ato che
si sia reso au tore di cr:i.rnini con·trc· l' U.'Uèn i tà pu ô pres
l.lffie r s J '' in <.ria di formazione";
che, di il principio consuetudinario di
i!PJ1u;:nità dalla gi.urlsdizione civile dello Stato strall

---------------------
ralle1o
uzic~i del Con~ig!io jj 5!c~rezza n.
~er !a ex Jugoslayia (a~t. 2 e 5; e la St&tu~c
!1
d2lla Convenzione coo la q_u.ale è stata
co.rte penai.e i.nternaz.ionale, sc-ttosc.::rit,ta
luglio 19.98 da ben 139 Stêiti (dei q-.1ali
120 ra.tificanti) ed entrata in vigore il 1" luglio 2dû2
{art. 7-8 J 1;
che l' innegabi.l<3 "antino:m:ia,., t.r'!i i :dferi ti princi
pi i quali ri sul tano entran:1.bi autontàticamente recepi
ti dal nostro ordinamento per effetto della norxua {di
produ:z:ione) di cui all'art. 10 della Cosr:ituzione - nel
momento in cui questi vang.a.no, come nella .specie, conten-.po.raneam.ente,
ed ant.agonisticamente, .in rilievo, non
puà altri.ment.i risolversi - di. cià questa Se:zioni uni·te
re.st2no persuase che, sul piano s.isteJna ticof dando
prevalen.za alle norme di rango più elevato (seconda il
criteria già pro.spettato dai giud1ci di minoranza nella
sopra citata CEDG 2~ novembre 2001);
che, infatti, come già sottolineato nelli3: senten-
:z.a n. 504 4 del 2004 di questa Corte, il rispetto deJ
di ri tti invio.labi l-i della persona ha asstlnto, anche
nell' ordina.:rruento inte.tnazionale, il ruolo di principio
fonèamem:.ale, pet' il sua contenuto &ssLologico di meta-
- che, nel ri.badire or.a le conclusioni cui sono gia
pervenut.:; con il ricordato p.r:oprio precedente, queste
Sëzioni uni te sono co:n.sapevoli di contribui.re cos 1 al.l.a
!3
-~~
~-···-.,·- ....,,
ersio.ne di t::::12. :c-oigola ccnfo:nn.ath.ra della imrnunità
dello stato estero, che si ritiene comunque g.i.à .insita
nel si.stema dell' ordina:nento internazionale.;
dottrina internazionalist:ica più attenta a1 tema che ne
interessa, sarebbe a dir poco ~incongruou che la giurisdizione
civ·i.le, che l" or-dinamento internazionale già
consente di esercitare nei confronti dello Stato straniera
in caso di vio1azioni., ad esso addebi tabili, di
obbligazioni negoziali, resti, in,.rece 1 esclu:sa a fr:onte
di ben più gravi lfiolazionL quali quelle costituenti
cr imini addiri ttura contr:o l' umanitci, e che segnano è.l:'lc:he
il punta di rot tura delF ese.!'."cizio tollerabile della
sov;r-anità.;
- c:ha tutto cio conferm.a che la Repu.bbliei3. Federale
Federale di Germa.nia non ha il di ri tto di e.ssere riconosciut.a,
nella presente controversia, im. .. rnt.me dalla
giurisdizione civile del Giudice italiano - cha va per-
<::ato dichiaz.·ata anche in rag.ione del fatto che la
condotta illecita si è verific,>ta anche in Italia,·
- che ogni qu"estione relativa all' esistenza del diri.tto
fatto valere in causa e alla stessa propon.ibilità
della demanda ri-mane naturalmente lmpregiudicata {art.
386 c .. p.c~}:
- C:b . .a ë> diversa soJuzione dsve, in-.rece, pervenlrsi.
di difetto di :;~iurisdizione
,J ~\:wd4ulata dalla Dalmlerchrysler in relazione alla doi~t)~da
d.i l.ndennino par erricchlmento senza causa 'i'Hle
:~)1jjjj~' proposta dag1i attori ne.i suoi confronci;
,:;;:;;~
Il
:lj~~[[,jl
:':''i:J
~~~ ·::l~i:~:
:;:;:~:t
,,,~--·t
11
·;;$;:::~
11
,'Jlil!1l
1!
::!:ft!:f]
.::::~!~::1
:~~1~~~
lt .. ' ·:-;·:·
;:t·~
·:):~! _,. ,,::~~··
.-:>:-.:
.<.:.:: ~
:~~·~.
.l!l
. _;~t[i~!:l
:w:.J
infatt.i, tàle domanda - alla luce della norma.tiva
di rifer:.imento, il re.gola..rn.ento CE 22/12/2000 :n.
44, correttarnent.e invocata d-alla ricorrente - non è ri~
conduciblle al non riSllltando
(la re la ti. va pr:ova incombe va sugli at.to.ri:
Cass. l9H n. 2004) che la società · convenu ta abbia in
Ital ia sedè statu't.aria o am..'Tiinist:raz.ione cent.rale oH
suc centre di attivitâ principale (art. 6G reg. CE), o,
comunque, ai sensi dell 1 art. 3 L 218/1995, un rappr.esentante
autorizzato a stare in giud5.zi.o;
neppu:re r. . .ro-r1ano a pp l ica z.ione ' i cri teri :;peci
ali ài cul. a1l'art. S reg. CE;
infatti, :n.e,lla di mat:.eria
contrattuale. a vende la. Corte di giustizia dellt:
comunità Europee sent. 5/2/2004 in causa c. 265/02)
costant2mente affermato che alla mate ria cont.rattuale
non possano ricondursi situa.zian.l. in cui difet~a un obbligo
1.Lberamente as:'E.mto da una :;:;2..rte nei confro:m::i.
dell' al trc. Her,t:ce nessu.r:a delle al tre .ipocesi. e.lencate
rtel.le. norme. specialde riguarda · l' arricch.L'nento senza.
causa, che l'art. 61 della normativa italianà sottopone
15
i
1
i~
-·,.,~-------- ----------------------------------- -------~·---------~--
-...,.-..;....-...... ....... ~.-~~=··~·-.····
··.- -;-:-:.-:::·:::::::::::_-_.)>'• . ----------··········-···········.·~---~~--
::: ,·-.·
[L.·:
·::·:-:-:-:.:-
··:.
;:·:····
· -~~J.:~_i· ~:r.~r.~_m_f~~_;:· :~~ ·rr-s: - :·-----
·<·:::·
1' <-... :./ .. f..~{."):~·~:~Ll1:~~ I:::1.2 (~:: -:t :_
,:t·::;:.:·;:.:l~_:·.:.t.::; _ff::!r:·;:.;·?n.,f! J
:' ·'
.. :::>{;;.. \ (: ... ,, ...... .()_......··""
'"
Atrlïfi: ~:;J:iM~
Chiti!.
--...... ""'-"""-.... -----------····--····· ··~··········
Translation
l4201/08 [seal: Republic of Ital y]
THE SUPREME COlJRT OF CASSATION
CIVIL DIVISIONS EN BANC
Consisting of the Honourable Justices:
Mr. Vincenzo CARBONE - First President -
~1L Alessandro CRISCUOLO - President of the Cham ber -
Mr. Mario Rosario MOREL LI - Jus ti ce Rapporteur -
ML Giovanni SETTIMJ - Justice -
Mr. Giuseppe SALME' -JusticeMr.
Salvatore SALVAGO -JusticeMr.
Aldo DE MATTEIS - Justice -
Mr. Fabrizio FORTE -JusticeMr.
Stefano BENJNI -Justice.-
ORDER
in the matter of the petition brought by:
[stamp: Supreme Court of
Cassation]
Subject:
Uv!MUNITY OF FOREIG
STATE FROM CIVIL
JURISDICTION --
LIABILITY FOR W AR
CRIMES- EXCLUSION
General Regîster Number
28420/05
249/06
Chron. 14201
index.
Hearing of 06 May 2008
C,C,
The Federal Republic of Germany, in the persan of the Ambassador pro tempore in Italy,
electing domicile at Via Duilio 13, Rome, in the offices of Andrea Petrillo, Esq., represented
and defended by Achille Accolti Gil, Esq., by virtue of the Power of Attorney at the bottom of
the petition;
- Petitioner -
versus
The Office of the Prime Minister, in the persan of the President pro tempore, electing
domicile at Via dei Pmioghesi 12, Rome, in the offices of the Solicitor General of Italy,
which represent and defend the Office of the Prime Minister ope le gis;
- Respondent -
versus
Lorenzo Marocco, Maurilio Borello, on his ovvn behalf and in his capacity as heir of
Achille Borello, Franco Fino, Domenico Bertasso, Franco Sicc.ardi, Ottavio Battista Pietro
Allasio, Ersilia Gof:fi, Elsa Oddenino (the latter two in their capacity as heirs of
Rinaldo Oddenino), Arma Maria Panicc.o, Riccardo Camino, Lorenzo Camino (the latter three
in their capacity as heirs of Elisio Carnino), and Bertino Crescente, electing domicile at Via
Nazionale 204, Rome, in the offices of Alessandro Bozza, Esq., who represents and defends
- 2 -
them, accordiog to the Special Power of Attorney drawn up by the Notary
Mr. Pierangelo Martucci of Turin, Repertory No. 72.785 of21 February 2007;
- Respondents by Power of Attorney -
and also versus
Giovanni ManteliJ, IOM - International Organization for Migration, DaimletChrysler AG,
Remembrance, Responsibility and Future Foundation;
- Defendants -
and in the matter of the second petition, General Register No. 249/06, brought by:
DaimlerChrysler AG, in the person of the legal representatives pro tempore, electing domicile
at Via A. Depretis 86, Rome, in the offices of Pietro Cavasola, Esq., who represents and
defends the company together with Fabio Bortolotti, Esq., Paolo Mollea Ceirano, Esq~ and
Cristina Martinetti, Esq., according to the Special Power of Attorney drawn up by the Notary
Mr. Oehrle of Sindelfingen on 23 November 2005, which is included in the record;
- Respondent and Cross-Petitioner -
versus
Giovanni Manteili, Lorenzo Marocco, Malliilio Borello, Franco Fino, Domenico Bertasso,
Franco Siccardi, Ottavio Battista Pietro Allasio, Ersilia Goffi, Elsa Oddenino,
Alma Maria Panicco, Riccardo Canuno, Lorenzo Cmnino, Enzo Bertino Crescente, IOM ---
International Organisation for Migration, the Remembrance, Responsibility and Future
Foundation, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Office of the Prime Minis ter;
- Defendants -
in the preliminary proceeding to establish jurisdiction relating to pen ding case No. 16123/04
hefore the Court of Turin;
having heard the arguments presentee! by Augusto Dossena, Esq., upon appointment by
Achille Accolti Cril, Esq., and Pietro Cavaso1a, Esq.;
having heard the report on the case given by Justice Mario Rosario Morelii in chambers on
6 May 2008;
having read the written conclusions of Deputy Public Prosecutor l\1r. Pasquale Ciccolo, who,
considering Art. 3 75 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requests that, upon the consolidation of
proceedings No. 28420/05 and 249/06, the Court of Cassation en banc grant the petitions of
the Federal Republic of Germany and DaimlerChrysler AG, and declare the lack of
jurisdiction of the Italian Courts conceming the demands made with respect to those
petitioners.
- 3 -
Fact and Law
Whereas
-An action for damages and compensation pursuant to Art 2041 of the Civil Code has
been brought before the Court of Tmin, against the Federal Republic of Gem1any and
Daim1erChrysler respectively, by Giovanni Mantelli and other Italian citizens who were
deported to Gennany after 8 September 1943 and used for fm·ced labour in the Reich's war
industry. In a petition accompanied by a memorandum and opposed by the defendants, the
Federal Republic of Gennany sought that the lack of jurisdiction be declared of the Italian
Courts over the Federal Republic of Gennany;
- DaimlerChrysler appeared before the Court, bringing a cross-petition that is to be
consolidated with the principal case, pursuant to _Art. 335 of the Civil Procedure Code;
-The Office ofthe Prime Minister ofltaly also appeared before the Court;
- In his \vritten argument, the Public Prosecutor argued the lack of jurisdiction of the
Italian Courts with respect to the Federal Republic of Gennany.
At the outset, we note that the proceeding to establish jurisdiction must be admitted as relates
to the question of jurisdiction of tJ1e Italian Courts with respect to foreign entities. No
impediment is posed by the fact that Art. 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure --as amended by
Art. 73 of Law No. 218, 1995, which abrogated section 2 ofthat Article--- refers to the lack of
jurisdiction of Ordinary Judges only with respect to the Public Authorities or Special Judges.
This is because the reference to Art. 3 7 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure made in Art. 41 of th at
same Code tor the detemünation of the sphere of application of the proceeding to establish
jurisdiction must now also he understood to refer to Art. 11 of the cited Law No. 218 of 1995,
which govems precisely the detennination of the lack of jurisdiction of the Italian Courts
(Accord: Cassation en banc; No. 6585 of24 March 2006);
- There is also no impediment to the admissibility of this petition to be found in the fact
that it does not conclude with the fonnulation of specifie questions of law; considering the
already clarified non-app.licability of Art. 366a of the Code of Civil Procedure - · which
requires such a concluding formulation for the pm-pose of review - to the instrument of
preliminary establishment of jurisdiction as set forth in Ari. 41 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, which do es not represent a means of rebuttal, but rather an instrument designed to
enable the parties to obtain a final ruling conceming jurisdiction al.Ieady during the
proceeding of the first instance, provided that no decision has y et be en made on the merits of
the case, or on procedural matters (Cf Cassation en banc 22059/07 and subsequent similar
mlings).
- 4 -
Vve acknmvledge the arguments of the petitioner the Federal Republic of Gcm1any in
suppmi of the lack ofjurisdiction ofthe Italian Courts, on the fo11owing particular grounds:
- By Art. 77, section 4 of the Peace Treaty of 10 Febmary 1947 (Legislative Decree of
the Interim Head of State No. 1430 of 28 November 1947) Ital y exptessly renounced, in its
own name and in the name of its citizens, ali claims for conipensation from Germany and
Gem1an citizens that had been pending as of 8 May 1945, excepting only those related to
rights acquired before 1 September 1939;
- Any problern regarding the applicability of tbat Treaty likewise to the Federal
Republic of Germany (wh1ch did not participate in the Treaty) should be considered
superseded by the subsequent agreement entered into with the Republic of Italy in Borm on
2 J1me 1961 ':lor the settlement of certain questions regarding assets, inca me and finances"
(irnpJemeùted by Presidential Decree No, 1263 of 14 Apri11962) by which the Italian
Govemment declared "that all the claims ... of Italian natural and legal persans ... resulting
from rights or claims which arose in the period bctween 1 September [1939] 1 and 8 May 1945
arc hereby settled," undertaking to hold "the Federal Republic of Gennany harmless from any
other potential actions or legal daims;"
- Following that Agreement, the Republic of Italy, by Presidential Decree No. 2043 of
6 October 1963, also distributed the sums received to "involuntary labourers;"
- In relation to this dispute, the jurisdiction of the Ita1ian Courts is in any case barred by
the p1inciple of state immunity for sovereign acts. This principle is universally accepted, and
is covered by the provision of Art. 10, Section 1 of the Constitution, which it also predates.
(See Constitutional Court decision No. 48 of 1979). The principle has also been constantly
affirmed by the Court en banc (See, most recently, Cassation en banc No. 11225 of 2005,
with reference to the "Argentine Bonds" case), with the sole exception of one case, which the
petitioner, the Federal Republic of Gem1any, has strongly criticized. In that decision,
No. 5044 of 2004, in a case similar to the one und er consideration here, the application of the
cited principle \vas derued essentially on the basis of the observation that the respect for the
inviolable rights of the human person has assumed validity as a fundamental principle of
intemational law, reducing the reach and scope of otber principles on which that system has
traditionally been based, such as that of the "sovereign equality" of states, which is linked to
the recognition of a state's imrnunity i1·om the civiljurisdiction of other states.
In the instant petition, we also admowleclge the following as furtber support for the
argument for permanent validity of the pr:inciple of immunity from the civil jurisdiction of
foreign states for acts that are an exprèssion oftheir sovereignty (acta iure imperii):
1 Translator's note: the date appears to have been omitted from the Italian text
- 5 -
- The recent judgements of other European Supreme Courts, including: the decision of
the Greek Supreme Court of 17 September 2002, the decision of the Gen11an Federal Court of
Cassation of 26 June 2003, the decision of the French Court of Cassation of
16 December 2003, the decision of the House of Lords of the UK Parliament of 14 June 2006
(in the case Jones v. Ministry Interim Al-Maulaka Al-Arabine AS Saudise and others);
- A ruling of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario from 2002 (in the Houshang
Bouzari2 case);
- Certain arrests canied out by the ECHR (21 November 2001 Al-Adsami and the
Govemment of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;
12 December 2002 Kalogeropoulou et aL v. Greece and German y; 14 December 2006
Markovic v. Italy);
- We also note that the decisions of the Comis of the United States cited in Decision
No. 5044/04 regaxd only states which "sponsor" terrorism, inasmuch as they are based on an
express provision of law (the 1996 amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of
1976), while the traditional principJe of immunity has been reaffirmee[ in numerous other US
decisions.
However, we note that, in the first place, the provisions included in the treaties of 194 7
and 1961 refen-ed to ab ove are not valid for purposes of denying the jurisdiction of the Italian
Courts, because:
- As fommlated, those provisions refer to questions of substantive law and not to
jurisdiction (as it is the responsibility of the presiding Judge to decide on the matter of
requests subject to waiver, and first of ali, the date of the acquisition oftbe right);
- Taking the opposite view would make it impossible to explain the obligation assnmed
by the Republic of Italy to "hold the Federal Republic of Germany harmless from any
potentiai actions or other legal claims," and the fact that the Federal Repub1ic of Genmmy
itself established a Foundation ("Remembrancc, Responsibility and Future"), with the
cooperation of the German comparues which had made use of the labour of the deportees, in
pari for the purpose of guaranteeing compensation for the victims;
- The proposed lack of jurisdiction of the presiding Co mi ca11 also not be considered to
be implied by the international law principles on the subject of the immunity of states from
civil jurisdiction;
- From tbat viewpoint, the decisions M the Italian and European Supreme Comis
referred to by the petitioner demonstrate nothing beyond that of whicb this Court of Cassation
en banc stated that it was already aware, in decision No. 5044 of 2004: nam ely the fact that, at
this time, no definite and explicit intematlonal usage exists vvhich holds th at the immm1ity of a
2 Translator's note: this surname has been misspelt in the Italian tcxt
- 6 -
foreign state :from civil jurisdiction for actions committed by that state acta iure imperii
(whicb indisputably inc1udes, in particular, those reiated to the conducting of warfare
activities: Cf Cassation en banc No. 8157/02) can be considered derogated when dealing with
actions so grave asto be elassified as "crimes against humanity;"
- Moreover, the above-cited decisions (including by reason of the peculiar nature of the
cases consideree! and the specifie contexts in which they were adopted) can equally certainly
not be consideree! to express a conflicting, opposite usage;
- To the contrary, as emerges in the Dissenting Opinion accompanying the ECI-IR
Decision of 21 November 2001, in Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom ('-'vbich derives the
unenforceability of mies on immunity from the legally binding, nature of the prohibition
against tmiure) and in a significant obiter in the grounds provided for the subsequent decision
issued by that same Court on 12 December 2002 in the case Kalogeropou1ou and others v:
Greece and Gennany, a principle limiting the immunity of the state which has committed
crimes against humanity can be assumed to be "in the process offom1ation;"
- Thus, tbe cùstomary princip le of irrnnunity from the civil jurisdic:tion of a foreign state
(intended to favour international reLations with reciprocal respect for sovereignty) co-exists de
facto in international law with the other, parallel principle, of an equally general scope, which
ho!ds that international erimes "threaten humanity as a whole and undermine the very
foundations of the co-existence of peoples" [as stated verbatim by Decision No. 53 of the
Constitutional Court of Hungary of 1993; and, simiJarly, inter alia, tho se of the Criminal
Court for the Fonner Yugoslavia, 10 December 1998 and 14 January 2000; ECHR,
21 November 2001, A. v. 1Jnited Kingdom). At the level of the intemational cmmnunity, "the
depmiation and use of deportees for forced labour" is considered a crime against humanity.
This emerges unambiguously from, inter alia, the Charter of the United Nations sîgned in
London on 8 August 1945, in Art. 6, letter b ); Resolution 95 of the United Nations General
Assembly of 11 December 1946, the principles of international law adopted in June 1950 by
the Commission of the United Nations, sub VI, Security Council Resolutions No. 827/93 and
No. 955/94, by which the Charter of the Intemational Criminal Court for the Fonner
Yugoslavia was adopted (Arts. 2 and 5), and the Chmier of the International Criminal Court
for Rwanda (Art. 3) was adopted; and, lastly, the Convention by which the International
Criminal Court was established, which was signed in Rome on 17 July 1998 by 139 states
(120 of which have also ratified the Convention) and entered into force on 1 July 2002
(Alis. 7-8)];
- The Court of Cassation en banc is convinced that the undeniable "antinomy" between
the cited principles - which have both been autornatically adopted by our legal system as a
result of the provision in Art. 10 of the Constitution - at the moment in which they come into
,.., - 1 -
play simultaneously, and adversarialiy, as in the case at hand, cannat but be resolved on a
systemic level, by giving precedencc to the higher-1evel provisions (according to the criteria
already proposed by the dissenting justices in the cited ECIIR case of 21 November 2001);
- Indeed, as this Comi's Decision No. 5044 of 2004 a1ready stressed, respect for the
inviolable rights of the persan has also assumed the position of a fundamental principle in
intematjonallaw, due toits axiologjcal content of supreme value;
- in reaffirming here the conclusions which have already been reached in the cited
precedent, this en banc session of the Co mi is aware that it is contributing to the emergence of
a formative mle conceming the immunity of a foreign, state, which it believes is already
implicit in the system of international law;
- For that matter, as has also been stressed by the internationalist legal scholarship
which most foHows this issue, it wou1d be "inconsistent", to say the ]east, for civil
jurisdiction, which the intemational legal system already allows to be exercised \Vith respect
to foreign states in the event of violations of contractual obligations attr:ibutable to them, to
then be excluded when faced with much graver violations, such as those which constitute
crimes against humanity, and which aiso mark the breaking point of the tolerable exercise of
sovereignty;
- All that has been stated confinns that the Federal Republic of Gem1any does not have
the right io be recognized as immune from the civil jurisdiction of the Italian Courts in this
case - and this should therefore be declared- including on the grounds that the illicit conduct
took place in part in Italy;
- Any questions relating to the existence of the right claimed in this case, and the
· standing to bring the request, are naturally tmaffected (ArL 386 6f the Code of Civil
Procedure);
- A different conclusion must be reached, however, regarding the argument for the lack
ofjurisdiction fonnulated by DaimlerChrysler with respect to the action for compensation due
to unjust enricbment, as brought by the plaintiffs against the company;
- Indeed, in the light of the regulation of reference (EC Regulation No. 44 of
22 December 2000, which \Vas properly cited by the plaintiff), that action cannat be covered
by general jurisdiction as ideniified in Art 2, since it has not been shown (the burden of proof
lay with the plaintiffs: Cassation No. 2004, 1974) that the defendant company had a statutory
seat or central administration, or its principal place of business, in Italy (Art. 60 of the EC
Regulation), or in any case, pursuant to Art. 3 of Law 218/1995, a representative authorized to
appear before the Comi tbere;
-The special criteria set forth in Art. 5 of the EC Regulation are also not applicable;
- 8 -
- In tact, the case at hand does not relate to a contract, since the European Court of
Justice bas constantly affim1ed that situations which lack an obligation freely assumed by one
party towards another, cannot be covered by matters relating to a contract (Sec the judgement
of 5 Febmary 2004 in Case 265/02). While none of the other hypotheses listed in the special
provision regards unjust enrichment, which Art. 61 of the Italian law malœs subject to the law
of the state in which the facts which led to the obligation took place. In the case at hand, that
means the forced labour perfomwd in Germany;
- A similar conclusion could also be reached by applying the special criteria in Art. 5
No. 3 of tbe EC Regulation, given tbat the hannful event of which the company is charged
(the exploitation offorced labour) took place in the terri tory of German y;
- The delicate and complex nature of the implications of these proposed questions of
j urisdiction justifies the setting-off of the exp ens es for the proceeding between the p artîes.
FOR WHICH REAS ONS
The Court, sitting en banc, having consolidated the two petitions, declares that the Italian
Courts have jurisdiction as regards the action for damages brought against the Federal
· Republic of Ge1many, and that they lack jurisd1ction as regards the parallel action for
compensation with respect to DaimlerChrysler. Tbe expenses are set off.
Rome, 6 May 2008
The President
[signed]
[stamp and signature of the Clerk of Court]
[stamp]: Deposited in the
Office of the Clerk of Court
29 MA Y 2008 (signature]
- 9 -
[starnp]
Copy in conformity with its original, issued at the request
ofMr [handvvTitten] PETRILLO in legal form.
Rome, 6 nJNE 2008
[stamp and signature ofClerk of Court Cl
Antonella Fontana]
N.I. COPY: Legal
DUTIES €: 0
STAl\1PS Nos.: 0
By MR: PETRILLO
DATE: 06/06/2008
- 10 ·-
~:~--;~PY• For ~hJdi: --- -;;,~~;~~-~~-:a~---------l--~~--~~-;;-~~:;-·--
1 1
I
l DUTJES €: 0 DUT!ES €: 0 i DUTIES E: 0
i
i STA.1\-!PS 'Nos.: 0 STAMPS Nos.: 0 i STAMPS Nos.• 0
1 \
~ By MR• Off. By MR: CAVASOL\ i Bv MR: draft 1 i "
i DATE: QS/06/~ DA'Œ 05/06/2008 _______ i DA 'T'§: 05/06/20Q§__
Number: 14201
Year: 2008
Civil
N 1 COI'Y' Leg>~ T, C~!'y, l<g•! __ _
DUTIES €. 3.1 1 DUT!ES €. J.l
ST AMPS Nos.• 0
By MR: [illegible]
DA TE: 05/06/2008
. 1 STAMPS Nos. • 0
1
By i'v!R• [illegible]
DA TE: 05/06/2008
112_1 uuz
108 11:47 FAX +39 06 36917152
.. ?~,:"n~-L O) /~i'"~
MAE DGEU UFF. 1 ~CL UNLI~ ~lVlLl PAG
c.~·
SEZIONI ONIT~ CIVIL!
:Dott. Vincenzo CP.RBONE
Dot~- Alessandro
Mario Rosario MO"FŒLLI ReL Cons igli,e.re ~.G.N. 34323/06
Dott. ;,.
Giovanni SETTIMJ - Consigliere - t::ron..
Dott:.
Dott, Giuseppe S?.LMEJ' ~ Consigliere - Rr&p,
Dott. Salvatore SALVAGO - Consiglier!S - Od.0&)05/013
Dott. Aldo DE YlliTTEIS - Con.siqliere - C!~CQ
Dott. Fab.dzio FORT!: - Ccnsigliera -
Dott. Stefano BEN!NI - Consigliere.-
ha ?ronunciato la seguente
ORDINANZA
sul ricorso propasto da:
RE1?Dl3BLICA FEDERALE DI in pe.rmma
del1 1 .t>.m.basdatore accreditato pro-tempo:re in ItaJ.ia,
elettivarnente domiciliata in Rct-iA.s VIA DUILIO 13,
pressa la studio dell'avvocato ' ... ' .. ~
rappr:esentar:a e difesa dall'avvocato ACCOLTI G!L
ACHILLEÇ giusta dele~a in cales al ricorso;
conî:.ro
2008 PRESIJJEN.ZA DEL CONSIGLXO DE! MINISTlU, in persona del
52.] Presidente pro-tempoxer ~le~tivamente domiciliats in
.1
.:.:-:.:-.'!""··""··"""'"""'"-~--------
'ù8 11·47 FAX +39 06 36917152
D3/06 · ···uo. J.e.;: '-1-::J t:lbbt:iO::ICJtl':l
1{AE DGEU UFF · l
SEZ Ur~ITE CIVIU L- ~~ ~..I.Jf' !..:'..'-'
, . . ·I'
VIA DEI PORTOGHESI 12, pressa l' AV"J'OCA.TtTFA
GENERALE DELLO STATO, che la rappr:esenta e difend·:! ope
legis;
HA!ETTA LIBERATO;
per regolament:o preveAïtiyo di g-il;;!J:: isdiz±one
relazione al giudizio pendente n. 221/04 del Trib'male
di 3CIACCA;
udito l~avvocato DOSSENA per dE~.l.sga
dellravvocato Achille Accolti Gil;
udita la relazione della causa svol t.a nella c.&mera di
consiglio il 0 5/05/08 dal Consigliere Dott. Na.rio
?,osa.!:'io MORELLI;
lette le conclusi.on.i sc.ritta
---------- Generale Dott. Pasquale CICCOLO il qua le~ visto l' a.::t. - -~
-· ----
375 c.p_c,p chiede che. l€ Sezioni unite della Co.rte, in
accoglin<.ento del rico:cso dellaa Repubblic:a FederalE• di
Germania, d.ichia.rino il difetto di giu.risdi2 Long_ .. -··. _ ___.._ _ __.. ., '-~~·- .~.~·· . .... ,. ~"'-
dell'autorita giudiz.iaria italiana sulla d.omanda
~· ··-----·"'-"'-··-·~···~-· ·-··- ·-· . . ·-··-~·· ., __ ..., ~--· "•··------
proposta nei ccnfronti di essa ricorrente. ~ ......... -~-- '"'.
Fatto e di:r:i..tto
Ri.tenuto che - in relaz:i.one 2d una causa di ri!i arcimente
da~~l instau~ata, davanti al Tribunale di
2
!.f!.j UUJ
PAG 03/14
.· .. · ....
J '
.
/
v
;'·~
/ 1 ,/ .
MAE DGEU UFF. I
SE2 UNITE CI\JILI PAG B4/14
Sciacca, nei confronti dr;;lla Repubbli.ca F~der:a1e di.
G e::r:ma ....
~., =, da Ll'\.e"""'ta J..l ... "' ""a· , •• ~et~a •· c.., '"'i".,..ad'r.lo
""-~"" .. "'-'taliano catturato
dalle fo~ze militari tedsscne ed utilizzato, durant~
il periodo compreso .tra il settemb!e 1943 ed il 5
rnaggio 1.945 )?resso imprese tedeache q!.lal12 lavoratore
fon:ato- la stessa F!..F.G.; con ricorso illust.r'ato anche
con memoria e resistito d.all' intirna~or ha pro:?osto
regolamento preventive_)' p.er sen.t.ir di-&hi-a-t-a:r-e i'l d:.i:'f'et-
'CO di gi urisdizione, nei suoi. confronti 1 del Gi11dice
it.aliano;
- Che si è costituita la Repubblica italia~a;
- cha il P.G., nella sua r~quisitoria sc.ritta, ha
concluso per la dsclarato:ria del difetto ·di giud sdizione
del Giudice italiano~
i?ren~.esso, in limine, che il .regolamento preventi vo
di giu.risdizione deve ritensrsi a.mmissibile relati,ramente
alle questioni. sulla sussistanza. o ro.eno dc=lla
giuri13dizione italiana nei confront.i di soggetti s·:.ranieri,
senza ch~ vi asti la ci.::rcostanza che 1r a.rt. 37
c,p.c. - cosi come'modificato dall.'ar:t. 73. 1. 199.': n.
218" che ne ha abrogata il coi1Ul1a 2 - m.<Snzioni il difetto
di giurisdizione d~l giudice o~d~n~r~o ~~1' sAl' c - .. "'- "' """" ,_, ::. :or.-
fronti della p,a. o dei g;i.uclic:::e specialil' qiacchè il
rinvio .recett:izio ope:r:ato dall'ar'C. q,l c.p.c, alPar:t.
37 dello stesso codice pe.r la dete:rminaziane del canpo
~!Ah LJGt:LI Urf.l
SE2 UNITE CIVILI
di applicazione d!Bl regolamento di giurisdi:d.on9 dev·e
intendersi ora riferito anche all'art. 11 della Etessa
legge n. 218 del 1995, che disciplina, appunto, la rilevabilità
del difetto di giu.risdizione del giudü:e
italiano (cosi: SS.UU. 24/03/2006 n. 6585):
- rihe neppure osta, alla ammissibilita del presente
ricorso~ il fatto che ess~ non si aoncluda con la forrnulazione
di .spep,if;i,.ci q:u.e.s.it.i di -cl-i-ri r.to·;. stant.e Ja
gH. chiarita non riferibilita dell'art. 366 bis c.p.c,
che tale formulazione conclusiva pl=""escriv-e per i m.,~tivi
di cassa2.ione - allo strurnento del regolarnento p:r;-w;;ent.i:vo
di cui all'a.rt. 41 p.c .. il quale non costitnisce~
un msz2o di irnpugnazione, ber:uü un a st:rwnento appr~~stato
per consenti!t"e alle pe.rt.i di ottsnere r già riel ç;or.9o
deJ. prccedimento di primo g.raclo - e a c.ondi:zione ::he la
causa non sia stata ancora dec:isa né na:L m!l!rito, n2 su
quastioni processuali - una pronuncia definitiva sull~
giurisdizionB (cfr. Sez. un. 22059/07 e successive =onfermi)
.
Ri.levato che, a sastegno ~t!!ll;eccepito difettc di
giur:isdizione del Gi1.4dice italiano, la ricornmte
a.F.G,, in particolare, sostierie che:
- con 1 1 art. 7 7, co!'!'.ma 4 del Tr:attato di pace del
10 febbraio 1947 (dec:reto legislative del Capo p.!.·ovllisorio
dello Stato del 29 novembre 1_9"ï 1"3 os n. 'i ~ o)
4
PAG 05/14
/
·fJ 1,1
1 ' 1
C}! !; /,
x +39 06 36~17152 03/DB '0& 11:47 FA uuuoo~~~~ ...!..-· --• _,_,_..J . .i..WI'. -T.J
~!il.h lJGi:,U urt.l
SEZ UNITE CIVIL! PAG 05/14
.l'- Italia avrebba rinunci?-to a .suo nome 6 a nomn dei
ci ttadini i taliani. a qualsis.si dornanda di risarc:imento
nei confronti della Ger:mania e 1 ci ttad.ini germanic:i
pendente alla data dell 1 8 maggio 1945,.. con la sol·~ ecce:don:e
di quelle relative a diritti acquisi ti .?riin.a
ogni problema ~ ordin~ all'applicabilità del
detto Trattato anche ;alla Re:gW;blica î~de:n1Ve r:r ... Gm:rtiania
(che :non vi aveva P,artscipa.to) dovrebbe intencle:rsi
superata dal successive a~corda ~tipulato con la Repubblica
Italiana a Bene il successive 2 qiugnc 1961 ~pex
il regolamento d'alcune qve3tioni di c~rattere pat1imonia.le
economico e fill<ln:td.<:!.rio" (reso esecutivo e::on il
D.P-R. n, 1263 del 14 aprile 19ô.2} con il quale il Gavern
a i taliano aveva dichia,re.to "ch~ sono defini te ·::utte
le rivendic:azioni ,, di persone fisiche e giurid:.che
italiane ... derivanti da diritti o r:agioni soJ:ti nel periodo
tra il 1" setternbte e l' B maggie l945f assU.Tt\Endo
1' impegno a tener "indenne la. Repl.lbb.Uca Federale di
Germania da ogni eventuals azione a altra p.rete.sa lega-
- a SGgui to di detto Ll:\ccordo, la R~pubblica Ital.Lana,
con il DPR n. 20 43 del 6 ottob:re 1963 av-ava prov1reclm:o
alla r ipartiz:ione de lJ.a somma .ri.cevuta anch.e in
favore dei "lavorator:i. non volont.ari";
l\1.!\C jJVC..I.} urr- . .t.
U~~UH Ul 11:4~ SEZ UNITE CIVIU: rAA ......, -~ ._,r_.,~ -:;-vw A. r.• • '"T<...l
+Jtl UD ..)ù>=!.L I.L~.<:
CJOOOO.::J'-tc:J::J
~ '
- la cognizion~, in ordine alla presente cont!oversia
del Giudice i talièna saxebbe comunque esclus.3. dal
principio (universalm!'!nte accett:ato e rientran"te·, in
quanta pr.eesiatente - y, Corte costituzionale n, 48 del
1979 - nella previsione dell 1 art. lOF prima cowma 1el1a
Costitudone) della imm.uni tà degli stati per gli at ti
espressione deJ.la loro smrranità, e:ostante.rnente Zl.Efersez.
un. n. 11225 del 2005, ~on riferimento al casa dei
e oce t. t.o che nêll' unie a decü:i one
- dalla Repubblica ricorrênte fermemente criticata - n,
5044 del 2004, con la qua.le, in una fattispeaie analoga
a quella in esam~, l 1 app1icazione del suddetto principio
è stata :ne ga ta sul rilievo r in sintesi, che il ri-
9petto dei diritti inviolabili della persoha wrrana
avrebbe assunt:o il valore di p:rincipio fon.daman1~ale
dell"ordinamento .internaz:icnale., riducendo la portata e
l' a:rubi to cU alt:d p.rincipi ai gŒaJ.i tale. o.rdinamentc si
è tradizionalroerite ispirato, qua le g:uello sulla.
"scr<n:·ana uguagl iam;a" degH Stati, cui' si collega il
riconoscimento della i!l'.nmni'cà .statale dallà giuris:l.izions
civile st~aniexa.
:Ril~vato a.ltresi ehg, nell' odlerno ri corso, ad 111~
Teriore con:fo.rto della tesi della pex:m.anente validità
del principio della imnunità dalla giurisdizicne civile
6
PAG
"J';.
.·-';/
.; /
~·1 /.
/ ' . 1
'08 11.:48 FAX +39 DB 3691715~ O:J/06
MA . .E !Jbr~ u ul:' t'. · .!
...Jt--l- UI~.L !C. t_.l VLLJ..
dello stato strani~ro par gli atti ~iure imperiin:
- si. r:ic::hia.m.ano .recenti pronu.nzi~ di aJ.t.te corti
suç.:teme eu.ropee, Qtlali, in part:icol <tre1 le de cisio:ü 17
settem.bre 2002 del1at Corte Suprerna greca, 26 gi.ugno
2003 della cort:e Federale di Cassaziane tede.soa, 1·3 dicembre
2 003 della Corte di Cassaûone :franceser J.4 giu-.
çtno 2 006 dslla Bouse of Lords (in causa Jone!s v. rti.nistry
Interior Al~Maulaka 1-\l-A:rabine fl....S ~?,pdi.se anc. ot.,.
hers} •
- si riJ?orta · 1.ma s entenza del 2002 della Supe.:r:Lo.:c
court of Justice dell'Ontario (in causa Houshang Bcuyari);

- si richiamano pu:rs arresti della CEDCJ ( 21 novemb.re
200), .fü-Adsami e Gcvsrno Re gno Unito Gran Br~t~t:J.gna
e Irlanda del ~ord; 12 di~ernbre 2002 Aalaqeropoulou ec,
c. G.:recia e Gei:mania: 14 dicernbre 2006 Mar.kovic c. ::t.alia);

5i pr.ecisa, inoltre, che le decisioni dslle Ccrti
cieg.ti Stat:i. UniL:i c.itate nslla .SI'.!întenza n. 504t.I(04, in
quanta fandate su un'espressa previsions nonmativa
(emendaJ:nento del 1996 aJ. Foreign. Sove.r:eign I.mrn\n•i t ie.s
Act del 197 6} rig-uarda.no e8c1us:i•;rmante. gli st.il.ti
''sponsor'' del terrorisme, rnentre in nu.'l.le:r:ase aJ.tre tiacis.i.ani
statuni terrsi Ill ste.to riaEfermato il t~adiz.iona-
Î
Lfi.J uu"
PAG BB/14
:: 7
·/
)
;:;/.
J
'
'0& 11:48 FAX +39 Oô 369lï152 OJ/OÔ uvw• .. H.0-..1"1"'-';1
MAE DGEU UFF.l
S~ UNITE CIVIL! --- ~ -· -r·-.....-- ~
ad ascludere la giu:risdizione dal giudice italiaJ'lO le
disposizioni. contenut~ nei tratta~i del 1947 e del 1961
prima richiamati, atteso che:
- co si corne formula te, le mede.sirns si riferi s cono
1
2!.i . Npporti di.ri tt:o sasta.nziale e nor. alla giurlsdizic;~
ne (spe~:tando al giudice &ventual:memte .adito dec;i.dere
cia e, in primo luogo, alla data di acquisiz:Lone del j
diritto);
· diversamt'lnte opinando non si .spieghe:;ebbe '
l' impegno assu .. t"l.to dalla Repubblica italiana di "tener
i.ndenne la Repu..bblica federale di Gem,a.ni.a da oqni
eventuale azione o alt..ra p.retesa legale", né il .fatto
che la !':<tessa R. :tr. Q. a.bbia isti t:ui to, con il concor.so
deU.e irnpress:. tedesche che si er,:mo av-val se del lavoro
dai deportati, una fonda:zione ("Memo.da respo:nsabilit.?l
!!'! future") ar1che per 11ssicurare un indennh:zo alla 11itt.irne;

-che il prospetta.tc difetto ài giu:dsdi;don6l del
Tribunale adi to neppure puà dirsi implic:ato dai p:cincipi,
di dixi tto internaziona1e in tema di immu.ni!:à d<;gli.
Stati dalla giurisdizione civile:
- .che, pe:::- ta1 pro.:Eilo,. le d~cisioni delle Ccrti
supre::rne, na'zionali ed eu:ropea richiaro.at.e dalla :rico.r-
4ZJ UU"
PAG 09/14
03.!06 ,'08 11:48 FAX +J9 06 36!-H7152 --· ~-, ~--- -~~~~ ~uuuc~~u~
~iAc IJL.t: U L'tl' · !
SI:-_L UNITE CIVILI
..::
rente: non altr.o st:anno a dimostrare cbe cio di cui que-
-------- --,.o<o~-·-.a~~-.... --._, ,·-----..... --
ci ta consuetudin121 intarna:donale per . cui il principio .. ~ -... _....,~-----~--
della iromunità dello Stato st~aniero dalla giur;sàiziqm
ne civile oer ali ati:i dal medesimo camniuts iure i.lnpe- ~ "" ~
··-, ... -.., , ..... --~-·-~·-
._, __________ _ --...__._.---,,...,......, .... -.
.,._ ... ,_,_..-.~...-'""'
in particolare, relativi alla condu::z:ione delle attLvità
belliche: dr., S.U, n, 8157/02) passa ritenersi d.erogato
a f:ronte di at ti di g-ravi tà tale da ccnfigu;:arsi ,.-·----.~~-~.._ ... ,...._ ....... --.. ~ . -· ,, __ , ............ '~--u........---------....--~-~-·-··"'-,..,._,_._.--.,_,~~ ... ~
come "crimini contra l r umani ta'';
- ohe, per altro, le suddette dccisioni (anche in
ragione della peculi,ari ta de.lle fattispecie cons.i.dE:ra.te
s tiei particolari contesti in cui sono state adotta~e)
n.eppure possono, alt:r:ettanto sicurame:J:"!te~ reput ar si
~sprËssive di una consuetudine di ssgno opposto;
. - c:he am.:i - camer tra l'alt:ro, emerge anche dalla
Rela:zione cli m.ir"Joranza alleg-P.tb. all~ senten:Za C8Dtr 2l
novembre 2001, in causa Al- Actsani v, Regno Unito (che
----~--~-~--·-·"' ..:...__.._
tras dalla na.tu:ra cogente del divieta di tor:ura
l' .ine:f:Eicacia della :regala di irornunit:.à) e da un siçrn.ifica.tivo
obiter in motivazione della suc:cess:i.va senten-
2:a, della stc;ssa Corte ·auropea, 12 dicernbre 2002 1 in <... _________....... __ _,.
cauea ~alogeràpoulou and others v. Greace and Germany -
PAG ltJ/14
/il /.: l
/Ï Y1
/'
·~· 1·
·'O$ 11 : 49 FAX +39 os 36917152 03~06 -~-~~ uuuao~~o~
MAE DGEU Ur'f · 1
SEZ UNITE CIVIL!
--· --· -----
un principio lünitadv-o dell 1 i:mmunità dello .Stat:J che
·-----
s:.. sia reso au tore di cr imini c:ont::::o l' umani tà p11t! pra- ,_...,....-.... _____ ._..~~-----.. ---....._
'-
sumersi "in vi<l di formszione";.
- che, di fattor il principio cons1.\studinarLo di ~~...-tAÇC(ill'i\iU 'ç
im.n:.unità dalla f,liurisdizione civile delJ_a St:ato stra-
; '
niero (volto a favorire le relazioni internazionali con
i;·~petto delle rsciproche sovraniU~­ que, nell' ordinamentQ inte:rnaZ-i-c.ma-1-~, con ·1:-"-d"l't"l:(l pa- ~-~- ··~~---- ________... w__,,. ·~---'"'·-• _.,...._,.,_ • ..... ,_ - ... ,..,,.,_.,.., ~ ___ ._............,..,._-.,.,,...,""'-"''!
,,.-~-
rallelo princ:.ipio, di pari porta ta g_?:!,l-~Fa~.~~ .. ,per ~ui i ·~:;: :.::,.', ~.;.. '.}.•• "' ... --..:. ,_,........, , ,,_... ,-,a~"''~~..,..,,.,._.._,,,_, ~o ~--- ,,----"' ''' ,_,.-,..,..- "•, 0:."'~"~..... 0
c.r.irnini :i.ntern.B.zionali "rnin~ccièWO l' umdni t~ inte!ra e t ............. ·~··· ···J.J•-'_. ..... ,.(I.c.;, • .... • -.,1·'·~·~~-~·-···---c>-·· ~:;o.o.....----~'"'~_..--.. ............ "6........-.. __ ... _ •• ' ~ F• ;.;,.,.,. ..... "'' .-/~'"- .
.min.ano le fo.ndaJnenta .s'tesse della ~oesistes::z::a t:r;a i po- ~~"......___.,.._ .... ~ .. v .... - ,.;;, , ...... ..-_.._,, _.,~· .. _.......-·~-·""'ln.,..,_- .... , ......... -""'"'~',..,.__"~~'~~~~ .. , ···~ -.._ ...... .-.. ~
bre 1998 e 14 gennaio 2000; CEDU 21 nov~rnbre 2001 1 A,
\l'. R~Sgno Uni to) . Come tale --co:ri.e c:rimine cioè · cc.nt:ro
l''~anità- venendo in particolare, seropre a livello di
comuni t:à internaziona.le, considera ta "la depo:c:ta:done e
l'a$sogqe~tarnento dei deportati al lavoro forzato~ [corne
inequii:rocabilmente, t.ra l'alt:ror emerge dalla statuto
delle Nadoni Unite fi.rmat.o a Lond:r:a 1 1 6 agosto 1345 1
sub art, 6, lett, b); dalla Risoluzicns 95 dell'll dicembre:
1946 della A.ssemblea Generale delle N.U., dai
Principi di diritt.o internazi.or;~'"-le adottati nel giHgno
1950 dalla Com.Tfl.issione delle N.lT., suh Vl, dall~ RisoJO

PAG ll/14
/,'
./
1
.'/
/;
Jf}-1
/ .. ·1
/
M}.E DGE'U UFF. l ~t:L UNI TE CIVILI
1uzioni del Consiglic di Sicurezza n. 827/93 e n.
955/94, con le quali sono stati adottati, rispettivamente?
la .st5.euto del Tribunale penale internazionaJ.e
pet" la ex Jugo.slavia (a.rt, 2 e 5) e lo statuto dêll Tribunale
penale inte:r:nazi~piüe pS!r il ~uanda (art. 3) i
sia 1 infine, dal)..a ·CCJTJ'VE:-Il:Z.i.~ne con la quale A§. stat-a
\
1
istituita la/ Cal::'te penale i.."'l'ternazionale, sottoscritta
il / ' "'--~------+'-t:-.. .::::· .. :::::.: .. :::::~~q~~~ """~·-·•: '• ~~ ··-•"->"00'-»-'-·~-:-w··,.,..'i
a Roma i 1"-~:z:JS"?J:.-~-~~~:- -~~-~- ~-.. ]:~J.:~::S.:~~. (dei rrmrli
120 ratificanti) ed entrata in vigore il 1" luglio 2002
(art, 7-8)];
- Che l' innegabile "antinomia" tra. i rife:riti I=•rincipi
- i quali riaultana entrambi auto~ticamente rea~-
pi ti dal nostro ordinamento pe.t effetto della norma (di
produzione) di cui all~art. 10 della Costituzione ~ nel
ro.arnento in cui que.sti vengano, come nella. specif!!, ::.ontemporanea:mente,
ed ant.agonisticament.ev in rilie'lio, nan
puo altrirnenti risolve.r.si - di cio queste SS!zioni unite
.restan.o pe:r:suase - chG, sul piano sistemat.ico, dëtndo
ptevalenza alle norme ài rango piû elevato (seconda il
crite~io già prospettato dai giudici di rninoranza nella
sopr~ citata CEDU 21 novembre 200l);
- che, infatti, come gié scttolineato nella senten-
--------~··--~--··
.za 1'1 •• 5044 del 2004 di questa Corte, il rispetto dei
dirit:ti inviolabili dell a per.sona ha assunto p anr:he
nell' ordinam!;!nto internazio:nale, i 1 :r;uoJ.o di principio
11
PAG 12/14
. ·?.'l
'' 1 ')
/' //
,•j;-}t'
JI 1
'
u~~ 1 u o UO Ll: I.G~ rttA. +--.1~. -~·0- _J_O,~l._,J 1 ;)/:
-' t le p"·r il suc ccnt:enuto a.ssiologico di .:ne.ta- f onaa..-nen ~a . , "' -
1
vaL ore;
~ che 1 nel rib<:td:irG ora le conclu.sioni cui son·~ già
perllsnute CD!".l iJ, ricordato pzaprio precedente/ ~: .. es::_, 1·
se .üo:rd,
~
uni te sono cons.~p.evoli di con.tribuire co si alla \
----- emersions ài \..11la re~ol a con!..~ti'Va della ;mnr.mi tà
-----~-121M ~"
dello .Stato estero, che si dtiene comuncrue già ..i.'Jsita
____.....-
nel sist.enla dell' ordi.namento interna~_;~~.ale 1
':l'nef del resto, come anche !lOttalineato dalla
dottrina intern.azio.r.alist.ica. più att~nta al tema c;:f.e ne
sd.i::::iane ci vile r cb.e l' ordil'\.;!mento internaz3.onale giâ
consente di es erc:i tare ne:i confranti dello Stato s traniera
in ca~a d:i v·iolazioni, 'ad e-.sso addebitabili, di
obbliga:zioni :negoz:iali, :cesti, imrece, esclusa a fronte
~----------~--~~
d.i ben j?iù gravi v-iol azioni, quali quelle cos ti h1::mti
crimini ~ddirittura ccntxo lrumBnita, e che segnano an~
clle il punta di, rottu.ra dell'eserdz:io tollerabila! 1iel- .. .... ________ _ ·----~--.. ·~-··1•,.. .-..~--...-- .... -:---......."' - .... .. ....-:->•<r-~- ...
la sovranite;
~··
- c:he t.utto cio conîerrua ch~ la Repubblica Federale
Fed!.!!r::ale di Germania non ha iJ. d.ixitta di esse;r;e r:.i c.o- ~ldwu * 7b l rimtn loi!'~ Z:W Il CT'"'...,..ii:Crr:~ ·~
no .sei uta,
- nella presente controversia, -""'·--~~~
:i..'rtu'nune dalla -U.r'>' M JiP'Z"llltrr ~ i&'tltil!liBaia
giurisdiziona ·civile del Giudice italiano - r::.be va per-
'«lil!l. a ,. smna
tata d.:ic:h.ia.rata - .!l.nche i!1 ragione del fat'b:; che la
condctta illecita si è vex~ficata anche in Italia;
12
\
lf!J~l.;J
PAG 13/14
L
·~a· 11. ·.~oPAl +lS OB 36917152 03/ÜÔ u

~LŒ DGEU UFF. I _.1-te- !...J!'1 J.. Î C. l_J J_ V J.l-J..
- cilie ogni queatione relativa all' t!Si.stenza d~;J, di-'"
.d.tta fatta vale.'t:e in causa s aHa 5t:e.ssa proponibilità
della domanda :rirnane natura.L"tllimte imprèg:lud.i.c:ata (art.
386
che la delicatezza e ccmplessità delle im:t:licazioni
d!91la riproposta questione di g:Luriscli zidne giu'-'
stifica.no l' integï:ale compensazione delle spess di questa
fasa del giudizio tra tu~_!:.§; .J.,.e. par-ti.
P,Q.M.
~
La Corte, a Sezioni Unitep in sede d.i rsgcla:nsnto
lJI 014
14/14
.:.;:~:;;::{i:~;~:~:::::~~::r:~:~:::~::;~;:=:;-=:~~
~
::
preventive? dic2:}ara la giurisQ,iz;i,o.ue di.;.l .. Giudic;s,,.,jta:..._,
liano
~
in crdine alla presente controver~ia. Bpese com-
·-- ----- "'4o
pensate.
Roma, G maggio 2008
-.. -.··· .··.
Annex 14
Military Court ofLa Spezia
case of Max Josejlv!ilde, judgment of 10 October 2006
13-N0~!-2008 14: 48 AA REF 50'7 +49 1888 171556 S.01/13
------+~----~---
. . . -~-~----~----
----"---------------~---~ -------~---~ . "
IL TIDBliNALE MitiTARE DELLA SPEZIA
Do tt. Plerg!orgio FONTICELLI Gludlce =--+....:::;.::..:...,._ acldt 20
, --)-~-~+-"''-'-. ___ s_.~T_. v_-,-.....,..... 1\ndrea CAR.ROZZA -----
----+--'5"-'-.~--~--- -----~-----~---
con !'lmervento del Pubbllco MirHstero ln 1=1ersnn-a clel do-tt~ J\.ia:rco DE-PAOLIS "'-----~----- ------- --· N. Rag. ~ec.
----1-:....-.-----------~-----------------------~-- -------~- 1--
------~-Rronl_Jf!.Oltao· ln Eu_bbllca udlenza__~§l.I1H.~~-.....,-~-. ~--
_d__; __ ~-·-~----------.. ____ JL~ TE N Z A. _ ___,_ ____ · -~-..J!--"~~---~~-~
~- _____ ...!!.e.L.Jir:C1~~'llmento ~nale _§~-------~--···_ -----------..c--t---c_n_~-~~~:__rc~.n~<~k~'· ~:~---~
BOTTCHER. Siegfried, nato i1 28/03/1'921 (alto di nascha 1":..!() a BerÙno
-------~-------~----'----~-----------------~-•-r-
(D) e residen~e in 72076 1\1binga (Germania), Vicolo Ligusterweg n. 3,
--------r---------~._.,._-~----~---·---~---~-
lmpi..lgnazi\ll'l!'! propo:~ea d!l: -----r--~------~~---------
con notifica. degli atti ex art. 169 c.p.p. al difensore di uffido A'>v.
Ah;ssandro Olll...~~O del foro della Spezia. an'epqca dei fatti Tenerite
-------~----·---~
(Ober1eutt"'.ant) Co!TJ.andante · de11f1 Com.pa.gnia di Pronto Intervento ' . . . '
----+----~---~-~~--· '----~-~---~---~------J---~-----------~--
"Vesuvio" (Chef dèr A1arn:Jl(Ompanie ".Vesuv") del Reparto Rifomim'eml
--~---------------~~----~-
dej Paracadl.ltisti Corazzati (Tal1schirm-P!4"1Zer-Nachschub~ Truppen) H.G,
13-NOU--2008 l«J: 48 FiA REF 507 +49 1888 171556 5.02/13
-r- -~2:~~' nato a Niederhem:rstiorf (Gen
-----!l.--~~:z~a----nz!13~J3rern:rr--(-aeJm~-vr-,--
------- ------------~~~~f -~'Ck.erntr.ts.he n. 9, eo1J 11oüfica d1!.grr-.rttrc-... --zrt:"·r~~p:-·ut-­
··----------~----~~ -t----mferŒOJe ù'ttf"fit:iu Av v. ftm ;o·MklZ:L~d--funnirltr'S-p~
1 .
------------~---~ ---------- ----Milrt!fff::-mt""e~-at.ti-S-m-gcr,teit:Jnter~rapç~tent:'llü3 alla r--~-----
-Bam-m---ivfu:>rcaW-~ile) della :B±visione Pat ac"ac!.trth.-er-r-------·~
~
: 1
L------__: Corauata (Fallschirm-Pmzcr-Di.•rl,;v.,) .... ,,..H'"'-"-'' '·" ... '~";;; -, .~.~--- i
l
( ' ' \
l
\ j --------t~~---~+---fii+-"ffrl"--+--±--'~"'"""~rrl+.4H--H<.....-.:. ~lW- iT2-= hm.t cl, 'm'~~ ,o-----
-~ --~-----------------~~--~~~----~--~---~-n:rrrrrt:-:t.r4'1f'f't11lm~.~2~e[;3Ji. ~-nls-&~~;:. g;~~tt~j~:G~t:Sl.~:=:::~-di l\1_ ''" -- ·-==
---,~hi:, dura~te lu stat.) di <:!Ut:rr:rt-at'_!taiia e i~ Gmmonia, e5oerrcm--t---- )
it1 s~mH<:: foi:ze it!111nw-~ro;;-~~-rrerrric1J".nnmrr31-'atuiurli7.1ITJj"----- ___ ,,......,
l ~~~~-----~-----·--+---:;:;,-p;nn--r-,....,,.m··~-~or.ri in prer.:J~tt;-~"---o-- i œpm1i _-·-----~~~
!·· -------- -~· 11arilmmti sopwlnd)c.ni dett;s tti'tisiorre Pmw::~<dati1l"rt----e-oru.:zza --~--·
--- --.-..c~~+-~HeuuamrGodng~ con più a.1.icwi e:n:cot~vç; d± wrltfffii~- -~~--
----~---- ------------~-
r
!

E'oo1pagnre di Pr;mto lmprego -"'-v'E-Si:Jv'\:: "PAUK:E~l.-!J"Çtrs=::mmcr·T----
ta specinca · qmdittr--e--mrrnmmre--c·,::-ntrîtr~:n;nrltr-mia-n-ra:œrrirh::--t --------··-
i
1
~~ 1 l
j
+49 1888 171556 5.03/13
realizzazionc del crimine e comunque reciprocamente rafforzandosi neJ proposito
deLittuoso, nella giomata dd 29 giugno 1944, nei territoâ dei comuru di CiviteUa,
Comia e S.:Pmcrazio (Ar<:lZZO), seoza necessita e senza g:iustificato motivo, pe:r cause
non estranee alla guerra e arud nell'ambito e- con finalità di' lll'am.pia operaz.ione di
rastrellamento pianificata e condotta contro i pa:rtigiani e Ia po-pola:cione civiie che a
que1li si mostrava solidale, cagionavano la morte di nnmerose per.sone - circa 200
(duecento), rra le quall, anz-larù, dolll1e e bambini- le quaJi non prendevano parte a11e
operazioni militari, agendo con crude1tà e prerneditazione, usando irwltre violenza
sessuale a malte donnee compiendo, infine, scempio di numerosi cadav&i.
- Con le aggravanti:
di eni all'art. 47 n. 2 o.p.m.p. 1 peril grado rivestiw,
di cui all'art,47 n. 3 c.p.m.p., per aver cotr..masso il fatto cou le anni in
dotazione~
di cui all'm. 58 co.l c.p.m.p., per esscr concorso con inferiori in gmdo,
di cui a1Pm.ll2 co. 1 n. 1 c.:p., per esser concorsi ncl reato in più d:.i quartro
pers one,
di cui aH'art. 112 co. 1 n. 3 o.p., per aver detenninJJto a commettere il reatO
person.e soggctte alla propria aui:orità a vigilanza,
di cui all'a..rt. 61 n. 1 c.p., per aver commesso iJ fatta per moti.vi abie:tti,
di cui all'arl.61 rr. 4 c.p., per avcr commesso iJ fatto adoperando seviz1e e
orudeità verso le vi 111rne,
di cui all'art. 61 n. 5 c.p., _per aver coinmesso i1 fatto pronttando di
circostan.ze d.i tempo, di Iuogo e di persona, tali da ostacolare 1a pubblica e
privata difesa,
di cui all'a.'"t. 571 r1. 3 c.p., per aver con-..:ruesso ii fatto con premedita:tione>>.
3
13-NOU-2008 14:49 RA REF ;:;[J7 +49 1888 171556 5.04/13
IV10TrV AZIONE IN FATTO E IN DIRITTO
SVOLGIME:-riO DEL l'ROCESSO (pag. 1 0)
1.. Vesito dell'udie:u.zll preliminare e Ta fonna:r.ione del f:asticolo peril d!battiroento.
2. La e.ot<tltuzione delle Pn:rt:i da.vanti al Trlbunale :0.1illtare.
3. La c:itlllione il.cl Responsabil~ civile.
4, L'isiruxlone dibattimerrm1e.
5. Le conclus'l.onj delle Pàrti.
FATTO (pag. 19)
6. La nccolt~ dei mezzi dt provn.
1. Lll- DMsione Par.a.e2dut.im Cor!î.ZZatil. 1
'Hennru:m Goring".
B. TI Corpo Mu.sic:ale della Divisione Pll.l:'llt:ildutisti Corn:u:atn ''Herm~m11 Gôd.ng".
9. I.e uniformi della Divisione Pnracnduüsti Cl.11.'"il.zzata ''Eennann Gorlng".
10. ll coinvoigi.mento delli!. Divisillne "Hermann Goring''.
11 . .L'm:dS!Pne dei mUltl'l,r$ tedasd-.d pras10o il Cin:olo ric:reath'ù di Civîtella.
12. I giorni precedend l'ecddio.
13. l1 Z9 giugl:\0 1944: I'ecddif.Î.
l:'Ll Civitella in Val dl Chlana e dmtorni.
13"2 Carnill. e dintorni.
13.3 Sail Fancl'1lria.
14. Le vicende successive ali' ecddio.
15. L~ <titre pnwe nei confroni'i di :Bf.irtclll".:r Sfegfded.
16. Le :altre praYe nei c:onfron'l:t di 'Mllde l\lfux Josef.
DIRITTO (pag. 85)
17. La gturisdizio~e del Tribunrue Militare.
18. I r.riteri di valu-ruz.îone delle prove.
19. L11 qua.lificrtzione giurid.iea de! fi!.ttO è Js :mn aïJtigiurldidtà obleffiva.
:w, n co:ncorso dègli imputati nell:eato.
~;tp 1 ' v
21. Le valut11:rio~ :1 l:!lltm.ll degll artt. 531, -commnl <> e 129, comm,ff 2°1 r..p.p., nei con.fronti
dell'impu~to deceduto, Bottcls.e.r Siegfried.
22. I.a respouso~thilifà pennle deJJlimputatil Y.Œde M.ax Jas cf.
23. Le drcost.an2e aggrav~mti.
24. Le circostanzè atrenuanti.
25, L'appliauicme ddla pem principale.
26. L'nppHcRzione delle pene a(:cessode.
27. Ln deciRione ~tulle questîonl dvHi,
9
13-NOIJ-2008 14:49 AR REF 50? +49 18813 171556
Altrettauto regr;.lari sono ris.cltate le noti:ficazioci alle persane ofrèse; effcttulltc per pubblici
2.tl.Dttl:1Zi.
3 La dt.a.z.ioue del Res:ponsabile civile.
Acce..rtata la regolare costitu:rione delle Parti, è stata proposta te. sola quesrione prel:im.inar~
I:iguardante la citazione del Responsaoile civile.
Tl difensore delle J?arti civiH !UCCI.A.RJN! Gîc Batt!sta. RlCCIAR!N'I Pierina, Bi.TRA.CCHJ
Vanda, RICCIAFTh1 Fabririo, Rl:Cct~NI AJessan.dm, RJCCL~l Me~~:>1Ja e il difer..sore
delle P:ilrti civili PŒTRELU FJmio e PlETR.ELLI Ranieri, infatti, barmo cf1.iesto la cita.zic·ne in·
giudizio, qualc Responsabill': civile, della RepubbJic.a Federal~ di Ge:-mania.
ll P ..&:L si e opposto a tcle rie hi esta per motivi ohe, in punto di diritto, si riO!.:>sumor:o
nell'.impoasibilità. di a.s:;;ogg.:,tt.z.re a responsabilità une Stato sovrarm; Je altre Parei, inve.::ll, si
'>ono rimtS!le: alle dccisjoni dd Tl'lounale.
n Tribunale ha accolto la richiesta avanzata cl2Jle indics.te Protl Divili; rinvi.at'ldO il proce!JSO
ill'udién2a dell SA-2006, per gli adernpimeuti COD.Uessi alla oît.OO:one dt!;! ResponsabiJa civile.
Gli spunti poLemid snU • opportu.nità tkllla richlest!l. b. questlonr=, ribad:iti anche in occa.sione
delle co:ncbJJ'lbni, induco'llll a sottolinem-e com<':l le Partl civili richiedenti abbiano esercitato un 1 1 ;!}
in;;i:ndacabile dL•-itto; a. aostegno dei. privati interessi civil}, di cui sor-e portatrîci nel proc:es3a lllfn
penale_ / //
Nel ripercorrere le argomenùdoni dell 'ordinanza con cui si è aœolt.a la ticbiesta cil. citazione (J
del Responsi'.b:ile civJJe, si ritiene di affrontart:!, per illuugo periode trascorsC! dai fatti, il tema
dell' eve:ntllltle -prescr'...zione del di.rirtc cl riaarciment6 per i dMJ.ni ~ubitL
ln proposito, l'an. 2947 del codice civile (c.r..) stabUü;ce che "se ilfatto è considerato dalla
legge come reato e per il reato é stabWta ~ma pr.-scrizione più lunga, qm:sta si applica anche
a.t! 'a:tione civUe ", Di conseguenta,la ritenuta. impreserittfbll.ità del reato corttestato agli imputa!i
s 'intende estes a f"J.1Che all'a:?ir..rJ~ civile peril risarcimento del danne.
Passan.cio ad e:.a:m.inare ii merito della rkhlcSta citazione del Respon.sabile dvile, occor.re i.n
primo luogo affroutm-e il problerna defla coslddetta idenôrà o condnuirà degJ..i St.~ti in relazione
ai rapportl giwidici preesistenti, cl fin;; di stabi!ire ~e la R;!pubblica fede:rale di Ger:tJ::J.!mia possa
esse:re: chiamata a. risporidere di fatti ascrivibili alla Ger.:nania. naziooa!soc:ialista del ID" Reich.
NeU'a.mbito del diritm Wernru:ionale, t.ra k qn~.stlo!ll riguardanti la suc~ssiom:: tra Stati, ha
assu.nto un auto=mo riJi~;:vo q1.1e!la i.nerente la cominuitil. nci tapporti g1uridic:i tra Stati in. casa
di :u:nl!.am.cuti delle forme di govcrno, decivanti d2. rivoluziorù o colp:i di stato, o def confuü
r~tc,rrill.,li.
Per qu.ello cho:: mtiene il fr!-Utarrl.emo d~ll'!i$setto politica ist.ituzion.ale dl u.no Stato. si è affcrmata
!lella pratica. ùltem:!1à2ioi1Jlle la regola d.etl" contirmi•à dello Stato, embternati~eme enu::~ci.ara
nel protocollo f.irrna"ta a Lon.dra il 19 febbraio 1331 dai lJlcn:ipotenziari dell~ rnaggiori potenze
11
:l3-NOlJ-201218 14 : ,19 AA REF 507 +49 1888 17155G
,'} 1 1 ·~' ' ill' 1
1/,'!, •" ~1 ""y 1
' t
)
t:L>mpc::, riUnitllii ~e;r dÎSÇ'I..ltere la cP".si diJ! Be!g:o. b tale atto, ~n1ttê.ndc dei rnu1ap_<;:oJi
:U:~rr<;nuti \",,.,i!'::.rgmizza;dc::le i.n~em.a dei pop.::,Ji, ~i aifl!:l<UlWI'!, tr\'1 l'altl'O, elle "J mut:.mem';'
'1?-rific{ln'.r:' ne/la titu(r:;:-.'one di. >ir.oSrct!O :•an l'af.llori;:;r.:nM ~ n·ter-:ef'si scioho dai .wai impegrri
anler:'ari 1
'.
Qt.:esw principio, l:'.On nuavo allr. pta.ssi dipla:m.atica, t.."''VÔ uiteriori can.feme r.:nt.he ïn ":;egcito,
'Çiet re:;olare le prC1:!Se di a!~:.'1!t'.i gcvern.i c:!l~. come epelle iovietico, e:ra.iJQ smii Iiîll.n
ri'lr.ll uzione.
La gi.urispmdcu~a i:nteruazionai~ ba, a prapria volta, mo5trato di acr:og\icrn il principio
enunciato. ltl propoiii~o è eloq_ltente la. scr1tet'JZI'I arbitrale del l 3 ortC~b:re J9:23 nell a conrrcversi.a
tra Gran Brctagna e Ccstarica, pt:r il cosiddet:to mare "Tir:\c:o": "1 mwramenti nel gow:rno o
fldla polilicr;; interna. di t.mo Sia:io non lm:id.ono di •wrma sulla s11a posi;:ione Ml dr'riuo
intema:r{ona/e, i:.:na ltWnar;;:.itia pua essere trasformma in 1.mC: r~pabb/ica o :m<1 ntp'.!botica in
ww rnanCJrchù:r: prindpi assolurisril:i pos,wr.o es.~~ ni· .rostituiii da princ(oi CCJiil",(lÏOI1ah, o
vft;r?vi?.rSa; ma, .rm:dgr-adCI iJ !tUif,'[ll'!/!l'!(Q di gavemC, fa nruiane r:'mr::r.e COll dirilt;{ C !:ibb!ighi
:'nai:erati. "
"-'ella scme:12a, i:Qo1tti"., sî. po~c: ill ~.-iden2a c:ome i govèrni ili L\lig-i XvTU o dl.Luigi Filippo
i.udar.t.itzRrono, per quanta ?Dssibile, i cirt&àlrù di Stad strarJe:'i pe.r le perdit~ cuusate cial
gavcrno di Napoleone, Ne[ prowedirtl:ento si ricb.iamb anche l' ar.alogo attagg{amtntè dd re
delie Due Sicilie, che comper..s'à citt<~di.ni staro&J.temi per ar.i illeciri i.n campo ir:.:emazionale
.-:olJ'.messi da Mur<:r.
La qat:~tione della continuità · dslln 5tato gennnmw é !l!i'lla affrontru:a appena te.r.:ninafo U
sc~ondo confiitta -mondiak (efr. M. GTI.JLIP..."'l'O, La siflla.:!l'er:a aitWJÜ! della Germania,
Mo&r:a, 1949).
Ln panicolare, nell'irrunediato dopogume., il prob[;m:a cires L'ew:n!'1J.ale esdnno~e dello Statn
tedesco ris~ti·.ra ddl'occupazicnl'l d~l suo tcn-!wrio che, corn'é Mto, le Pore:;Z!l AJle.att::
avr.:v.<;'lO sucidi·;~o ln qun.nro d.iffr.ren:d zone C::'or.Ct.1Jatione, so!topoate ai rispemvi Coma.-.danti
ü1 Cnpo.
La d.cmrix:w gerrnarlica, nonost:allte raie peculi.àr..: situazicne, >i oricnto in favore della per>iste.nza
e d~llt\ continuiü dello Stato Tedesco cotm!: sogg~rtto di diritio in!r=-n.aziona1e (d'r. l\·L
GfUUA.""·iO, op. cit., 3 ~s.).
ill modo analogo si espressr:; 1<~ giurlsprudenza di 0\Jcll.!:l.i gi1.1d.id nazion.ili; infatti, le <{ecisioni del
l" dicer:Jbre 194.5, dell' Obergen'cht dcl Canton.e di Zu.riga, e del 24 gccrnaio 1946, d.~l
Bwuiesgericht a.'.;s~..!>CO, affennarono La l)ernl;l!ll'loza deUa ptnonalitâ giu:ri&ca internazioa:oJe
b S\~cces.:;i-"n: I';V.Jluzione politic:a de:Ua G(;l"lJê.eru4 :-.on puo che ~ vvalorare gJJ a:;.zidetti
cri e-,.n am~n ti.
5.06/13
1 . --.1
13-NOU-2008 14:50 AR REF 507 +Li9 j_888 171555 s. 07/13
Del resto) _p:roprio ùè1!\tltimo dopoguer:ra, la stessa Repubbüca Feder;;~Je d.i Genmnla iv>.
most:rnto di attenersi alla ::egol11.. della co:otimût.à era Slnti; corne dimastrana 1 trattati pe:-- mitîg:ll'e
1 drumi derivati drilla depo~ia:cio:ne e sottoposjzione aï .ln.v~ro coatto di dtt<i!rli .. rù itatiani.
T<~nto premesso, occorre rilevare che, all'e.?cca dei fatti, gli od:iemî i:mpu~ti e:rano milits.ri
rivestltî di grado, inql11ldrati in UJ1ll. ùivisione dell' e~Ercito tedesco, e btlligera:rtti udJ 'inte-resse
dello Stato d'21.ppartea:!enza.
Seconda nua recente se:ntenza delle Sezi.oni Unite ci-0Ji delle Suprema Corte di Cassazione;
(CasJ. c:îv. Sez. Un., 11-03·2004, I!. 5044), è rnvvisabïle la corres-povs.".billtà ch::l1e d! une Stato
sowano pé~ fatti. costitu.:nxi c.rimim inte;-:ru.\ziouali comme.5si da Buoi cittadi.rd, ove te.li. fa.tti siano
riccllegabili ull'es<:1rc:izio dl. fu.rn:ioni nell'ambito del rappono di servizlo o d1lavom.
NeUo specifico case delle Parti che hanno clliesto la citllZione del Resporu;abile civ.ilè, la prt.tesa
at risarcimento del daoou patrimoniale e morale deriva d;sll'uccisione di RlCCLAR!NI Metelto
di PETR.ELLI Ranien, neUe ctrcostrmze di causa d1!!: sB"armo esatrl:inate.
Le St:rpremo. Corte: perrutro, si è prtmum::iet:'l proprio tmll' U:omurutà della Repubblica Federale di
Gmmania D.a.lla giu_Tjsdi.zioo.e dd Giudice italiano, affrontil1.l.do il to:ma della deport.1Zione in
Gerw.àcia di llll. citt.adb:w ital.iano, sottoposto ;;i lavori fm:2a:ti. fu;o Hlt' april e dei t 945.
La Corte, pur de.ndo a.tto che le norme consuetudinarie del didrto intemaz-ior:ale i..rupongono agH
Stad l'obbligo di astene:rsi da11'esercita.re: il poter~ giurisdizion.nle nd confronti deg-li Staü
:;tr;miori, l:m n.ffl':n:nato che lP. portata di tale prineipio, ùJ:I tempo di carattere ;;ssoluto, È md~ra
p:rogressivamf;"J.!te restri!lgen&.lsi (Cast., s~. \m.., J agosto 2000, n 530/SU; 3 febbra.io 1996, n.
919), .fruo a rlSJ.ût:<tre supel"'&a in rm~.~L:~nz-<t d.î ér.i.::n.i.Jli int®MJon-alJ.
fufntti, secortdo la. Corte, taU crimirll œ.inacci.arlo l'Wer:a w:nanità e miuano le fami.arner.rta dd!a
,~onvivema intemazionaie, costiute:~.do una vio\aziane p<Uti,colarrnente grave dei diritti
fondamentaU deJJa persona umana .
La t11tela di C[Uesti diditi ê :.'IJ.".ridllrA. a JJI.:)]:m~ indercgabili, ohe si coUocuno al vcrticc
deli'o-rdinamento intemazJanaie e . che pre-val.gono . su ogni a.ltra norrna di caratte;e
aonsuetud.i.ru!rio e convenziOilll1e. Pertanto, l'immmlità dello Stato stra.-,ie.ro daHa giurisdizione
ci.vüe non opera a fronte di compomm.l.erit1 d'es-trema grav-irà; che si conil.gw:wo, in forza di
mrme coruruetud.inarie ln.ternazionaii, quali crirnim inte:rna:zîonali [esivi di valori universali elle
tra..~cendono gli :interes:.si delle singole comunità stamll.
In merito aU'appllcabŒtà de.U'nrt, 77 § 4 del Trattato di pace tta t'Italia. e le Poteme Alleate ed
Assocî.ate, in premessa cit.ato,· si riti.eue che i.1 renore Jetterale della normf,l i.v.voçata limiTi
l'eiTicacia ddl'at:o di rinunc-ia alk solf: dorn&t'Ai.e cont:ro la Germaula e 1 suoi citl4dini pendenti
alla data dell'8.5.1945 e CClrl.c=1è:Uti e>dusivameotc dirirti dl tlllti.l.t"il re!lle.
1a.lB mterprç;tazio:ue -è impMta dall'art 2 della CO$lltuzlOile sooondo cui "La Repu.bbiiw
ric.onosce ~ ganmt:.'s;çe l dirîui invio/abili de!l't<orno" oo è i.ndirett:urtente C(mfeJmat<e daUa
successiva -stipula de:gli accoJ:"di lwlo-tedesdù del 2.6.1961 ("Accordo rra Repllbblica Italia e
13
L3-NOU-2008 14:50 (-lq REF 507 +49 1888 171556
1)
il
; ji(
,[?if','!
. \
\
i ,
1
,,
1
1
Rapubb!irm Feè.erale di Ge.,"17'w:Ùtt c!rc~ gE ir:dannizû ô.:i cin.adilli italiru:ll de Hli.lo ,j!ati col?lti
da· mismt di p~rsectu:iane l"~ozionai.socialiste", i:J. cui rmifcli ~(l. !'.secu:zione è staca au!ori:a:atE
o:6o ~e.g~e 6.2.i95:; n" 404: "Acc.otdo trn ~ej'lubblJ~a.lt~li.<':! e R.epubbl:oa Fe.èorak di Gcnnncla
per il ro~olam:::o.to di elcune que~!iom dt c:a.-uttere pal.riwonia1t1, ec.Jnomico r.: flmmzin.rio".
r.scguiio c:on DY .R. 14.4 1%1 n' l263).
Ln deL:Dtiv~ regolB.zic.ne dell~: quc.sdoni m;. i due S1ati, con!{!~,tt:a nell'nrt. 3 del cit~to accordo
sugii f:Jd~nnizri, rigllll.rda é<>C\~1shramerite il ~=a delle deporuzionl e àd.lc col.l~eg~;erac che ;'l.è
sono derivB.tt:, oom.e si clesu.rn.e dall'tspn::s~o rLferi.mento ccntimuto Mll'afl:. 2 d~lla !cgze di
nu:ori'Zla:dor.e àlla ratiEca. Peytanto, trui'l rt.ccordo noe risulta applicabilc al caso in es ame.
L'ïJT 2 d~ll'i!ttrion: ~~cardo (me:-èr,te qt:estioni di catatrere pat:r\i:noliis.le, eeo:comicc e
''înanzi;;.ric) pn:· .. ·ede:
"1. If Govemo iwlltmo diddara r:ht! sono dejir:ire rutre fe riwmdi:.:aâom' e richttwc de?la
Re!mbblfcq lM!ia:r.a. a di pèr.tonè [!siche o gfuridiche fttJ!irme:, cmwra pe-~dr;nf. nei cal'!fi·mm
delia Ru;:vbb/i;:(! Fetlem!~t- rli Germanic:t o l'lei C01t{ronl'i di ,;ers on~ ;'i.rfcf;~ o [JiUridiche r~dt:st::h.C',
· purdè d~rivc-rn;·i da d!r!tti o rn~·oni sorti ml periode !'1'n il J• .set:embre 1939 e l'B maftt;io
,194.5,
.], n Govemo iftlfit!FtO unrà lndmn~~: la RepubbiicCJ Fadertt!f:! di Germania ~ la j)i;'l'$/)111! /i.riclw e
giurid!che tt'dl!sd:e da og-rr.i ew.mtualP. arion~: o a lire prél~.M !;gale da parte di ;::~:none jt'Sich<t o
f51'undfûw ;tr:.licrne per te.rivendicn2ÙJni f!, nc:hlrma sur!det>e ".
I.!:1 m~riw ;;U'app!icabiUtà dl ttüo ï.1ccorào al caso dl. specic si os!.icnta che llllCM in questo caso sl
verre in '!Dil!et"!o èi dvendicazionl e ricllleste ancort> pendenti all!!. dR ta dcl.l 'emn>la i..a vigore
dc!l'~ccordc; rna ciè ch,(: pi(; rilevll b la consid~one cbe ù Par~mnsnto r100 ha e:mal;lll.to. ai
~en'i dc1l' <Jt. 80 te Ua Costi!J.JZ{one, e.ll':l.!Jla legge di autcriz:wzi::me ali<~ rafif.ie3. ck:U 'acccrdo,
ne{;ess;;..r'ia per :t-J;ttari i:ntemn:zicuall di oaturll pclitica o c.l:.e prevedmi.O arbit:ati o regolfl-menû
gn.Fitziari 0 ohe impotîino Vllriii.~OIÜ ck.l temtorio od onen alJ~ llr.L\l!Z6 oppU.Hl ;.nçdJ.fica;6n"i dJ.
tcggi. Con.se§'JC.'lte:nente, l'aceordo in qm~stione, come del .res1o ;;i .~P.snme dlilla S\.lô!
i.ntilè:la:dono::-, non regola aspetti giudiziêri, .Î.lfl pr.tura pur=el'l'ill ~.:cno!Xiica c. rton puo rit~ner~i
i.n a.ic1~ :nodo lirnitatlvo di diritti che possono fmsi valere> esr,.tusivnmente in ambito
gildsdizionalc:.
4. L'ist:nuione dibarnmentnle .
. ll.Jl'udien.za del 18.4.2006~ veriiiee1a 1!'. noti.fir.a.z:one del dccrëtc di o:;îtazione in !fudl~io de!
RasponsabUe èh•ill'l, ~ statc aperto il moatümenta e !e 1'"'-.-ti Î'.!ll."l.UO chicstc l'a.'11.ml5SÎD!!e den~
mp~;t:ive: prcvç.
Il P. 'Y.. UE corra:-to l'imputazione, e!lclud.endC>rit! U!l i.rrilt:vanre refuso !:OSLit:JÙO c!ailc ~oro le "e in
pti!'.'t:~len::a''; quindi, richiamar..dosi i\ q1.tamo ~lc:nçuo m:lla li !ria pn:vis:l\ d<dl'il-tt. 46tl: c.p.;:J., }la
r:lchiesw l'c.5amr: di cestünnfll, con·mlemi teo:ùci, i.mpU!atl e imlJutat! di r~ato connesso.
13-NOV-2008 14=51 AFI REF 507 +49 j_888 171555
.'i
. ra'/ '/ '1
:~·:JI~ / !
. i
1
j
Il g'como seguc:.:nte, nell'ucUenzn del 20 giug.no 2006, U Tribunal~ hf! conferito fi.ucz.rico d:i
t;r&.èurre i."l li:n.gur. tEcl~sca la richie.qta d' assiste.n_z!ô gluctiz:aria. n1 1:1areria pmnalc; quinci:i, !1
dib2ttimento è 5tato sospesa, in artesa· dllgli accen<IP::euti pe:-üaJ! cliiipo.~tl dAlia l?rocu.r:ii di
Stoce!!rda_
A.ll 'apertn;'a de1l'udiemzn del 22. sett~:mbre :!006., il difensore dell'impunato MTLDE h11
clir::1liarato di ader'.tJ:e all'astensione dalle udienze proclamaœ. dal1'0rgaT'Jsmo 'C'rdmrio
dell> Avvoca~um; il Tribunale, riconosduto il jegi.ttimo i.mpedb1eato cle:J dif~:nsore, ha rlnv:iato
!' u di enz a.
:.rel! 'udienz-a dd 10 ottob:re 2006, il P.:1yL, .L'1 tJrimO Iuogo, ba Iirmndmo ella sua richiesta
d' amrnissiooc di alrri testimonl, allegata aL verbale di udi~::tzà del 12 giugno 2006;
seccmdariamente, ha proclccto il ce:ti5cato di morte cleJl'imputato :B6TTCBER Siegfried
Ha:rald, rilasciato il3 agosio 2006 dall'Ufficio di Stato civile di Thbinga.
mso arto di q1:auto rapprèSentato, il 1'ri1mnale ha œvocato gJi accertarnenti ~alle condizioni
psicoflsicbe di BOTICITER; quiruli bR indicato ptT la clecisione tutti gli atti e i docume.l."lti
acquis1ri nel fMcicolo dibartimentale e, in asseru:a ài .r:ichiesre di lel.i:unt, ha invüaw Je Pani a.
formu1are le rispettlve conclu;;ioni.
1 · S, Le condusimn deUe Parti. ·v
Il PM. ha distintamente r.ich.lesto:
pc;- BOTTCIIER Siegfrièd, J)Grl doversi procedere perché ii rc~1to è estwro per mort~ del
reo;
2. per M1LDE M1lX Josef, la conclanna alla pl.ma dell'ergrmolo, al pagrunenlo d~lle spese
proces:nuU e &Ü risarc:imenrc dei damri, da !iquidarsi in sepa:rata sede i.n favore deHe
èostitl.tite ParJ Civili.
Le PatTI civ11i, trmme L>\M:vfJONI PP.oln, poi :dsnlrato decedu:o, si sono as;;cc1ar.œ: aUe richi(;lste
del P.M~, prcsentanè.a le rispettive: ccmdusiorâ scrirté,
La DifeM ha cOi~sto, pe:r en:trambi gli imputati, l'~ll.ilmh:zione per non aver cNnrn~:S:c;o il farto.
AJJ'esito del dibatûmento, il Tdbuna1e ha dichiarata non doversi pror;ed~e :pew mLJ:ne del rea nei
confronti di BOTICHE...lt Siegfried e ha con.dmmato MILDE Max Josef lllln pena de!l'ergasmlo
e alle COJ:\Soguenze di Jegge. Inoltre;, U Tribunale ha condannato a risarcire il dr.T~no, a pagan:
provvlsiowili e a rifondere le spese alle P~ civili !'imputàto MJT...DE a, i:n favore delle sole
Par.i che ne hanno chles:o !a citazione in giudlzio, U Rospor.sabilè civiJe, solidslmeute
obbligato.
18
5,09/13
-i
)
13-NQI,)-2008 14: 5t AA REF 507 +"19 1888 1?1556
lt'l~;· /hl '
26. :La dedsione suUe quesüo:ui dvili.
A.-Ffermata la respons?.büità pen.a1e di :!v1JLDE MBX Josef, il T1:bunale b cond;..r,ma anche al.
r!sarctmenm dei dar.:.I,li, patrimoni;~ti e morali deâvati cial teato, in favor~ delie cost.ihlite Parti
chili; da. liq'.~i.darsi in.n.an.:ci al gimht1e civile, poich6 le prove ncquisite non coosenttmo di
quantîficare esattament~ l'ammonurre dt!ll danno subito.
La Presidco:za del Consiglio dei Mini:>tri e gli ent:i territori~li (Regione Toscan:?., Provin.r:ia di
Are-zzo e CcmUJ"Ji di c:v.iteUa b::. Val di Cbi:ma e Bucine) aEsumono la pasl.zione di rlanneggiad
peri lora comp:irl di tutc)a dèg}i inte:essJ: ddt::- comunirà locali che mppresentano (Cass., Sez..
VI, sent.. n. 59 ci.ellO gen,"Jaio 1990, Monticelli; Cass., Se.z. I, ge!)L n. 103ïl de118 ottobre 1995,
Costioli). Infattl, l' eccidio di nuroerose pe.rsone, le soffefer.l:<:e inilitte alle comucith, il
depaupttaroemo delJe capilcitâ lnVOJ.f'i.tive e di sostentrouento, de:ivate dall'ucc.i.,ione sigren:HHica
della popt~Iazione m;;:Bahile e clatla distruzione d'interi paesi, hanno dl'!tem:Un.ato ripercn;;;sioni
negative mille opportunicà di crescita sociale,· econoroi::a e culhl:rnle di qwslle collettività,
segrv.te da.gli ev~mi per div~e generarioni.
Sl è raggjunta la prova, iuoltre, elle le 1-h~rSO.lle flsich.e costin:ite Parti civüi acme s:tare
clanneggiate per i seguenti motivi:
:M:A..t:ë:rrACCHI Scstilio, per l'uccisio:m: d~l padre ~.fALEXTACCill Netlo, fr:rito a mortes ,1 '1
/ · 11 Civitella il 29.6.1944 e deceduto pocha ore t.bpo nella :;tm n.bitnzione.
) 1
! RICCIAR_1}J1 Gic Battista (figliél), Bl~"lCUCCl Barbara BL11J'JC1JCCI Bea1rice {eredJ /
} ;;mcedute aU<>- dofunta R1CCtA.Rtm PieTina fig]ia dt,'llla vini.ma), RICCIARINI Metella (figtin),
BTJR.A..CCID Vanda (nuera), EUCCL-'\.R.DIT Fabrizio (nipcte), RICCIARll\1 Alessandro (ripote)
per 1'ucoisione del congiunto PJCCI.ARIN1 Meteilc presse il Foute di Palazzina in data
29.ô.l944.
PŒTRELLI F1orio e PIETIŒLLI Rani en per 1 'ucc:.sione di PETREUI Rani <'.ri, conSllrrua~
p:esso la fattor'ia Burrone 1129.6J944.
lA costinlZione deLla Parte civile Liu\1:MIOJ\1 Paolo ~ 'inttrnde implicita,"11ente revccata, pe:r la
mtL11ci!ta presentazJ.one delle conclrJ.s[c;JJ.Î; p1'.taltro, aJI'atto della lettura del di~asiiivo è sta~il
aoquisita al verbale ill not.izia del suo decesso, acpraggiunto prima delle condusior'l...i.
L'imputato è inoltre condiillnato a pag-...re urm provv.isiomle, imr.:ediat:c~mente esecutiva. alle
Parti civili costituite; rn tal sansa 11 Tnbunale :bt~ ravvisa1o giustificati motivi nella ootevole
entità ciel danne e ne1 lungo teill.uo orma[ tra!:COI:SO d!'li fatt!; inoh.re ha dttnmo di
copnedere ln p>nvvisianale a=h:: 2Ue persane fisicbe costituiœ Parti cîvllî che nt.ln ne h.:.sn:10
fatto espre;;sa ricillesta. (RICCTARINI Gio Battistz, BL.'L"l"CUCCI Barbara BtA.."'lCUCCI
Bsai:rice, RlCCIA:RINI :Y.l:l'::teila, BL'RA.CCffi Ve.nda, RICCLA.RI.l'J. Fabrlzio, RrCCJARJW
/..Je:ssandro, PlliTRELLI Florio e PIETREL:LI Rar.ieri) (dr. C. Cass. 4.11.1999, Crepalèî, CED
:J"L216l2.8).
110
S. H:Vl3
__ )
13-NOIJ--2008 14:52 !lA REF 507 +49 1888 171556 5.11/13
I.' ammontar::: cl!"lle provvisionali, :n~i lirüti dçoj dll.illli peri quali si :iti~ne gia rag,giu.•1ta la prcva
e t!r::Jl.lto como delle tabeUe ciel Tribur:al6 cli Mila':lo e, pe1·le ?erso;1e :Esicbe, dei divers: rapporti
di parentela, è oost c1cterminato: Reg:lone ToC>ca;<a € 200.000 (ducceotomi!a), Provil'lcia. di
Arezzo € 3 SC. 000 (trec:er.Jtotinqu.:rntarnila), Corn urte di Civir&lla in Va.l di Chi ana f: 5 DO 000
(cinquec.mtomila), COTI.!une di Bucine € 500.000 {cinqueoemo:mii11), MP.LENf_J..CCW Ses:i!io
€ 200.000 (duecentoraila) RJCCIARIN1 Œo Batdsra e RlCCJAT:liNI Metellr. € 200.000
(duecentomila) dascuuo; BIANCUCCl Barbara, B!A:l\<cTJCC! :Beàtrice, Pr.ETR.ELLI Flario e
PŒTRELLI Rankri € 100.000 (cemomila) dasç.tmo; BURA.CCP.J Vanda., RlCC1AR.f'.:l
Fabriz;io e RICCL~1 Alessandro € 66.000 (-'les;sanÜ\$e"lmila) cia_;t::.:no.
L'imputllto è :dtr~sl condannato al pa.gamento delle spese processuali in favore deLle Pani
ciyilJ cos tituite, tenuto oonto del~a portata delle prestazlo:nl ciifensive, uoncM dell' ~:n:. 3 della.
Tariff?. penale (approvata con D.M. Giustizia 8 aprile 200~, n. 127) come ci segJlro
spr.ci:ficatc;
Presidenza clr.!'J Consigl.io èe:i ):finlstri: € 2.250 (duemiladUMé;r;tDcinquenta), cii cui e 250
(th1er.:e.ntocinquanllt) per spt;":Se generali.; Reg:ioue 'fcs.::ru.l.a; :PîOvincla di. Arezzo, Cc•mm1a è.l
Ci·viteUa in Val di Ch:ia,"J.a e Cor.rnuw di Bucine: € 9.000 (novemila), di cui E: 1000 (milJe) pr:r
spese generf.lli; Male.ïltict-:lti Sesillio; 6 4.500 (quattromi1acinquecento), di cui € 500 per spt:s~
g~nerali;
RXCCT.ARll"i Œo Battis-ta; BL'RACCID Vanda, RICCL'\.RTh"l Fabri7.b, RlCClARXNT
Alessandro, RICC1.4.RIN1 MeteUa: 6 6.075 (seimilasettantacingui!), di cui € 675
(seicmtoseltantaciuque) ptt spese generali; BL-'\_,_'fCUCCI Beatrir.e e BLWCUCCI Bar':la.t--a: Ë
6.075 (seiro.il;'lsl!:ttantaci;nque), di cui € 675 (selcentoo:ettantadnque) per spese generali;
PIETREtLI Florio e PIETRELU Rameri € 6.075 (sBimilasettantacinque), di cui e 6'15
(~cicw!osdtP.J.l.tacinqne) per spe.se generali.
li TribUrtàl.e, bfu.1e, condanna il RespoMabile r:-i-...'ile (Re}J'..Ibblica Federale di Germania), in
soiidci con 1 'im;:rutato YliLDE e nella mls'll.:'a delle somme gif: indicate, al risilidmento dc:i
dell.:Ui, al pagamento di uPa prowisionatc immediatameD.te eSœ'.J:tiva ~ alla rifu.s.ione delle spese,
in favore dclle sole Parti civEi che ne lmnno chiesto là citazione in giudizia: RlCCIAFJ."(([ GiL:J
Battista, BURACCffi Vanda, RrCCIARINI Fabrizio, :RJCCIARTh1 Alessandro, RlCCrAROO
Metdlà, PŒTRELU F'lorio, PIETREtt.X Ra..'ti.::::ri, BXA..'N'CUCCI Barbars e BIPu"l'CUCCI
Bear.ice.
P.Q.)rf.
vis.ri gli artt 531 c.p.:;>.; 261 c.p.m.p., I 50 c.p.;
n ICBI.-\.R.-.\
:::~on doversi procedere üd confronü di BOTTCI:I'}1;,R Siegfried, perohé il reato asc:titro&lî 6
'!:Sti.mo pe-.r mone del reo.
JJJ
/1/ rf/- 1
;#1/h
1 ·p
\_/
1
1
13-HOI..!-2008 14: 52 AA REF 507
Visti gli artt. 5:!3 e. s.;;, c.p,p., 261 c.p.m.p.
nrclllA..-v.
+49 1888 171556
i\fiLDE M.11-..1: .Josef. coutiUlliHll.:, colpevole &l t~tc llS::ritrugli e, ritet:~.ut~ ~uçsïstrnri k
circostru;J.Ze aggravant.( conte&iaic, Ct.1n la sola. es.:hJ.sione di quel!<'! di cui llll'a.>1:. 112 .COI'J'.J'C!l 1 l:l~
3, lo
CO::IDAN:'JA
.:.!la pena cleJ!' ergaJ;tclo~ alla peru1 sooessoril'- cie:lla dsgradr.zione, <1l pagarnanto delle spese
pTœes.~l!Ali: e l.ld ogn_i al ira corue~ previm. thUa legge.
Visto 1' a.'<t. 32 comma ! ~ e 2c c.p.rn.p.
ORUrNA
la. pubbLicazione della se;:nte.nza, :me.dîante llffis~lone negli atbi dei Coml1:1Î dellz Spezia, di
Chitella ir! Vsl di c:rc.iana (AR) n dl Bud.ne (A.R}; noncl!é, I15PilS:>: de! ccndaw:mto, pe,g e!itrnl:t.o e
pcr urm sola volta, nei giomali "Coniete doUa Sera" t "La Nazione".
Vlsti gE m. 538 e s.s., 2:{ oormna 2 C.!J·P·· 26ï. c..p.ul.p.
intcnde:ldon revqcata di :lirit:tc l.a costit\J.ZiCJrn': di :parte d·vil~ di L~oni Pavlo,
l'irnputato nl ri~arci.rnento dei danrti, da liquiclmi in ·~eparnta s!!de, in f~vore dclle segu.ami parti
) ci•Ji.ll:
.Presidroza del Cot1biglio de:i )Àlrustri;
Regione Toscana;
Proviucia di .t\.r('.Z%0;
Comune di Civite1Ja in Val di Chilma;
Com\.We di Bucin.e;
Malcntacchl Sestil.io;
IlOJ.JCbt. al pEgarnentc itl favore d~Ue r:ichit::denti parti dvili, cii una J.H'Lnrvisior:lA!t:
i.InJuediaurml::lltt: e.secutiva co:me di segctitc r.ciCl"!l'J..inats: Rr.gicme Toscana € 200.000
(duecentoruila), Pr-nvincia di Nl"dZO € :;so.ooo (trecentocinquamt.mlila), ComuM di Clvhella in
V!tl di Ch.iana f soa.ooo (einque.ccmorni!c.), Ccruune di Bucine € 500.000 (cinquecentomila),
Maientacchî Se>tilio € 200.000 (duec~nto:rrJ!a);
CŒ'i'DANNA
l'irnpuH'ltt'l a Ua riül.5ione clellf'l spè!!e ptocemmli, olt:r~ e LV,A. e C.P.A. di tr;:g~e, in favore delie
pB.Iil ch•iU e ne!le wisuse di seguim indkatc;
Pr:::sidenza del Con.~igl:io de:i ML'1;intti: € 2 . .250 (duemilad~tecer.tor.inquanta), di cui G 250
(ducccrrtocinquanta) pErt spese gillll!nÙl;
.IJ2
S.:l2/1.3
~.
1
/
13-NOlJ-2008 14:52 AR REF 507 +49 1888 171556 5.1]/13
Regione Toscana, PtO\'i:ucia di Are:uo, Comu.C~e d Clvi!ella in Val di Chlana e Comune éi
Bttcine: 6 9.000 (novemile), di cui € 1000 {mille) p.sr spl!lse generaU;
Maientaccbi Sestilio: E 4.500 (quartromilacinque~ento), di cui € 500 per spese genera!i;
co:--.'DAN:?."A
L 'ùn)11ltato e il Response.bile civile, iruilvidueto .nell a RepubbliC.'l. F~dl".r&!e di Gerat;a.ù~ in
solido tra ]oro, al risarcim.ento dei è&fuïi, da l.iqu.îili!rsi in se:pMat<J sede, in fs::ror~ del:e segurnti
. p.arti ctvili:
llicciarini Gio Batiliita;
Buracch:i Vanda;
Ric:cia..'i:ni Fabrizio;
Riccla.<in:! Ale:Jstmdro;
Ricdarir1i Metella;
Bi.ancucci Barbara;
Biancucci Beatrice
Pietm1Ji Florio;
P:etrelli Ranier:_,;
:rmnché, s,;mpre in sol:!do tra !oro, al p!!gatnento in favore delle rndicate parti civùi, de1le
provvisionaLi irrrf!ledia'tam:ente es-ecmive come di seguito determinarr:: Ricciarini G!o B <.~ttisw ~
R:ic:ciarini M';ltdla € 200.000 (d1.1ecentomOa) ciasc1mo; Bl.mcucc1 Barbara, Biancucci Beatrice,
Piètre!E Floria e Pietrelli Ranieri € 100.000 (centomi1a) oiasCUllo; Bumccb:i Vanda: Ricciarini
fabrizio e Rlcciarini Alesstllldro € 66.000 (se.ss!mt&lsdmila) ciascuno;
CONDA.:'lN~
L '.ù:nputato e il Responsabile civ:De, in soli do tra loro, alla ri.fusic;ne delle spese processuali,
oltre a I.V.A e C.P .A ài.legge, J.n favore delle part! dvih e nelle misure di ~;egW.to indicate:
Ricciari..ni Gic Battista; Buracchi Vanda. :flJcciariui Fabrizio, Riccin.rin.i Alessandro,
.Ricci::'l.rini Metella: € 6.075 (seimilasettantadnque), di c.t:i € 675
(sei.cen.tes&.tau.tacînqi..!e) p~r spese generali;
BiEncucci Bes.t!·ke e Bia..'1C1Icoi Barbara: € 6,()75 (seïmilasettanta.cinque), di cui € 675
(seicentoscttanUJ.cinque) per. spese genemli;
Pi~!r.;;lli. Florio e Pietrelli Ranie..r-i € 6.075 (seimilasettantacmqul:'!), dl cui € 675
(seicentosettanracinque) per spose generali.
Depo.sito della sem=za entro no-...~.mta giornL
La Spezil"l, 10 ottobre 2006,
113
Translation
Composed of:
1. Dr Marco BACCI
No. 64/05 Reg. DIB Judgment No. 49
IT ALlAN RE PUBLIC
IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
LA SPEZIA MILITARY TRIBUNAL
2. Dr Piergiorgio PONTICELLI
President
Judge
3. Sub-lieutenant Andrea CARROZZA Judge
4.
5.
\Vith the intervention of the Public Prosecutor in the person of Dr Marco DE PAOLIS
and with the assistance of legal assistant Sub-lieutenant Alessandro CARPITELLI
has delivered the follow1ng
JUDGMENT
at a public hem·ing in the criminal proceedings against
1) Siegfried BÔTTCHER, born on 28/03/1921 (birth certîficate No.//) in Berlin (Gennany)
and resident in 72076 Tübingen (Germany), Ligustervveg 3, with service of the documents
under Atiicle 169 CPP [Code of Criminal Procedure] on his court-assigned counsel, Alessandro
OI{_LANDO of the La Spezia Bar, at the ·material tüne Lieutenant ( Oberleutnant)
Commander of the Rapid Response Unit "Vesuvius" (Chef der Alarmkompanie "Vesuv") of
the Armoured Parachute Reinforcement Division (Fallschirm-Panzer-Nachschub-Truppen)
H.G. of rhe ''Hermam1 Goring" Annoured Parachute Division (Fallschirm-Panzer-Division),
at liberty;
- 2 -
2) Max Josef MILDE, born in Niederhennsdorf (Gennany) on 20/11/1922 and resident in
Bremen (Gennany) at Lübecker Strasse 9, vvith service of the documents under Aliicle 169
CPP [Code of Criminal Procedure] on his comi-assigned counsel Mario MAZZELLA of the
La Spezia Bar; soldier: at the material titne Sergeant (Unteroffizier) attached to the Military
Band (_Musikkapelle) of the "Hermann Goring" Armoured Parachute Division (Fal!schinn--
Panzer-Division), at liberty;
CHARGED \VITH:
"COMPLICITY IN PROTRACTED VIOLENCE AGAINST ENEMY PERSONS AND
MURDER \VITH AGGRA VATING ClRCUMSTANCES"
(61 Nos. 1, 4 and 5 -Art. 81 para.-- 110- 112 para. 1 Nos. 1 and 3, 575, 377, Nos. 3 and 4
Ç1iminaLCo~: Al-ticlcs 13 and 185 of the Wartime Milité!Iy_:rgrmLC~QQ~; Aliicle 47(2) and
(3) --58 para. 1 of the Peacetime Military Penal Code):
"on the ground that, during thestate of war between Itaiy and Germany, while serving in the
Gennan anned forces -the enemy of the Italian State -- with the rank and functions described
above, with the units also described above of the so-called "Herman Go ring" Annoured Parachute
Division, in several operations with the same criminal pu.rpose, acting in complicity
with other so1diers attached to the "Herman Goring" Armoured Parachute Division, some of
them belonging to units of the Feldgendarmerie, the Musikkorp and the "VESU\1" and
"Pauke" Rapid Response Units, all playing a part, according to tbeir specifie rank and function,
in physically carrying out these crimes and, in any event, mutually supporting each other
in their eriminal purpose, on the day of29 June 1944, in the territories ofthe mùnicipa1ities of
Civitella, Comia and San Pancrazio (Arezzo), needlessly and without justification, for reasons
not unconnected witb the war and, in fact, in the context and for the purposes of a wideranging
round-up operation, plmmed and carried out against the partisans and the civilian
population that had demonstnlted solidarity with them, resulting in the deaths of many individuals-
sorne 200 (two hundred), inc1uding the elderly, women and children- who were not
involved in the military operations, acting with eruelty and premeditation, and, in addition,
employing sexual violence against many women and, Jinally, mutilating many corpses.
With the aggravating factors:
under J-\rticle 47(2) CPMP [Peacetime Military Penal Code], conceming the raille held;
under A.1iicle 47(3) CPMP, because the act was committed using the weapons issued;
under Axticle 58, paragraph l, CP_MP, for having acted in complicity with lmver rarùcs;
under Article 112, paragraph 1 No. 1 CP [Crimina1 Code], for having acted in complicity
with more than four persans in con1mitting the offence;
under Article 112, paragraph 1 No. 3 CP for having induced persans subjcct to their
authority or supervis1on to commit the offence;
Lmder Article 61 No. 1 CP, for having committed the act for base reasons;
under Article 61 No. 4 CP, for having committed the act employing torture and cmelty
against the victims;
under Article 61 No. 5 CP, for having committed the act profiting fiom circumstances
oftime, place and persan, such asto impede public or private deferree;
under Article 577 No. 3 CP for having committed the act with premeditation".
GROUNDS IN FACT AND LA'V
PROGID~SS O:F THE PROCEEDINGS (p. 1 0)
1. Outcome of the pre-trial hearing and formation of the case-flle for the oral procedure.

2. The joining of the parties to the proceedings before the military TJibunal.
3. The summonsing ofthe party with civilliability.
4. Oral examination.
5. The pleadings ofthe parties.
FACTS (p. 19)
6. The gathering of evidence.
7. The "Hennan Goring" Annoured Parachute Division.
8. The Musikkorp of the "Hennan Goring" A1moured Parachute Division.
9. ·The unifonns of the "Hennan Goring" Armoured Parachute Division.
10. The involvement ofthe "Herman Goring" Division.
1 L The ki11ing of the Gennan soldiers near the Civitel!a recreation club.
12. The days before the massacre.
13. 29 June 1944: the massacre.
Civitella in Val di Chiana and environs.
Cornia and environs.
San Pancrazio.
- 4-
14. Events following the massacre.
15. The other evidence pertaining to Siegfiied Bottcher.
16. The other evidence pmiaining to Max JosefMilde.
LA \:V (p. 85)
17. The jurisdiction of the military Tribunal.
18. The criteria for evaiuating the evidence.
19. The legal definition of the act and its objective vvrongfulness.
20. The complicity of the defendants in tbe offence.
21. The assessments, in accordance with Artie1es 531, paragraph 1, and 129,
paragraph 2 CPP [Code of Criminal Procedure], in relation to the deceased
defendant, Siegüied Bottcher.
22. The criminal responsibility of the defendant Max JosefMilde.
23. The aggravating circumstances.
24. The mitigating circumstances.
25. Application of the principal punishment.
26. Application of the ancillary punishment.
27. The decision on the civil-la\v issues.
Notification \Vas properly made to the injured parties, by way of public announcernents.
3. The summonsing of the party 'With civil HabiHty
The capacity of the parties to join the proceedings having been established, the sole prehminary
question conceming the summonsing of the party civi1ly liable was raised.
Counsel for parties seeking damages Gio Battista RICCLARIN1, Pierina RICCIARINI, Vanda
B URACCHI, Fabrizio RICCIARINI, Alessandro RICCJARlNI, Metella RICCIARlNI and
counsel for parties seeking damages Florio PŒTRELLI and Ranieri PIETRELLI have in fact
requested that the Federal Republic of Gennany be smmncmsed as the party beming civil
liability.
The public prosecutor objected for reasons w1ùch, as far as the la\v is concemed, are founded
on the impossibility of holding a Soverei§,rrl State liable; the other pmiies, however, refened
the matter to the Tribtma1 to decide.
- 5 -
The Tribunal allowed the request by the above-mentioned parties seeking damages and
adjoumed proceedings to the hearing of 18.4.2006, in arder to meet the requirements linlœd to
summonsing the party with civil liability.
The points of contention concerning the appropriateness of the request in question, which
were again restated when the pleadings were submitted, 1ead the Tribunal to point out that the
requesting parties bave exercised a right that is not open to challenge, in support of the individual
civil interests which they represent in the criminal proceedings.
In revisiting the arguments set forth in the order allowing the request for the party civilly
liable to be summonsed, the Tribunal considered it necessary to consider, on accmmt of the
period of time that has elapsed since the acts took place, tbe possibility that the right to compensation
for the injury suffered may_ have lapsed.
In that connection, according to Article 2947 of the Civil Code, "if the law deems the act to
constitute a crime. and a longer period of limitation is provided is respect ofthat crime, that
period shed! also apply to a civil suit". Tt follows that iftbe offence with which the defendants
are charged is not subject to limitation of actions, the same applies to a civil suit for damages.
Moving on to consider the me1its of the request that the Federal Republic of Germany be
sumrnonsed as the party with civillia1Ji1ity, it is first necessary to examine the matter of what
is termed the identity or continuity of States in relation to pre-existing legal relationships, in
arder to determine whether the Federal Repubhc of Germany may be cal1ed upon to answer
for actions that are attributable to the National Socialist Germany of the Third Reich.
Within the framework of international Jaw, among the issues concerning the succession of
States, the princip le relating to the continuity of legal relations between States where there are
changes to govemment as a result of revolutions, coups d'état or ten-itorial boundaries, has
assumed an importance aU of its own,
As far as change to a State's political institutional system is concernee!, international practice
has established the rule of State continuity, emblematically set out in the Protocol signed, in
London, on 19 February 1831 by the plenipotentiaries of the major European powers who
were meeting to discuss the Bel.gian crisis. That Protocol states, arhong other things, in relation
to changes that bave taken piace within the intemai orgatùzation of nations, that changes
that have occurred in the situation of a State do not authorize that State to consider itse{f
relieved of its previous commitments. 1
That pr:incip1e - Yvhich was not alien to diplomatie practice- was further confim1ed subsequently
to settle the daims of some govemments which, like the Soviet Govenunent, were
the product of revolutions.
Intemational case-law, in tum, demonstrated that it accepted the principle that had been laid
dawn. Significant in that context is the arbitral award of 18 October 1923 in the dispute
between Great Britain and Costa Rica, in the so-cal1ed "Tinoco" affair: "Changes in the government
or the interna! polüy of a State do not as a rule affect its position in international
law. A monarchy may be transformed into a republic or a republic into a monarchy,· absolute
principles may substituted for constitt~tional, or the reverse; but though the government
changes, the nation remains, with rights and obligations unimpaired."
The award; tnoreover, draws attention to the way in which Louis XVlH ànd Louis Philippe
compensated the citizens offoreign States, in so far as practicable, ±or the losses caused by
Napoleon's Govemment. The award also cites the similar approach adoptee! by the King of the
Two Sicilies who indemnified citizens of the United States for intemationally wrongful acts
committed by Murat.
The question of the continuity of the Gemwn State was discussed shonly afrer the Second
World War ended (see M Giu'LI.ANO), La situazione attuale della Germania, Modena 1949).
More particularly, in the immediate post-war period, the issue of the possible dissolution of
the Gennan State arose as a result of the occupation of Gennan tenitory vvhich, as is well
known, the Allied Powers divided into four different zones of occupation, under the authority
of the respective Commanders-in-Chief.
Notwithstanding that unusual situation, Gennan academie 1egal writers favourecl the approach
tbat the Gennan State persisted and continued to exist as a subject of international law (see
M GIULIANO, op. cit., 3 et seq.).
1 Translator's note: my translation-- l \Vas not able to fmd the authentic text of the J 831 Protocol.
Some national courts have taken decisions in a similar vein; in point of fact, the decisions of
1 December 1945 of the Obergericht of the Canton of Zmich and of 24 J1muary 1946 of the
Aus1rian Bundesgericht, confirmed the continued existence of the Gem1an State as a subject
of international law. Gennany's subsequent political development serves only to confjrm tbe
above-mentioned stance.
Moreover, during the post-war peliod; the Federal Republic of German y itself showed that it
adhered to the rule of continuity of States, as demonstrated by the agreements to mitigate the
harm caused by the deportation of Italian citizens and their use as forced laboure1·s.
That said, it should be pointed out that, at the materiai time, the dcfendants were non-commissioned
officers, serving in a division of the Gem1an anny and engaged in acts of war in the
interests of the State to which they belonged.
According to a recent judgment of the United Civil Chambers of the Supreme Comi of
Cassation (Cass. Civ. Sez. Un., 11-03-04, No. 5044), the joint civil liability of a soverei.E,'11
State for acts that constitute international crimes committed by its citizens, may be established
if th.ose acts are, in any event, Iinked to exercise of functions in the context of a service or
employmeni relationship.
In the specifie case of the parties which have requested that. the party with civil liability be
summonsed, the claim for compensation for pecu11iary and non-pecuniary damages is based
on the killing of Mete11o RICCIARINI and Ranieri PETRELLI, in circumstancés that will be
examined.
Moreover, the Supreme Court handed down a ru1ing specifically in relatlon to the immtmity
of the Federal Republic of Gennany from the Itahan courts, wh en it considered the case of the
deportation to Gennany of an Italian citizen 'vvho was used as forced labour un til April 1945.
Wl1ile acknowledging that customary international law requires States to refrain from exer··
cising jurisdiction m relation to foreign States, the Court fmmd that the scope of that principle,
which was once absolute, had gradually been curtailed· ( Cass., sez. Un., 3 August 2000,
No. 530/SU; 3 Febmary 1996, No. 919) to the point where it no longer applies in relation to
international crimes.
- 8 -
In point of fact, according to the Court, such crimes threaten the who1e of humanity and
undennine the bases of inten1ational co-existence, constituting a pmiicularly serions violation
of the fundamental rights of the individual.
Peremptory rules have been established to secure the protection of those rights; they are
situated àt the pümacle of the international legal order and talee precedence over any other
customary and contractual provision, including those pertaining to immtmity, Consequently,
the immtmity of a foreign State from civil jmiscliction do es not apply in relation to conduct of
an extremely grave nature such as, pursuant to rules of customary intemational law, international
crimes prejudicial to universal values that tnmscend the interests of the individual
State communities.
As regards the applicability ofthe above-mentioned Article 77( 4) of the Peace Treaty between
Italy and the Allied and Associated Pmvers, the actual wording of that provision limits the
effectiveness ofthe act of waiver exclusively to claims against Gem1any and its citizens outstanding
on 8.5.1945 and relating exclusively to realrights.
That interpretation is required by Article 2 of the Constitution, according to which "ft] he
Republic shall recognize and guarantee the inviolable rights of man" and is indirectly confimled
by the subsequent signing of the agreements between Italy and Gennany of 2.6.1961
("Agreement between the Italian Republic and the Federal Republic of Gennany conceming
the compensation of ltalian citizens who were the victims of National Socialist measures of
persecution", ratification and implementation of which was authorized by Law No. 404 of
6.2.1963; and "Agreement between the Italian Republic and the Federal Republic of Gennany
for the settlement of ce1iain issues of a pecuniary, economie and financial nature", implemented
by Presidential Decree No.l263 of 14.4.1962).
The final settlement of these matters betweeù the t\vo States, which is contained in Article 4
of the above-mentioned agreement on compensation, relates exc]usively to the issue of
deportations and the consequences thereof, as is clear from the specifie reference contained in
Article 2 of the law authorizing ratification. It follows tha1 the agreement is not applicable to
this case.
Article 2 of the later agreement conceming issues of a pecuniary, econom1c and financial
nature provides:
- 9 -
"1. The Italian Government declares to be resolved al! of the claims and requests of the
Ita!ian Republic or of Italian natural persans or legal entities, still outstanding in relation to
the Federal Republic of Germany or to German natural persans or legal entities, provided
that they have their basis in rights or rec1sons that arose in the period between 1 September
1939 and 8 May 1945.
2. The Italian Government will hold the Federal Republic of Germany and Gerrnan natural
persans and legal entities immune from any action or other legal claim by Italian natural
persans or legal entities in relation to the ab()ve-mentioned daims and requests. "
As regards the app1icabi1i1y of that agreement to the present case, it should be pointed out that
this too relates to claims and requests still outstanding at the date of the entry ioto force of the
agreement; of greater relevance, however, is the consideration 1hat, in relation to tbat agreement,
Parliament did not adopt a law authmizing ratification in accordanee with A.xticle 80 of
the Constitution, although such a law is required for international treaties of a po!itical nature
or which provide for arbitration or legal settlements or entai] changes to the national tetritory
or financial burdens or changes in the law. lt follows that the agreement in question, as its title
suggests, moreover, contains no judicial regulation, is purely economie in nature and can in
no way be deemed to limit the rigbts which may be asserted only within the judicial sphere.
4. The proceedings
At the hearing of 18.4.2006, once service of the order summonsing the party with civilliability
had been estahlished, the proceedings were opened and the parties requested that their
respective evidence be admitted.
The Public Prosecutor made a conection to the indictment, deleting from it a minor typing
enor in the fonn of the expression "e in prevalenza" ("mainly"); consequently, citing what is
set out in the list under Aliicle 468 CPP [Code of Criminal Procedure], the Public Prosecutor
requested the examination of the witnesses, expert witnesses, the defendants and defendants
in respect of related offences.
On the following day, at the hearing of 20 June 2006, the Tribunal ordered that the request for
legal aid in criminal proceedings be traoslated into Gem1an; consequently, the proceedings
\Vere stayed awaiting the expert assessinents provided by the Stuttgart Prosecutor's Office.
- 10-
On the opening of the hearing of22 September 2006, counsel for the defendant MILDE stated
that he was observing the non-attendance at hearings declared by the Organismo Unitario
dell:4vvocatura [Unitary Bar Association]; recognizing that counsel was legitimately prevented
from attending, the Tribunal postponed the hearing.
At the hearing of 10 October 2006, the Public Prosecutor first withdrew his request for other
witnesses to be admitted, mmexed to the verbatim report of the heming of 12 June 2006; be
then submitted the death certificate of the defendant Siegfried Harald BOTTCHER, issued on
3 August 2006 by the Tübingen Registrar's Office.
Having taken note of those statements, the Tribunal cancelled the reports on the psychophysical
condition of BOTTCHER; it therefore referred, as regards the decision, to all of the
acts and documents collated in the case-file and, as there was no request for a reading, invited
the parties to submit their pleadings.
5. The pleadings of the parties
The Public Prosecutor made the following separate requests to the Tr1bunal:
l. in respect of Siegf-ried BÔTTCHER, that the Tribunal should not proceed
flniher as the crime had lapsed as a result of the death of the offender;
2. in respect of Max Josef MILDE, that he should be sentenced to .life
impr:isonment and ordered to pa y costs and damages, to be settled at a separate
hearing, for the benefit of the parties seeking damages.
The parties seeking damages, including Paolo LA.i\!1MIONI, now deceased, supported the
requests of the Public Prosecutor, and submitted their wlitten pleadings.
In regard to both defendants, counsel for the defence asked that they should be acquitted on
the ground that they were not guilty ofthe acts in question.
On conclusion of the proceedings, the Tribunal declared that it would not proceed against
· Siegfried BOTTCHER, as the offender was now deceasec!; and sentenced Max MILDE to life
impr:isom11ent and the consequences laid down by law. Furtbemwre, the Tribunal ordered the
defendant MILDE to pay compensation, to malœ interim payments and to pay the costs of the
- 11 -
parties seeking damages, and, solely in relation to those parties that had asked for it to be
summonsed, [so orderedj the party with civilliability, beingjointly and severally liable.
26. The decision on the civil-law issues
The ctiminal responsibility of Max Josef MILDE havîng been established, the Tribunal :finther
sentenced hhn to pay compensation in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage inflicted as a result of the crime, for the benefit of the parties that had joined proceedings
seeking damages; that compensation to be scttled before the civil courts, since the
evidence gathered did not make it possible accurately to quantify the amount of the damage
suffered.
The President of the Counci1 of Ministers and the regional bodies (Regione TosC{tna, Provincia
di Arezzo and Municipalities .of Civitella in Val di Chiana and Bucine) assumed the
role of injured parties in fulJi!ment of their responsibilities to protect the interests of the local
communities \Vhich they represent (Cass., Sez. Vi~ Judgment No. 59 of 10 January 1990, Mon-·
ticelli; Cass., Sez. I, Judgment'No. 10371 of 18 October 1995, Costioli). In point of fact, the
massacre of many persans, the suffe1ings inflicted on the community, the depletion of the
workforce and means of support, as a result of the systematic killing of the male population
and the destruction of entire regions, had a negative impact of the opportunities for the social,
economie and cultural development of those municipalities, which were marked by those
events over generations.
lt has, moreover, been demonstrated that the natural persans who had joined the proceedings
seeking damages had suffered hann for the folJowing reasons:
MALENTACCHI Sestilio, as a result of the murder of his father MALENTACCHI Nello,
fatally wounded in Civitella on 29.6.1944, Yvho died of his injuries at his horne a few hours
lat er.
RlCCIARINI Gio BattisJa (son), BIANCUCCI Barbara, BIANCUCCI Beatrice (heirs in suc·-
cession to the cleceased HJCCIARINI Pierina, daughter of the victim), RICCIARlNI Metella
(daughter), BURACCHI Vanda (daughter-in-law), RICCIARINI Fab1izio (nephew), RJCCLI\-
RINJ Alessandro (nephew), as a result of the :ri1urder of their relative RlCCIARTh1 Metello
near the Ponte di Palazzina on 29.6.1944.
PIETRELLI Floria and PIETRELLI Ranieri, as a resuH oflhe murder ofPIETRl~LLI Ranieri,
that took place ne ar the Bunone farm on 29. 6.] 944.
- 12-
The application of the party LAMMION1 Paolo to join proceedings is deemed implicitly to
have been withdrawn, as the latter failed to submit pleadings; in addition, on reading of the
operative part, notification of his death, which bad occurrecl before the pleadings [were submitted],
was attached to the record ofproceedings.
The defendant is further ordered to make interim payrnent, immediately enforceab1e, to the
parties seeking damages; in that regard, the Tribunal has fmmd there to be justifiee! grounds
for this because of the substantial amount of damage <md the length of time that has now
el~psed since the fàcts; furthermore, the Tribunal has decidee! to award interim payments also
to the na111ral persons who have joined the proceedings but have not specifically requested
this (RICClARlNI Gio Battista, BIANCUCCI Barbara, BIANCUCCI Beatrice, RlCCLARINI
Metella, BURACCHI Vanda, RICCIARINI Fabrizio, RJCCIARINl Alessandro, PIETRELLI
Floria and PIETRELLI Ranieri) (see C. Cass. 4.11.1999, Crepalci, L~D, No. 216128).
The amount of the interim payments, limited to the hmm in respect of which evidence is
deemed already to have been fumished, and taking account of thè schedules of the Milan
Court [Tribunale di Milano], and, as far as the natural persans are concemed, their individual
relationships, is set as follows: Regione Toscana € 200,000 (two hundred thousand), Pro~
vincia di Arezzo € 350,000 (three hundred and fifty thousand), 1viunicipality of Civitel1a in
Val di Chiana € 500,000 (6ve hlmdred thousand), Municipality of Bucine € 500,000 (fïve
hundred thousand), MALENTACCHI Sestilio €200,000 (two hunclred thousand), RJCCIARINI
Gio Batista and RICCIARINI Metella €200,000 (two hundred thousand) each; BIANCUCCI
Barbara, BIANCUCCI Beatrice, PIETRELLI Floria and PIETRELLI Ranieri
€ 100,000 (one hundred thousand) each; BURACCHI Vanda, RlCCIARINI Fabrizio and
RICCIARlNl Alessandro € 66,000 (sixty-six thousand) each.
The defendant is fmiher ordered to pa y the costs of the parties that have joined proceedings,
taking into account the extent of the deferree services provided, as well as A.rticle 3 of the
scale of costs in criminal proceedings [Tarifia penale] (approved by Decree No. 127 of the
Minister of Justice of 8 April 2004), as specified beiow:
President of the Council ofMinisters: € 2,250 (two thousand, tvvo hundrecl and fifty), € 250 of
which for general expenses; Regione Toscana, Provincia di Arezzo, Municipality of Civitella
in Val di Chiana and Municipality ofBucine: € 9,000 (nine thousand), € 1,000 (one thousand)
of which for general expenses; MALENTACCHI Sestilio: € 4,500 (four thousand, five hundred),
€ 500 (five hundred) ofwhich for general expenses;
- l3-
RJCCIARfNI Gio Batista, BURACCHf Vanda, RICCIARIN1 Fabrizio, RICCIARINI Alessandro,
RJCCIARINI Metella: € 6,075 (six thousand and seventy-five), € 675 (six hundred
and seventy-five) of which for genera! expenses; PIETRELLI Ftorio and PIETRELLI Ranieri
€ 6,075 (six thousand and seventy-fîve), € 675 (six hundred and seventy-five) of which for
general expenses.
Finally, the Tribunal orders the party with civil liability (the Federal Republic of Gem1any),
jointly and severally with the defendant MILDE, and in the amount of the sums set out above,
to pay compensation, to make an ÎmtJ1ediare1y enforceable interim payrnent and to reimburse
costs, solely for the benefit of those parties which asked for it to be summonsed: RICCLt\·
RINI Gio Battîsta, BURACCHI. Vanda, RICCIARINI Fabrizio, RICCIARfNI Alessandro,
RlCCIARINI Metella, PIETRELLI Floria, PIETRELLI Ranieri, BIANCUCCI Barbara and
BIANCUCCI Beatrice.
ON THOSE GROlJ1'·TDS
having regard to Article 531 CPP [Code of Crimina1 Procedure], Article 261 CPI\fP [Peacetime
Military Penal Code] and i\rticle 150 CP [Crimina1 Code],
THE TRIBUNAL HEREBY DECLr\RES
that no further proceedings should be taken in respect of Siegfried BOTTCHER, as the crime
with which he is charged has lapsed as a result of the death of the offender.
having regard to Articles 533 et seq. CPP and Article 261 CPiviP,
DECLARES
Max JosefMILDE, in absentia, guilty of the crime with which he is charged, and declares the
aggravating circumstances cited to have been proven, with the sole excepiion of that provided
for in Article 112, paragraph 1, No, 3;
- 14-
SENTENCES
him to life imprisonment, the ancillary punishment of demotion, payment of the costs of the
proceedings and any oiher consequence stipulated by the law.
Having regard to .t'\rticle 32, paragraphs 1 and 2 CPMP,
ORDERS
publication of the judgment, by affixing it to the notice-board of the Municipalities of La
Spezia, Civitella in Val di Chiana (Al~ and Bucine (AR); and, at the clefendant's expense, in
the fom1 of an abstraet and once only, in the newspapers ''Corriere della Sera" and "La
1Vazione".
Having regard to Articles 538 et seq. and 82, paragraph 2 CPP and Article 261 CPMP,
Paolo Lammiorii is deemed ipso jure to have ceased to be a party to the proceedings seeking
damages.
OIU>ERS
the defendant to pay compensation, to be settled at a separate hearing, to the following pmiies:
-President of the Council ofMinisters;
- Regione Toscana;
-· Provincia di Arezzo;
- Municipality of Civitella in Val di Chiana;
- Municipality of Bucine;
- Sestilio Malentacchi;
as well as to make to those parties which have so requested an immediately enforceable
interim payment set as follows: Regione Toscana € 200,000 (two hundred thousand), Provincia
de Arezzo € 350,000 (three bundrecl and fifty thousand), Municipality of Civitella in
Val di Chiana € 500,000 (five hundred thousand), Municipality of Bueine € 500,000 (five
hundred thousand), S~stilio Malentacclü € 200,000 (two hundred thousand);
-15 -
ORHERS
the defendant to reimburse the costs of the proceedings, as weH as VAT and statutory CPA
[Cassa Previdenza Avvocati -- Lawyers WeHàre Fund] in the following amounts:
President of the Council of Ministers: € 2,250 (two thousand, two hundred and fifty),
€ 250 (two hunclred and fi:fty) ofwhich fiyr general expenses;
Regione Tas cana, Provincia de Arezzo, Municipality of Civitella in Val di Clüana and
N'Iunicipality of Bucine: € 9,000 (ni ne thousand), € 1 ,000 (one tbousand) of which for
general expenses;
Sestilio Malentacchi: € 4,500 (four thousancl, five hundred), € 500 of which for
general expenses;
ORDERS
the defendant and the party with civilliability, identified as the Federal Republic of Gennany,
jointly and severally, to pay compensation, to be settled at a separate hearing, to the following
pmiies seeking damages:
- Gio Battista Ricciarini;
- Vanda Buracchi;
- Fabrizio Ricciarjni;
- Alessandro Ricdarini;
- Metella Riccimini;
-Barbara BiaJ1cucci;
- Beatrice Biancucci;
- I<'lorio Pietrelli;
- Ranieri Pietrelli;
as well as, again jointly and severa1ly, to make to the above-mentioned parties immediately
enforceable interim pa:yments set as follows: Gio Battista Ricciarini and Metelia Ricciarini
€ 200,000 (two hundred thousand) each; Barbara Biancucci, Beatrice Biancucci, Flmio Pietrelli
and Ranieri Pietrelli € 100,000 (one hundred thousand) each; Vanda Bmacchi, Fabrizio
Ricciarini and Alessandro Ricciarini € 66,000 (sixty-si.x thousand) each;
-- 16-
ORDERS
the defendant and the party with civil liability, jointly and severally, to pay the costs, as weil
as VAT and statutory CPA [Cassa Previdenza Avvocati- Lavvyers \:Velfare Fund], for the
benefit ofthe parties seeking damages and in the amounts stipulated below:
Gio Battista Riccim.-ini, Vanda Buracchi, Fabrizio Ricciai:ini, Alessandro Ricciarini,
Metella Ricciarini: € 6,075 (six thousand and seventy-five), € 675 (six hundred and
seventy-five) ofwhich for general expenses;
Beatrice Biancueci and Barbara Bianeucei: € 6,075 (six thousand and seventy-five),
€ 675 (six hundrecl and seventy-five) ofwhich for general expenses;
Floria Pietrelli and Ranier:i Pietrelli € 6,075 (six thousand and seventy-fîve), € 675 (six
hundred and seventy-five) of which for general expenses_
Judgment to be registered within nînety days.
La Spezia, 10 October 2006.
THE PRESIDENT
Dr Marco Bacci
(Responsible for drafting the judgment)
[Signed]
[Thisjudgment was registered on 2 February 2007
in accordance vvith Article 548 CPPJ
Annex 15
Military Court of Appea!s, Rome
case of 1\1a\: Jose fMi/de, judgment of 18 December 2007
N. 5!}i'2007 R.G. Senlcnza N. 72/07
·---~---------. ~--~------·ïrïfPl_··"J'lf_n_ ·_T:Tc __ A_----y_ 'YA.tT:A_ NA ~ .. --1ll_=~~ti;:::::,7 ...... --------------~t------ .......... ---... ------··-r~'fNOMJ3]JE[POPOW ITALIÀ NO---····-·w-· ------- -~·naraaej)[)sifo ____ __
--------~----l-----·----··-·----·------tA··ço~T~--1\hlLYf.Afurrn--·APPELicr·:·-···~----~---- .. ---2-~·5-GiiN.-~OOD.~~;;
·---·----comfiosta aiisTgnoïî:·-~---------···-~--"'·· ···········-~-~-~---·'·······- .. :~"~----~-- ._ , <;~~
·---------.. ·------ ···T:·o~------cfûseppë··-·····lviDNïëX .............................. Prestdenae··~ --··mm~nr;&~:or:·-···-··
1 ---------~~-·r.notc--·~~-----crh.isepiJë·--······:NrAzzc----·--·---········~ ............. oh1alcê _____ ·-·uîüsEppc11;f:AZZT
--·-----L1:1Jor···--r:;UgrMiirtil ·· l<LAM1l'1!···· · ············· · ···13liidlèê t··aadr····-··········· ··
1 -----~--·------/: "'irTfeïiDTV.U:d:l~:-~Ffa-:Vlü~------·-,-~2AN1Nr···· -~-----·-··--·-· .. ····· ....... oriiafce-· r--· .. ïrïvlafo-·ësîriïiro ...... . 1 J ! ~ 1 - •
• ·:;····---~-~51'eli'Cott:.c:----om;,ëJ(f- . :FAZZlNI -... .. -- . ·- ·owar,;e. r~-esecut-l'vofi:· ---~---
-------.. ·-·r--·coiï--PTnTêr\ïen to--oer-s_ osfifuto· ·Prô'ëürïih-)rê ___ gèiieriie·-·mrrrta_ re '('[!. ott_:-.. -~---- --w w·-------- · --·----- .... · ---- -_
;;:------·--· '"UorWèïitëé1<JTOliD'AJ'l1r e con FasâistèliiiueT-Tôffahofatore ··-ar~~·- ...... -......... -------------------- : ! ' , ;--·-··---~~-- --~- ca.nce!Ierralrott:J<ërüilo-R'OCCA-napronunêiâ:to~·iri"putmlfca· tidiêiiz7tra-T·--·acrar· · ·---- ·-· -------- --
... · ~~--- segUênle ----··--·---· .. --------·-·------·-··-~"·'--~---·---···~·-~t-iii1!iilhf'lô'llêilâ"·--· -~~--·-~-~-------------------------------·s·E·-r;r-r·E·N-z-A-------·· ·-----------_----·--w----------r--·--ciîse11îirïO ·---------------
-~c-~ - . î ----------~---- -neJ proccilfmèn to 11~ma lea"Cafléonr:··-· ··-- - ·"· .... ··------~---------------·---------v.-··r···· _______ , ___ · ........ · · ---- ·---------
~--·wncnlr-:Mi\x-:rôse!ÇD-âto -i l-20'"ilovêinofe-T92TaNŒrclë!·11emisdorr-~i-----G1ïn!)1or1c .. ï;ie!l:ir~- -
; ------+( Glfun iiiiO); -resïiteute Iiî2ll2DJ.!li'èlif:ÇI:UI>iiéKefffiliiiië ·iî:<r(ŒiûfOilîii);-l---an;·---·--~-~~- •· ~-- -
~~- --------------r-abffilcmaro,--aT · se11sT- aëTI'ail1wT:p-.p:; 'pressn.ï1-"l1ifén:.mre;· .â,'vodilo--~-----1-ziëo'i's1'f!Jfir--cas~â2ra
-------~~~--racopolYièïi1(fc6fi-siüdio"1n·r:-a:-speifâ1n'"Via·saprAïïfonJo n.7; .sêrgefire·-jrroposrô-(lli!-~--- -- ·
:.===~;,:;~:-:;:~::;:.:.·:.: ~~~::::;~·1l~~l:O~~·-:~·~~~~~--ç~==--=~:=·== ; l-In-:~eguHo a1Të1mpuftutzi0Fïf ptopOstà dai ctifënsoreiai ,;npüfatï5"eaiil ___ l_:_ ____________ u~·---· · "---
~--~---t-·---amn-iSoî:e-dë1-.Resp6nsfiliiTe-cFille~·TaeritifiCatanèltalrepuofi1Tc& teaerare-· "-·-- ------· · · ·· · · · · ---- ··-~
---ill(:fe!1nanfii:. avverso 1is~titëlfza·fifôï1ün~êTiifâ~mâata rü"'Cfffôbi-e201J5 ... dill~ ---~----"""--··-··-·····~'----···---
------~-·..-.·---·-· -J·. ···---~-~---------------------- --~---·-····-··· ~----.... ··-;- ·--~--------------~----~-- ... ---·· .. _l Tribunale militare della Spezia.
--------- ' --------------~---~--~---·················-··· -----··---·--------··-···----
: i. Con decreta che dispone il giuclizio emesso il 12 ottobre , ---------------- ____ .; _____ ~----------------------~---~-------- --- -·- ·----------~-----...-.---..-------'-------------- ----- ---------~ ----.-----------.- ....
------------ -----~1 ~::~~~:d:~i;~~~-"::::.L~:~;z;~:~~r~:~::nid~:"i:h~~~i-a_ -i······ -----------r------------~~--cc)?~c~oisüm-vroLENzAcoNo'Miêillro col'rrR.o ---- ........ -----------1--------------------C------.. -·· ·• . . ---·-----· •···· -·
___ _ _ j PRIV~T~N~-~J~I:_~~~~~~~~~~~ E CONTINUATA"(61 nn. 1,4
e 5- artt 81 cpv. -HO~l12~co. 1 nn.1e 3, 575, 577 ru1. 3 c 4 codicc 1 ' --·-----------------+---------. ----~--~·-----~-----------,---:----------~------------------- --'------· -------- 1 penale ; artt 13 e 185 codice penale militare di gu ena, à rtL 4 7 nn. 2 c 3 ·
---------·
_____ ,_ ---- /-58 co. I-codi~~-p~;;le ;~jiii:;;~-ctT~;~~~---. ------------ --J- --- --------------------!. -----------------:--------·-------------------------------------------------~-----,----------- ------------------- -----------------+--. ----------
~-~~t~d~~=~~~~~~=- . ~ ital1ano --con 1 gradî e le nmzioni in premessa 1ndicati, pressa i reparti l
- --~-- ----~----------------~-~--~---------------------------------------------- ---- .. ---- --- i. --- -.... -- <:'~ ! patimenti sopraindicati della Divisione Paracadutisti Corazzata 1
~------+-- -------- ----- ·---·-------------~------- ----- -·-·----- --·----------------------·-------------------·--·-----·+·---·---·-
1 "Hermann Géiring". · alcuni dei quali appartenenti a reparti di 1
-------· -+---==---------~-~-·:-----~·.-~---· ·------ - ---------- ... ' -- --··
j Feldgendarmer:ie, di Mmdkkorp' e deUe Compagnie di Pronto lmpiego '
---------------~;'VESUV~~ "PAurŒ~\ t1c~Ù- ;~~~~~dola .. sp~~ifi;~-qu.a!itr;;;~~i~n~------ -:-- ·---- ··--- -------------1-------- --------·------------------------- --------- -------------------------~------------ ---------------- ____ i
_____ _ . · / contribuendo aJla materiale realizzazîone del crimirie e · comunque ,
-------------· . ··---------------~-------- ----- ..• ·1 -- .• --
) reciprocamente rafforzandosi nel proposito delittuoso, nella giomata !
d- ----- J del 29 giugno 1944, nei territori dei ~o~;; dl Ci~t~lla, Comi-;-~- -~-----------
~---------j·s~Panc;~~(A_;~~~~)~~~~-;;:;--ri~~~Jtà ~--~~~;-giustificato m~tivo, p~--~------ ----~-------,- • -------------c-.~----------------. ------------
- t.cause non estrariee alla guetTa e anzi ncH'ambito e con finalità di j
··------ ------· -------------------------------------------------------- -- .. "" ··:-. -------- ·--- ·--j --- .. -----
" un'ampia operazione di rastrellamento planificata e condotta contro i :
_---- ---- ~- --------------- ------- --- - ---- - ----------------------- ----- -----·----- --·- ------~-----
! partîgiani e la popolazione civile che a que1li si mostrava soiidale, 1
------1--- - - --- ------ -~--------- --- --
_____ 1
_""1l"'"''"nc' la morte di num_erose !'ergone ... circa 200~d~ecento), tra ___ [ _ _
2
------- - ·' .. --
1
-~=1~~~~~l====~ i
-~-~-~ r=r-e viol~~za _sessu~1-~- ~--~o-1t~-~o:~~~~-~compiendo, illfine:S~mpio ~--r~~~=--~~~-~~-~
.. -1__: ~um:;;:;~:anc ~-------~----. ·--·-······ .. ·. ·······:··-·········------···· ... ----~ -· ·--:drcuraWart.47ü.::fC.r~n1~~. peril grado rivestito, ;---~--~------------
---'---~--~-------.~.-~. ----------------------------~---·- .. - ../. .. ..... -............. ------- 1 d1 cm all art, 47 n 3 c.p.m.p.per aver commesso 1l fatto con i
1 -- ~----- -------- t----------~----------------;--.-~-~. --. --- -~~ -·---------·.-
/ le ;mm m dotaz1one, ·
- ·--------~ --- -- di cui all'att.58 co. ·-1 ~c-.p-.m-.-p-., peresser concorso con --~-- --
/ ............ ----~---------Tnfer!ori in gr-ado;-----·· .... __________ . -------~---------------- .. -- ·
-------- ~-------- ----- - -~----------~-------~--------~ --------- ~-------------~ ---------------- -L--- --~------- ~ - -
·. · J ~ t l/ di eni all'art. 112 co. ln. 1 c.p.~ per ess~~ conc~r~o nel reato -·- L
_ ------------ - " in ptù di quat.tro persane,
.... cÇ ~ .. j-~- ·--:--·aicm àlrart, Tf2co~1 fi.3c~, per aver determimüo a t------------
1 '
-- ' -___
r
___ .............. ëoiiii11ëitere-Tfreafç)-pel~sonesoggette alla propna autorità_o ___ ! ---------~ ------
-----·-----------+-----. -------.-- 'l ---·- ---------- ---·· -----·---~-----------·"---------------------1·----------------- ---------------- 1 Vlgi anza, 1
----[------- --::.--crr--cmaiT'art 61 n. 1 c.p.,per aver commesso îTTaffo-per---~-+ .. ··-------------.. ·----~-- ........ .
·-----,-. ____ , ___ riïotl"V!a5Jettl~------------------------------- --- .. r· -------·--
_____ .,.._)___ - ·-clr eut ali,. arC61n.4c1l~;-pcraver--comrï1ë~sso î!TâJfo--!--------------------
1 -----------------aaopenmdo servlZIO e crudeltâ verso !evittBne~------------------------:--------------------
y-------- i - di cui all'art:""ùr--ii:---s--c-:p:;-për" aver commessô' il fatto . ----~- "--------------------------
:·-=~1=~ pw1i~= di ::iliiniOffitèffipci;dnUOjjûe Ô! ~e~r~n~~uu ].········-- : -----~t taliâa ostacülare la pu'6li1Tca e pnvata a:!fesa, ____ L
____________________________ _ - di cui all art.-57/11.-·:rë-:p-:-,--peraver comrn-èsso lrTaffêi~con 1
. ---~---------- ----· ,--.---·---------·-··--- --··----- -··---------·---------· ---·-----~-------------·--------~~---- premedi tazwne".
i ----------1·· -·· -·--··--··--··-·----~------------ --------·-------~-~- -----r------------·--., - 1
3
··· _:: . .,~-----~- --· --"Çon seiiûiiiîlf1ilïliiliri(fiiil0Jîi<ï 2ôli6 i!TiiJiüiîi\r.mJïjiiü:fi ii6lli:-~-- -----
. ----~ -~sj:îë7Ji- condannâv'ii"l~J-fU:fi'"Nf.ii .. JosêT-alïapena '"2îefl1'ëiiàstok, ~--·-r··-· ··"·-~
·--------- dichiarava non ctoverst proèedEre.nmcanfrôî1H-dr"Bo:rc1i~ ~1egfnët1-t-----.. ·--
. ~-~--"----- perthé il reàtO ascnttogff'ê-'eéifitititpêrtr1ortê-def teD. J:Jiùrdb"tÇ aH a w--:--·--·----
---c-··-·1-piiSJZTi>hé"ai\rl:iOJllffiilrîif.!eiifétJiii"lfr]iili!i() "frâdô·-;,ortè st•ii1-t -.. --
·~=~-- '-~~~~~:;la moltv:,:~-~~fc~ d;~~Vëi~:~lO~l~:o~:::~:=·:i ••••=: . . . ' . 1 ·------------·-·---aëfl.eaflivltf-iJroëê&illiil1con1prütc-ne!Ja"·· .. ràSe~arDFtifri1enfifif'(ï5on---~ .. ~:~-··---~--~
-------------- --spêcilio~iTirrfniëfiirt't1J~fàikmfcriê--EIDiiio mofiva(ol~âëêoglimêiilii ___ _. ... ·"····----.. --..
---·····------- crerrârfêfii'i$ta::<n~àlëunë-tmrt-rë1v11I··a:rcnaiioneaa·~i:ësi1<i"nsaEiî~civmï;--- ...... ·----··-·--
:--···· .. ·~·--------~--L"RëvüSOIIëa"Fêaëmre·a-rmrrualiiâ)-;ITiustra, conpartrëoTare·aê-éurât.ezza ··--1 --·"··----"--
~--- --~----feco.fnplëtezza,--rii--·v.1ëenâa-per la- q. üii1F~è-:-Sfiîfo-·Iiiîz~.àf0-_1Cprë.sëntë· · · · · ··J[· .... ~-­ -- l-proceê!Tihento penale, rl;llaHvo aria strage~è?mpmta li1ëffita 19'-giïigno··---- .. --- -·-··- . 1
··---- ~[9'44,:" ne11e Tôëi1tfifŒFClvil'allii-jifValï3fCfi!1ifta, CoriililëS':J'ifriêrazjb, -~~-----
------~----·-,··aümïTffartlenësèfitâpjniifénëfilfa1illDIVis1oné"'Hën11iî!mG5nï1&f';-coT1 .... ----~------ ··--~··
-
.. --·•nl=:~::::::::"'::=f~:;;,;~;;:: ::~:Zi:.:~-n-:~==- •
------------·-r- uccJsJone, 1n s gm-gnow.?f~ prèsso1rc1rëôlorwf~~IivoClrcivim1ra,C!r--j
--~ -tre!niliraifiëàëSê1u;ëmun: urœ·iiori21ïii1IfarïHè(fé!roo~·-âppliffënërl'te n11a-···· ·1·. .. ------ ----~---·, -nragendarrnërïè;trm gmgnof!J4:t-{i0ffif r.fraa!fënlfi!ô'l:ffi'ga~~-- -l -----·----
i . . 1
,_ · .· ·=t~e B.u· c.-mêf.ne .•. m. vw···n.1EW~ëëïâtnl.iiüt";îT:sîlè;Oëi~~~""29~~rug.r m~·Tr~lr--~~.C---~--~~--~.· ~- operaz1one n1ffi'ffii'e, eut pili'tecmm'ono appa\:WÏlentl a reparti cu
-·- · · . •eldgenàartl:lene (compr~3lquê11fprov"6nfun1rmrrMtfsïl<Rorp)"'ëa·âne--·~--~-- ..... . 1
-~---~~----·-·r-------r-~·_Pr~mo~~nn~~~o~':'ü~~~~v~~~-~: p~~w~~ -}= . - j
1
1
4
1
· ... ·
'.1
--------·'-----lnâiscnmiiiru1r··ùï:iëisîô1fé.-iTh1lë .. }xYfsone··ê1vî1îrëpelim"pl'e:;;~o~rcï5iYrn"-"-~ ·'-~-~-- ··--·-- . . . 1
. . . 1
···---~----·---...... "'"'1i'6J(ah sopr;t c1talh ovvero neHtfêtlrri1fa$ï1e cJrcosTiïm1-. -------------~--~--------
---~----~- ---""Nei.·e HFiïèrr~nza·:-.arpr!l\llï .. o Ji"alli\7C/iinfevemrn;.1dersntl .. iîgi.;iîfrcto· .. · · · ... f .... ·· ........ ·---------- . l-epp.·:n-=-69rnnegï'à1Jnenrë--rrmmm'fata ·rrion-èssewaa· · t>rnttaatri ~~·-u!ia.---- ·· ---------
---------Î----srntestche noll porr!rstuîn1tt1r1nranm11:ITleîta--âe1l'eVëlHn}~!SN1ô----r·· · · · -
. . . . i ------------r11msirmî~ë011-dov1z:mcH"~Pffi1Wôlan'1-cWwœî-èpistitltw{lt:-mô1~nz:rç--1n-------1- .............. .
-----~----·-J·-moâo .. cale-· éliï··rorï1tnr-u!1 "·qiHtôto"vivmo··ëd ··!mpi·ëssio:~a:nt-e·· ·m-qual1 ro-· ----t··----.. ~ · · · · ...
. .)-------- i -açëadiifo;·secoM·o··n·_,nC~o'i'âi.'Caêî-!iol~t:avvtssmt-·H···wtü®tt:r·periTllr:a····-····1--·~ ·· · ··----
... :·\-------~-- acoimatlf'ê1fe1në1îtl'e1rïlilêiïrlrèasf1mlliŒn"'tët!esctfrrtsparmtarütm·1e-· -η~-~---
.J !
aonne -ëZJ'--f1'faml511fi;lrral:fri''{ftf5t;-lnpiillîëtnarifT1êî:'~îir<mst·ntcornJa;--~y -· ··-.. ··- ..
"------ -ou'::~:~;=~=::::;:=·~·~~JfânïbTnl, "::~=t=~=~-~ . . 1
·------------~- --_-Jr-·gnrmce-atpï'tffi""'() ._.w=•:t""'ûonl.îclfë.-ôlrnostrat~clie-tl-Mtltle- --~--.---·-·
_:-~-l~pa.·i'tccîpo.·-- all•ecëtd. u·o.·{pur.·1mi'Cï:Jssèf1ëiôp.1iJ'vatën.:tm-:"s1sî.·it-r~S"éfàlltcrnr-----·r··-------­
-----~âe-t!-e-Vtolëïî~'i5-p:!1'.refrntatêj;-suliU.-15lrSeï:tehëgliimtf·et~mentrtlil5l'"CiVR~--------·---j----·--------·
-----~·+--------.. ~--1a----di:rptisl~tqrnr,-a-difr<mimmnrf;lfi--"Ctu·imtr!"etrcfn-rr·-----+---~------ . . 1 1
. , __ )------........ ---J-·-··-·---------otgnn-rrei-p-roprt{ltnt·Rr-rrr-·-vtna-carJetti);-c-rre-ha----r--------
, _ _;------··-~· ~-~-----------~rftot1osc;itttol'lmJmtati."f,-tt6~cn1ve(·e-sBmftmtwnn~r·'Smr-·-·-i--~·--­
... ~--· .. -~-----------~-miQ-gr:n:tm·,~ficôl'd âtHiTintr-c:-rnrstcrrr~zzlr .. H-lroru t;--·e-··ttr'"·-·: ~--!----- --------
---~---·---------··w--.~---·Cfi~n~-trnmi··Jn-c·ontibtm--(-f.rrpnrttccrlnre"iJ--Mtldl:r--· -----------
·-;;---------------------~pp!Zlfi'V'à~ttttbï'inat~ê!elte--~t-srum--·rtgmmJantr-r----:.----
, -r--- ---- ~ p.r1~illniel1;-ctô~ë1re:-rmp1·ru·· ca------m. . r-oertoorl!til> -dr- --1----- ----- ------~-~- comvolgtmènVS·âapa.ft~ntehfllpl?.rloï'i-;-dnrotl-s\lD'l."tm:trc~---f.-.---~---
---------------------ârsôiTüfnciïilë};-----···--·· .. ·--····~~ .. -···---~----~~~1-~--....... _ ..
______ , ____ _
1
5
--· --.·- !-- --~--- ··· ·· ;,;;~:s;;;·à~::;c ::;:;~,V~s:0:;~;::~~;;,,:'-~+- · ···' 1
~--- ---~----~-~---nërraTeldgenaamû~ne,--cne -ii:;.-- qlief ~ gio1iïi avev:i- -- ~-;- ---- -- ------~---------- -
--+~---- staT)ilito il prüp-r1oTon1ru1.doa VillaL.'iffettl; ------~---,-------T ---~~--- ------------
-~---- -- --! -- --- ----·--::·---- ----JT··aaio ___ ëëïto--ëlië_l._hîii1tm1-dë1Tâ--pe](Jgeliciarrricrië -- --
1
:- -- · ----------------------
: . .
-- -- --~--t----------~---------alfciggiat!pfesso-Vflla Ciù·lëttrpaitecfpafono aLT'az1onô----~------~------
_-------~------ - -----Clel-L"Ygmgno, tanto c!ïe-•propnolrfuroùï.'i-poi"falë-Jê ______ j_ ______ ------
' -------------------------p'i:irsône·c-affUiâfé aCônlfaediiüoriii;
-------- -~--~------ -~~---------·la ___ deposiZioJ1e_ di EISJNGER·~-Pn.ïlipp;-- anèli,.églï ·
! ---------~---~- -- ·- --- ----Vîsro· ï:JT:iîtiâîci·o-·vèïiti-caâavëii--dnwmîùT,aoime-i:i'--·t- -----~- -------------~ -- 1
1 .
---- ---~--- -~--------------oambffit; · ·~NmF--Gerharâ:·-- -ë1ïê ---h-rl----n.cordato
--------~-~---~---- -~-- ---~--roperaZ16i.ië --a el 29 -- giugno Triférefïdo-·cne·ïii1ël'îe . il'. -
----~-
----~~-- -r----~--~~~---vnnrCm'1ëffî;BERNHm~miem'i1mn~---- ------------ ·
1
-------1---~---_ le diChlaraz!Oriîele11o-~sresso· imputato, ··il cfuale!ï-:=ï ---~~-- -"--------- ---- -- - ----
------------1·-----·. ---.--- ----prirna -afrenuaro--dî ------a:Yer-ràffo paneôi-·un: l~'tïl[Jj:foâJ-- --· r --·--' ------- ------ --~ ---~-
----------------- ~-- -~~---~~rerroguafâîae------a:!esseretornato înëllëtî'o ï'lüpo-aVé!' ______ t-------------·- · --~-·---··-----------~----~-~n=1ccc--.o=n=tï=·a=· to allft mtlitari cJJe--~segna!arono----ra-----·fioe ----- -··
. - .. -..... · ..---L--------------------------------~---------------~-------- -- ___ , -- -----~----------- -1-- ---~----~--------·---
' i
6
1
1
del!'azlone, doi qunli •end riferire ehe erano successe_j
·-----~~w~_.,,., •• :~~:~t:::~:~~~~~~~~ro~~~:~~~:~~~~=~:~_t::~~~---J-~~~~ --..,~········'·--··----~-----·
ulgl.ieÎ~.~;l ®rtftlllCf!!:e J ·gtj{) HluinZ7..0; (Sue JU ua 1Ul .
--.. --------------·-~~nsWiUiiŒ-~iG.aï-Télirr_ 0.·1. rc_··ma_,-·_r·rn.·1P'utut. Dll. _·.ua. iëlu.'t'l.râTo_···--····l· ·· ·· · ... · · · ....
···-···· _._ .. ________ _i _________ ,_'ïifïlver sjieral(l"·1frpo:WF'îin]iôi11o -nveâ?ifuCëi':!"lîa---·-· .......... -
···-------·-----·-· -~---·v.· ···--········":····-~corn mentaîo·cne,-iie .. nonavëssc···iivtmr·Ia··~;;o&ë'ienz'à·~-----~·-·· ·· ··------
----~-------.----/--~-~--------·--·1hiriqillna:-no1nivréb15e·Tùmifô"fmroï<Jàtfpérnbrmlï: sul ·---~-------····
----------·---------~~----"·------ pu .. üto·-_~r~I.·:rm_._··.mia1eïiiii1.'tai.;e.·--rnëva··_-c.·h'&··· ·rrff·-.seri'ipna·if. / - . . . 1
.:···----······· ·--···--·---------·-·oTgiii~lTcÇ'iiônségiîmi5·au···lir1'a·--aoiWür··nefl"'f.fiêenezza- --~---~-----··
1 < l 1 ·, . '
J~_:__ -t-==:_:-. ::_.l;_··::;_~=~.:~::_:::_:~.f~.~:~~.-~.~:~:~::_.:~=r-::~~ . ~ . . r
,-~--i ·· ·-----~-fi'.nê.lw ........ ami.ne.ssc·:>:_-.ir.~-a;;·;·e.-.f_v_·.I.mo .. p.Iù.-. anrn-.é1!:t'àv.ê'i:"tflëgrr~---r··----····· 1 .. ------------------· ·- -----~-------------· ha. -g;u-sft1Jcati5·-l · slioïpfeç3oo&î'iîî"''aimëglfr·-corï .. la _______ ................. ..
_ ... · · · ... ,.:.:-· c ~ ----·-----·-------~_parzlaie .nmozî0ï1!fcfifllïr fne}11?Jff~fl:li"ifui511'15spefienza;~----~--~···- ···•·· ---- 1 . 1
~-----·----J~---~------·--aeoona--conrf-TIInr1ortirtaei:r--œna·-azmn-e··oi:rmi1ëJ;à1-··r-·--·-···· ... - ,
----~-~-·------ éisetsfîrô\Jâto a\hlla Cttt!eltf.~p·eroi'fo--·grontr;· .......... ~ ...... ._ ........
i . .
-._ ~---~~ ncôri:'lamto aressëï'ru1'êcâtênrcr-rurlngere:aëqU1rëon·Ttc··-··--,----------
.L ............. --- . -------~-----carrerrt-Felicifià:--n~M!lcte·--rrtces;ctiiso-,î1ëssere .. rc--·-----l---·--------- . i .
. /·------~-----· -~-,~~-·ëom:i:st~nN1!êt"ëtimtruptïf1:Jëtfs.ft1--rrè1Jâ"V'1Ha;rmrnvia, --+-------- 1 . 1 ----~--- -~------ ---------
0
.. ~- ··--··----secô.nd .. o ... îl,....giï;·r_â_. î:ë'ë ... tn-·pnmo-. · grado;--_"'l_._-·nmï1eri:ijj'l·-î-~-----
----- ~-·--""""""tllieanrn "''1îiffi'iii1atî-cltéllÎîan1êm1<ne-ul'llraëiiO"·-"""·i-"··"-"-- "----+---"------ persane tmtura!e, proverüeTI11a'a1lïrvlè1illfcasâ""âël"~-----~-----·,····· . f
·:·---------· -·--'·r.artî:rrë~-âîînôiiTrâï'fô-·cne-~ëssr-ra:Ytrj5mevruRr··tssëï'e·-------~--------------
------· --~-~------··-· ...... ~----~---~---··tgtïorart:(l~rcnt'âhrova~nrrmlHrVtlla'':·nmitre;-··côml.ntl-------i---~-
-·-----------.. 1------------------·-evrl1ce----mïttc·---më1ûàYii'l.ioh1--ôJ---ms·rnvER:'e--tl~i-~·---- -~-~-i--~. - .. ~~-----·---------~---·--·------------------~------t------- . 1 ' !
1 1
1 1
7 1
~· ............. -....~.~-~.:-:.:~~~=·:·~·-~~~::::···~:r·-~·~~-~···~·:~;.:o-~~~;·~·~·~·,.~-~~·····~· .. ·~~~-·-~ ... ·--~-·"''-"'_-····:··---~;·:·;·:·~:~~ ... *i,..;..;.; •• ·.·:-··-·---.... ·.·~-'"'"-···--··~
BERNHOLD, l'in1putato non pèlteva ignorare Ja
'
-.,·----~-~-----:~------------~-------:;1an1fêsiii-:êri1;ïfito5lii-ëüi- ëi=airnî'ré11:tiiïa "fâtti vTtk~~dëf- -- -1-- --
' ---- -~---+----~
!
i ---~··'-"·····------ ----~ ( ' .. l-. . • ~--.......... ----··-•-·-••---~-~---~-. ~--~~·-·--:"'"'"~""·-"-' , .... •.··.·•.·-···.•-vol•·•··~·--·· .1 Tnbm1alc miht~lro"i rilevato che mue !e pmve f!Ssl1r!te po~sono 1
--·--~-· --~ i •'-'•'•'•·~· ... -~-~--··•·w"~····--· ··~·~··'· .~.~ ·-··· .. • .. ·.·.·--·--·-·~--·-·___1·· -----···-•
esserc utilizzate rii fini della deèisîone; rifiene che nel Jàttci ci1ntestatn J
---~-----~-.···Slâ' configurahi!e li reat.o di :CUTii1l'àrL !.85 è:iim~g:;·eifë:sdiide .. dî-potër--··---'!'-·· ---
-----«-v----------r-ntvvisare 'tmi neëësslt!fmTütnre, ovvetn ~i:ïü--§lüsHnéai6 .. ~1ïotfvo:·r;ërTa--·· ··--T· ·-· ·-----·---
---------------· -czon-ïri1Tssfone(fëfiüeèles_ltrin':···--·-_---_-·-------···-----------------·-------_ ·_---_----·--····------~-----·------·--··
---·~-------~-----·nMtJde devé inoTtre ·.r~sf)on'dëi-=e;-ûTrré-êhe~aréj1!ani&''iîwéï1uto-~--t-~-- ----- i ~ . . . i ---~~--- -~-l--nëne-1ocl11Tfif-Tn-ciilru-rmpregafii:. -·~ra--Fdèiiênaam1êrfii,··- 'dél'7atti ---· --- ---- ~ 1
--------- ----·---------+-ëoii:unesSianë11e.ïl'efîëârfrë.-zonë-cciE1vofŒ .. aiiU'az!ë)i1e .. à1minosn-:re·---l--- ·· · ·--
,, ___ --.::- --t ViiTè condott~nSeiliiîOï;;>mU.mâ>:loiiè Uiiltarr;çsra·peiëiîé-era·---: . .. ---
. ··---~-" nïcOl' orilln<>-diï--.,egUire, !if.' "jicilO Streiiii"OOOidltiâii'ientO"iià lë- · ·· ·'
.. -------~ ~~--truppe operant!: ·-râvviiaEIJe, (JaunT.1to,îtelfà côfnëiaeïiûï tenipomle(f! ... · L. -- -· ·
'·-.._ ---------------r-a·zio nT attt!atecoi'i--lë-meâesfnlë-n1oêtî11tà-e~--aan ·artro,~rïeUa-sfissil ___ _
----~------~--firossli1ïifa--ëter·p~îësr-ëOTiivonç·chei-consentTïlîia prëCi~ia-slriifégiir·ar : ·--- ··-··-
·--- --~------l--âc;cerc1iwT11ëî1tO:---_ ~------------------------------------------------------------------- --·-----~-- ------
···---~---~-t--··---------riCpartTèOfare; '1r-fi11Zionanfêfifo· ·hi' ·p!Ccole· paftugTïe~--aël _______ i ..
1
......... -~- .. ~ CÔIÎtlngetJ re:-rt1 li! tare -y mj)eg(tt,tO"ÏÏeli'iZ.Jofi(iî5Qi'ÏSenlr·ac âëcêfèniar{"jM .. .. ·
1
i .· .
l .
l . '
····----------------·-. lriaggiort ceïrtilfiliHatî.affas!hillarèiglfal5iü1n1faëf tCtnfotiô'.coinvoito ... --·--·'r· ..
·-. ---------, ··-/ e' dîëliliii! ére-·repos.iliil!'li\èâf1ûjîi'Tiil!f111!à" di . og;rr-piitiUgliiflià ....... T ...•
,--·-· · · --------)-ëfiiliïdlagevolato17'G$ëëûzTonë··aérrmino·-cHmJnoso. ·'Qüanki-ï1i··~;eqü isifi -~--·····; ·-
·::······-"-·---------·rso'i~gëlHvraerëoncorsi:i'1ifpersor!<( rrTdhl'lnare-rTieva·a,-e-n tvnraè -efâ-· :---····
---------~ ...... l .... sl'ëuriù11eJite consapevolrf.dèlla .. conniflsfclî.e -âè1ITCsïùf .. condottâ coil'-
.......... ___ ., .. ---l--qï:ïëllanegW-IiiftT-co!11partêëipC · L' îinpmarci:--naHà · · sùif. qualila ar·· --' -
-------r··-------------- ----------------------------- -----~--------- ----- ---- ------- -----------------------------------
1 s
1
' · .... $
·. ··.
1
1
~· 1
1 (;ottuftlciale,. ern inoltm certnmentc a conoscenza del)e,line~ essenziali 1
_______ ............... --1lë1f'.nztone, .detsuoroofèHJvr,··ë·'iféŒrmoàiiHT:fopêfliHvé:~·ai1èlië1513r·~r.c··--·f~~·-·
_____ ,. ____ ··-ërrcôstanZâ"ElieTuiônorêi1utë~i'ifprëceaë!'1iil-i!idcrfiêl1ê:rmliiô!1[1{ISiilûi~------ ~·-··· ....... ·· ·· ·· ·
---- ···· · · · ·-·~· ---··· · ·· ih ·t1ëi1iilrFi~t:P..rë·v~îfaTâcorfiâpëvolë ·.p-àHeëfP.1iîiùnifaën6rtïiffièiar ë··anà···· ··· --j· · .. · · · · · · · · · · .. --... ~---
··---------------p1anmcaz:r6në ezfa'ffiîrëiiliEâimM1lërrnlfolrïâiiîfoot~ili1ent~-crfm1ïi'oso ___ .. ..l_ -----···---- "
--------------J-C11e gl1eëoïitestato:-------~~ · ~~"--·· · ~ ... -----·--------LI.. -. --·---. -----------. --------ru temilïi- IiliUtiS!S1'iJiZii. >fiëllïCdii!TOlijfgfiiVàl1fi"OOüi;;,fuŒ; il . -~- .
· · -----··· · ------· · ··'Tri1Jïî1'idlë-11Yi miîi1f'appn~rir . ta··· })èl:a· ·nen'ergîis!Blts: .. ooic~œ ··1:;;me; · ·· ---·:· · · · ·· ·· ·· -·-· · ·
1 -~.;-· ....... ----- ----·fiëcëssône· ae1rà-aegraaàzron:e ë "dêTià FGbi) l!Cazibnëocilia ·senfêi1ia dr··---·/·
. _ .... _. -··-------··-···+-<:-onï:IariruÇ-ec-oîiaaniùi'iiiotrre·Ynîl.pïaiifii"fesolô pêi~·ai1~nifià.èlirësJi:)"Ta ........... l. ____________ _
V·----·~--~----·l" .... êHiliiorië~·ïrrësJîoi1's:iSilirëiv1lê;llepûh1'lifè11"-Fè<1ëi"'i!1ë"i:lrtfëfiriil~ïWrru---···--j·---·----· ........... .
i
:.-·--··'----- -~---~lnsiirêiïnëfiwaé1.iJàni1a··a·ravofe·-;JëTfepaHtëîvl11;üori'Th-aetërmmaiîônè···~----~--- ···----· .. · · ·
----- -· ·------:s[~lâc1!e provvunonah percTâsêTfru:f't!f'essè "iôâfèat-a···uraillii;nû1è ·:r·êr"lif .... ---
1
-- ......... · ·
-- -~Frresiaa;za<IaU>nSïglmûer)l;jmrstm:-- ··------- --------·---- ------- . . . ~-----:-- --- -----
~-·-·'· -- r·--·-· ''"'Nèî"ë?Snlfontr âel1a-priiaerfaseüienza':J1Ef!5ropO:<Sto-ru'imütto·-· --~-- ..... ... · ..
--------------- --appë1Jo-n-mrênsoWf1f''Cfu~nnTiiijd(:î"YasÊoTutroo~·-dêlr'1mp'tmmr··mi1 · .. --'[---···---· ········
·-···--· ··· · ·· -------~ -1'èar«3asciîuc.)·petrii:)i1âVt:'i·r-··comïWês!ïi)îl'fà1U'S;rtn,..pr'QjJ:t>mt>îifotrre" .. · ·r---· · · ··· ............... · ·· . . . . . l
_:,..--------·---· -~~i~'ip0lto·îr re'si;onsàbtlir·w.rné~·:d1e~~!rtëdê··~na~coi'te~·lrni:fonnTcctë!H'r ·· ··· ·· · , ... ·· -·· ·-···· ···· · · . . . t
· .. ,; · ··· -------·--w ·~-~ieiîŒnta~·nnpugrmnçarvo1e:r-·i'êsphigëriflëriê1i1~51ë'·at·rtah1'êîri1crrt<r·~ · --~ ---· · · ·· · w .... ···· ...
··--. .c·-----C..~"~ ~-cumnr·-rN'â!lzarë· · ï'fët··ëcWifronti · ·cnw ··r&~ponsàbllë ... ëiVHê ... Rêpuhbliea · ··-··· ·--· · · · ...... · .... ·· ..
·---------~-·-···-- ~--Fe·a.erurcrar-Geriiiânîa:--··,·----···------···-- ... -............. -............................................ --- ·-···-·r----···-·---·-······------
1 !
~-= l-~~~ro~~::t::•::~:~;:::::.::·:;:::;:;;::~=~~~·~-=-~- -----'·~----1 prop"''!î'to11e1rill:Tëtëssëaèll-rëspont:~lbi1e'ruVile:--·r;ur·:rfünto··Hr ·catteFsi· · ·-· ·· -
1
-· · · · · · · · · · ·· · · ·· ·- --------- nserVa. in se1ûe olëonc1tîsloîlî'îtplînb11ëëftfîîrrtstërotrd~îl:ltferrsm·h:Je11e-·--··· -~---------- -~-- ------ :
........... ...: ....... ~.----,·---------------~~---·-.. ·-····-----·-· ····~----·-·.······-·--.---·---· ....... ) ..... .... _ ... ., .. _________ ,
·······~--'"'~-'-r-o,oo;v;~~ • ..;-:~-.~ ... -· ---~._.~,. .it ~r '.·.··.'.
l
f
1
1
!
!
:
-------------------~-----------------~--,-~ -- : ''"~,--~-~-~----. ~-·-·--:-~--~---------~----·------·1'----~---·-- pàrti civHi chiedot'lo hï éb'flfêtrriil 4é:llln s~ntema d:i prime grado; il 1 . ' .
--··-~d1fon•ore ~tltatO~.•i ~~~~~~~~~~~~-= rr!)pett1V1 motlv1 di appeHo, du~lcmdonè l'a~;coghmento; : . . . i . ·-~~------- ... - ---~-..,....,...~...__-;.-........, ......... ~.-~..._ .... ~.-.. <1'-...... .,, •.. ~~-c--·---. --,-.--..... -.. -~-----~.-.---·-~--.,~-.--~ ... -..... -~(--·- -····-----.....,.~
/ 2, Secoudo là Corttl --· rtttmuto m1Zitütto chè ta memo.ria j ·--·-~,___._.___....)_____________ - ..,-....,....,.........,..._ ...... ,..-._....,~,••""'-"•""'· .___.-"-'""'O,"~...:r,.•,•,••·••'<-•, ·"•'•"""""-'•"-- • "<'•"•-'·-•" • '•"-"•"•V-" • "••·~--~~"'---~ ··,• •,•,• ~-•• ----.-·
i prodotta dalle parti civili possa t:sser~ acqu1sita, ~i senti deglj artt 121 . j
~== ···b~~~~;;~.;~~~6~i~~:~;;~~:r~:~~:~~~~~:~:~T~··:.·• ---------~ coiifëntî~ùi.-- . ..-~-----------··-------··--·-w··-- -~-------- ........ ---.. -r··---··--· --
-= 1 ·~uanto ~:ri~~-~~:~~~~~~~;;mp~~~~-ïîù~o~~~=l=-~-~ ; nrticotn in due disftnti -motivi: !
---;-=r···r-···-······---"-z.-r:·cün~ift;run~o:-ili ~ù'ferm.uïii-ë01it"iiirJrttorŒtà ~(r1~~1:ii1iëienzâ·"·---·j~·-·-·-~--"·-·
~~~"~~~·:·J:~:==:·:
-------~:---~-~--!--cë1Ië-11~sü1ùinze -pï:ôê6ss:tiifr"In-f~H1-· l}rôvii. · ël1e·· "Pîn1fii!Eio ··a:61Jîi
---------------l- -maTerTilîii'ê!1ie.'Jià11:ëdJiâio-·au·~aaii3\1"è1ïi i}i:iti6iazfôiir dvHL ·Con- · ------ --
----· -----"·-1·~---------·-- -------··...-.------------.. ··-··'----~-----.~ ..... ~ ---~·~-..... ~,-- ... t"'--- ~ ···········~·-·•····..-·-·····.·····' C''1'01§~ i spccd-ïco nguardo-, pm, nlle dicbiarazioni det ''compagm d'arnu
!
---"·-- .. -.---.w-:--··aeJ!'iïnputat0,1Itn6in:iiil·;rffifŒïiré 'âvreb'6'ë·:a6vùt0' veri1fcàre.së~-- alla ~-- - -· -------
____ --- --- -(-·rüèe -âèT crlfè;n--·ar·our~-a!Fiiif.l9~~---ëo.' ~fEii}l:;· qitestê"~P.otèssëro--~"·"-i ---- 1 . ' .
--- ----M--.·· ·---]---Scïrreggêre Tüï1Y-Oiillnmn di'reip0nià&TH'tf'i"cù1'0(}. -aër&rilt:fe: -'Sècorido ··· · ···
-----·-------r'apper!finfe· dalfe proveiê(îûls1Ië. irffisd-a-ëio-:nan··~ëirse--nî.i11ïi .. CI1ë--- · ·
i del MHde-abb1a operatô ~-ê6n"môdiiHà îmâfoghë a ·q_û.eHe dégli ·aîlrf
--~--~ ~drap_peliiùperaritF'ëViida rii~!ïilf~,ïln ~'c.6ns'ilpevôfëjiârtoo!pmonè-·-ae:1-
, _________ -sàttufficiàle sfaaTîa-p1$Ifioiifoni-ëhè--ana-·rêâTFiiâZ1ûii~--ôë1'--Thmi-~
10
ctw5stanze JU tz1antt non raggtuugl1.'10 que gra a grav~:· Jir<J ator a
--------------- T<1(preéïsione malsjJênsàbll?':' ___________ , ,_.,, ..................... ~ .... --. --.................. ~--!--- .. -.-..... . 1 . t
· · · · · · ·------~ --,---~--- ·----'2':2:··· -corr·~-lr·-YSE·G\ônaa···î1mrTvëï -~l~)'pè1Wili1W ··---'èêë~j:nsf<f. ··----r · ···· · · ·· .....
.. · · · .............. ···~··· "·· ·-Tin P GiiïzilNfffà'acnc·prôveâs~fWitê.Triv ïolâziôi1e~ dë1raff.'6J--c;:p:js :~6'·-------~----- · ·--· ··-
. i
· -···--· ~Tërroiiëa·-·appiiëazione ·-m~l· .. -crifêi1''û1Va1ütâïfô11e··~ai51la··pr'i1vâ _____ ................ .
---~----:--·-- ·aichJaratJva, Pofè1wTi111pifu1tin!fcëi:l:satono ruota m'fornôàT'lîôfifi1oüfô .•..•..• ·-----------
... · · · ·· .. · · · -·-- ·-Iüïn~atîvo-·âia1curi!sul5'ardtîi iH!" m·-graao·c1e1rîï'f1fitïtato .. (Wo 1 r;-B&nilïold· -- ·· r·
------------~-~- e11uh n );srrTieva · ù1f<nfèl5oir ïzMëi'tn.ITè1i'ü:fi'â'fa"l 'Wmt mzz·a15 mra · (l)îeM·-----~ -· · ... · ·- _)
=--~ .. w. .. ·-~ ---- ~---ê1f'"însaofib11ë~· ex -urCJlJlê'7p~~rdrTrut cil c!'ïllifazîqfif; "fëse'ëlai.lëi'If6 nê ------ --- ----- ~ ' } t . . 1 .... -----t·--·-----cîïë;-ê.s.sëriaûgr-·a· di(tîzHffi. eiÇ?fa.·~Vêvano·'ê'sse· .. !'rf.feTltîle-.fii111aJ11
îmifo·ëi5n1e ______ 1
·· ~·.· ···· ... ··· · -
·: ·-----~- ; ·gamüziê prev1 srrrpëf'PimpTffâtëÇspèêthëâïnênfë'i~orr·n:rmo~1oSë'Jnreïi:f6·-·····-1--·· ·-" · ~-
!
. ! ... ··· · · .. :: ··-aella~mcoTfadT"i:fSŒifèrsïdarnsponaëré:Ton'îünqrre·sr1HfrëBoe ·aovYrrcr· ----r·------.. --· ..··
.... ·.-~-.: ...... ____ t-1fâl1:arê q Tië11e'ê1îCliiaraz1onnmrnëcàù1êfc i]ïfposfe!1a1la'1eggepef1 r- .... r-·-· -~----·
=±~~:èl-~'nîp_"~·~~~=p~~~:-:"~~~~~~~1::=:~= i connesso. j
-~~-~---· ·· -"'-·---·····---·s-eMît11o·--·r.ap~ëHâliié:~···ê--vero·-·che···!e--âi~lilTfrti.Zîonî---tlei"·--·· .. ·i·-----.. -· ···--
:;-·--'---.-·-· -·eommJ1îroru-~<<ll'lff"!Wml!l'i'i'lfflti-ccmrermll!Oîir1argn;am:anrèriœnn-f··-·····­ ··---~--~----1 -otYl\;tt!v!;quar·naltifè[Jtv--rpres~î'iza:··ctel"'Mllâétrri'f{rni-,gtm11t·i:Jt:rtrroglit-~----:--··----
..... .,-...
-
.. _" __
.....
__
l
____ a-et'l;r ....... stnrg·e,Jlcr~îi1t:-appmlc:tm'i1za-ai-1Ytrrsîklm!'p';-l'iNsëi'lï1fetltotlt:J··----L----~
........... ·· · ··· · ·--·-.. -Mncten.eü-:n;reltlgm1lmnml'115-~::·1ïqrte-?>em::ad.· ili1V.tttd<nrV1Jl•·e.rt~t1f''-·"---~---···--··-·­ ... ---------- non-è perô ëH quesrn1:'re--S1-df-sttm~; tiêf1§1'esc1nstvruti'èi1te-:seWMth:le---~------- -.. --~--J----m;mav.rrecipanralleatl'llcltâ 1'"'"'''"'''"""'·-A:trtgmrntiJ''rrmrvistirnr·-~----~­ ~-~ ~-rartmmet&m•;m-ltt01lota11l!Vêltflca·rrrl'l'ffll:,;cll..-mm·· ·derJvJM··--~-r-----~--···
~~~~-t~~~~p1too_::'r<r1la1_":':~n ::orore·"eJ-qm~~ .t=~-= ! 1
1 11
1
1
1.
1
i
j
1
------------- -·s-m:eïi&-èro·---s\ro w~r:·-re prove·-~iëqiifsfrë: -- ·orfrë~-- ëhë .. ·Côïî1ù:iiqiù;--ëCI ... ·--! .... · ·w· ·---·
-~--------"1----~--------,--.--~--' ···-······· -----~· ·~-~---- ., .............. ,. '." ........ ·-·------..... , .. ' ................. '. , ......... -l--- .... '"'" '.' ''" .. '
1 lnsupetab!lmeuie inlitiliz;zahHi, sono qurndi anche g~·avemcnte j
-------·--·--·---·----l--;ïïsiffffêfc!1i:râltïrufaroillinpf<iii1indîî't!l'ëôiid'àîüùl.'···--· ... --.............................. J ... · .............. .
--~--· -----.. /----~z~r:-Dov~nC!Oi.l'~ prencfëW-!n~f.:iafiiC-- :;-er~·~r--û!ô. ·cru:ïittërë -------- -- -----· ·--- _ ·l - . ' ~
prcglt.fiiïzia!e~-iil. cruifêStawîieàtt!iîèrïfi;;··-iiHa··~îoiàilo1ie ... iîeWart' .... 6'3 ... ·-·---!-· .... " ----..... -·
:
·j" --~··-~- ·~· ··~ -·~-··
.
i -------------- - - --Teilê$cJ-ii-sënfiliëôi11ê'testfîiâfii'i~ëi1tê'i)!~ôce<lmieniù :son-o··iilëi:1iimëîiŒ ·· ·· i ·
· ·--taîtil iz.z,at~ntatlihT®Ha~{réetsTôrïê:--cofi·ïé- fiü'àf t:ra'ffëtinato rf à' ·-q tiesl!i ·· · · · · -~ ·
·---~-~-------)--cdii.:.ê_:n1--cï'i'sT-t.1:in!C:ïgiu-(ê1?--eôifii-miL ... a!Jp.'.--2r ïiëviiüi:lro·:zotRC ·-····!·
,-~~~--J·-somniêi .. e.ër"ïiHi1J --ra--èTt~-.6Staozi"<IëlTii--·-prë.wn..,._:u·· iù_T-ruogrï'dë.ne 1
~,------------·----:::; ·-~--opè{ii:ZfonT?ii:fn:·ê·o-~miitsU{IrçrersëstesrS:iiun rrtatiioai-rli~poii~abil !tli-· · · · ! < 1 •
~· . 1
-·-:---~~-~t--1iéiïàre--à--ënr1co--aecninrtnï;r-arltufipa-(llivërsamëùt~--aaqiîüiito-·-püo-------~-·
~~ i
--------~--- ---1ifvêùë-fî1eriersrpeffnlÎ!ffàif cuFIOssë!ilfHb'ilifaünil·rnpanJe'1ui1zfô1ïe .... ---:--. -. - -
--~ .. -------·· · ··~dr·r;;sponsiilïilililïi<na··strurttim-aerropar<D"-c!D<iViîfO · ngüaraq· ~nâ · · · · · · · ·:
... ·.-.. ····· ............ ---r -·îJeèüfiarrraaeWôrga1îfzZà:Ziiina·· ·gèrarè!i iëa· ·· àliHfî:irer··-rûtiir!to~- ··irï· · --- ··;
~-~····· ··-··----l---eon tonmnnr-qï:ranf6 ïireèisiîto · aa1lâ Torfe <:Jf é~ssriziohé '(Sez:··m; 26 !
~--------~t upr~1ë2UU5;n:-217li7),·Viffilëriiliil 'dië îf-diVïeîollï ti!i1îiZiiZiOîiFiù:gif ........ i ..
--~-----·--·-- T-iifiiHeraë·JT. ë-· .• cW513.i.iŒàZioi1T"f6sê-aa.~·-f3erso. fiac.Hi'f'flîfâûll'Tn.·izi.tî.>âovevif··· ·N·l
----------··iassü!n:crrrr.-r·vësle-mmâHguloprt:iîüpponeCTïê-a ·ëafié"ô ·del·• soggetro·ari" ----,--
··--- --Cïruërrôgarin~m;sïsüiiio.1!1a!Zr-drrêita .. giir pr1ïii~Câell''iiSsüùili.lnê·aaua--····· ·-
----··--···-·--w·--·-rê1âliv::rm~posîzi0i'f~f-êif>" êlWft)eî''l'apTHihtô.nèi"casêfat ·spéêîë:nôif sî ·e····· · 1 ·· ··· ------·-- · !
--: .. ·-----~-âTfàTroveîTfiëàl~;ëonslilërat?fa!trëttfttô···è1ïë .. mmznn·rëftrînêi-cônifoî1tr····----l··--····--···-···
. . !
-------------.. N-t·âëï---süîfùomTiiarrwèin:--·:sënil1Iif<r--e---·Hm in:· ïioù ·--riËiü1fano·· · ênfén;r·---·--(·--- ·· · · · · · · · · · · . 1 1
==-~~-r'::""'enOi~h-~OOî~~·üë~~~·J~O-~= - ~ --····.·········-..... . .... -~r- ...
-·- -·· .....
' 1 1 1
i !
12 l
1
.•. 'l'! ~ .~····'""''=-~·~·~?~ ......... ---···.···~-·~·-·"""·»~~~~ ..... "'"'·· » . . ·•.': .
1
1
1
!
_,' ------- ! __________________________ ~ '·--· -~----·--·-··-···-- --------.-. ---- ............ ·········-···--........ - --··~--··· ................. . j 2.4. Cio, pl\o:messo va d'altto c;mto rilevato che la ricostrüzione -
- •---~-~ "• ·->' ~--....,..._,.~.,.~----::-·-~--.~ ,.,...,~-------------·--_...-.... ,_.,.,. • ~,.,..,..,.~.-.-._...., __ .....__..~~-~ • ~......,...-v,_,·-~--- .. --~-:..,..,.. __ .~~-~_,. ........ ,.· ••• -. •··-~ .... _.,. __ ., __ ,__ "'' "•'••·""·' .-.-~ -~~-...~-.-~--~-·-"'•"·-'···~
• · materiale dei fatti, sulla base delle prove acquisite, appare; _ 3Jldu~ i
------· -·"'·----~~--·-·---~--. _ _. .. _ .... ., ...... w.,. ........... ; ........ -~----····--•··-; ..••.••. , •• ù • .-••••••• 1 ... ._ ................... . . i Jndipendentemente dalla · deposizione dei suddettî testi, j
··-·----~--T sostanziaJmMte; noii"''êcmtrovers~:iû'stè:~o- iiupiitatô~ -dopo" fe GiizfàlC--T~ .. ~-~-----·
-----...... ···--·--··----~---··! --------~------------· -------·----------··----·--.. · ........... ----·-----------------·---------:--------.............. -·~- - -.. L ·-·---- .......... ------- 1 negazioni, ha. infine ammesso di aver fatto parte del reparto d1 1
-------------------1 Feldgendarmerîedisiocato iÜVITîâ''câî:Yèt'tr-ed""~~mèhe-~T-aver
-·-----------~--~ parteciprrto ail;ùp[;t1ïzfôi.1e deT-I~fgfugno;--êomë ... côi111)ônêbfe -·ariit1a .. --
.------~- .. --.- --~-----------~--------------~----------·--.. ·~·-----o-----------:----:·--~-------.--··""·······'···" ........ ~~----·--·····---:-··-- .. ' .. -- ...... -- .-....... ---- 1 dellè pattuglle impiegate nell'azione, sia pure precisru1do di Mn avot 1
1 ·:]--------·rrreso-iîaiie-aTret{ameflt;;--;d âTëù~a-iiëëTSTüne.-'ATITgûru:èfü:·~n-èuo~srésso __________ r·· < ' • ~·c,-._~~--.-~..,-~,----r~·""---·----...,___,_..,_._,,~--.... -._,...,-. ......-.,..,..., ........... ,.,.,.._...,._...,.,....,. ....... , .... ~...,._-,....,- ... ,->_ '·"•'•'·~-....... '"""'''"-""-..--.,-.-,.,,_.,_ ___ __,,._~-·-·----·>'~~ t•~•''-' •-• 00 ' ' '''' .---~···• '
=~t =i=== -----~""~ -L- . -. ---~~·--~--~---------------····-······--·-----·--------------------·-···----··i----· ....................... .
-- ~:_-:_-+ di p:n~~:::~tion e gtUrlalCaCfio la ditèsa Po ne è <iliînill r.;-aemm;va . . i . . ~ -
-~~~~~~--r ~~~~:---- i : ' i ···-----~--:--pcrson!îli11ente, oZlOTdiilnto'dTûctlàere, runienoîl1ia 'delf~ vrttrii1e-,r·---~ ---·r--··----- ... - . r --·-· +·-··· -Tare q nêitlOiiC~j)eralti'O-;-C&if&ïiiiOïiOOii,-iîôOâiiliftiùiêrscgnëi:--· t ......... "·-·--···.---~\TM11deno11--èlwifff .. ëêirilesïàto -dr avercâgfonato--·arrèftttnrîènfë·-rü-----·--r·····
1 l
·--·--·-----'-·---~~1-nortc' di una,. o-'p](''"dëîïê'''1o:r·-péi'soné·-rndfcate'~ne! capo'"']r-·--··r----·-----···~··:
---····---~---!·---· · împutazione, '
ma pruttosto . --~--~~--~--~--------------·········::>·-·----------~--_!----~-----·····-----·--· de! concorso nei n~ato contümato u1 violen:Za ;
~.--·-----·----·-t con -orriicf<f1o. Riso1ut1vaè-qûfï1dr-Ia--vérlfiêic1rc'à p·e:.;rsï:enza-dëi ____ J_ .. -------
·--·--·------------·--r~quisü!'ïfeTëoncôrso--ar-pe-rsb1ie-nefrëàfo;·-cfi~tTrgri:ïaŒë--ar·prTino _____ ....J. --~~------· : ..
i
i condivide pienamente e che è richiarnata oome pmie integrante anche
. --~--della presenie.sèntênza:·- --------- --- - -- ·· ·· --- -
---------· · ·- ~----Iî1 term-ffiTii,ëï1ëi-aŒ,-ra-gTïld8i)iücfëiïZaiJ!~-r:ëëëlîte1ia il'fermiita:- -
------- -------~-quanto--aH'aEcertarnento de! nessa . causaiê-neC-casf' ar coiicorsodr-··----:--------------- 1 '
·----------------r--personei1eî reato, ex art. 110 c.p., che, tra i reo,.uisiti stmtturalf&r----;-- ! : . 1
-----~~ concorsà 'di. persone_--vl_e_ ëruë11o-c1ie']J- contiihuto atipico del
·-----------------f-------------.--------------------------------------~---------"--1--··-----.,-·-·-----i----·· · j concorrente abbw. avuto una reale efficacw causa e, s1a stato i ----- ·r-Côillii~"iieCessru?rer1a··· è-onci=cia--rëal1zzâi1oîiecrer-:ra:t.tï:i---------:-----------·
------- ~--~ Crjminoso, seconda un n1odel1o url1tarlà CCf indliferenztato 1 1spTiito a no----:-~-- --- 1
l
------- - ----- 1 schema della condicio sine -qua-rio11~- propr1o dei1e1atf!speêrellforma· . /
--------------·· l···lTf:ïërae·-c·au:saiiiïeiite ___ ürfenEaTë~-Tü~sri:Jïë·-·îl .. "i311Tëï1o--ëlr-rïnPiiiaz~--~------
:------····~--3-L.c-a·lisafé ___ 2fëlr'ï~vëlifo-cagTOïiato -·a-ana- conâott'â coiicorsuare. sëéonctô n··-~---- ~ 1 1
----~"s r· êlaiùiîcéi-- modeTill condizion~illsiic-ô;--costili:iiscë-~ ir- piësûpposfo------r---------
~
, . 1
. . ----:-- / indispensabile di tipicità della disciplina def concoï·so il1p-ërsmïè_ïïcl ______ T _________ _ (' .__) 1 ;
·------ --------T-reato. e !a fonteascntfl\!'ilaê1!a1·espoïüîâ1îiiüif(fi~1smgolo-conc:Oirenfe .... -+---------
-------------------· ! · ·(v.Tass. ;sez~"lîii:;Tz El"giiii-zbo5; ·rvrariiiînor .. -------------,____ '--~ .. - · -~----- ----
------------fr-----------·--sr·aueï:nla moltre, nell a giunspnïâënïa·-ar-regltlTml1a·'-{crr:----~ ---·· -·--
' . 1
--------- --------~--Cass., Sëz. un., TO 1iïg1io-20D2~-Fl:ruliêse[Cl1e;in base âll'àrC40 c.p::?;·- ___ T _____ - --- l ;
---- ------ ----~- caüsa peniilmente rîTèvanfeTal~onêfoffii-..,urïiana· cne sijJè)ne--coi:mf--f' -----
-------~ conillilone necë::ssarTa~:=--cënmâo._sîneqùa-rïon:·:~·nella-ëàteiîa(feglï_____ ! ---- --
-- -'--------j·-antece-den1ï-êl1é--Jianno--conëorso--à. dëterrniùaré i1 dsülfàto; senia Ta , - --- -- i .
-,;-------- ---- . ~- -quafiiTeverlto non sisàrebbe, velinëaféi':'Tïi-venfica-tfe1T~1r';aùsa1Tiii--·-+-- 1 1
---------------Îposfiîia-qüiTîèflilr1corsOâaiïn--.'giüëlTz1oèoîifro!aftiïalë";nersenso ï::fïe-· .... : -
------:---------~--T::I!::ondotta un1iiia_è_ ëoridîzlone· necessiuïa: -dell'êvêriTo se,· din'iirùiùi.-
14
i
j
:<;arehbe verificato. Si aggiw1ge che la spiegazione causale dell'cvento j
·············------'" .. ·--verrncatoSI Mc~êl~,mt~c:-iief1~--s:ùi"lm1crüi~ëa tri!i)eili.Wi!tà·;··riiô.ëss~î:c:··-----/-·- ··--·--·-···--·---------··········· ·
1
--- ····--------r-··çsttataÇriïWë&ïJ-ëi1ènia1i-aitâ-·aa··fiRèï-iiil6Itrï1iù1üiH-ii! .. iiëîiëriatïz1izféînë-·--~--~---------------· ·······------------·
~-~~~~==~===~=~= ~-~ - ~ - ~neoo.n-.nr: tr'îiliit• âiiOOiiî. iiiïiiOiliiëiiiüla porma ·nîlrtzMTOiliir ····· --~- ···· · · · -- -· ·· · -· -
-----"·~----·----· :.1-iess-o·ôrë~iiîsama--;:;:----', ùr·p--nrtTcolare,--la'-tünili-në-îiërettE;~ï'ifèfië .. ëonaôt±a····· -+------- ·------·--··--.··· .. . .. . ' . .· . . 1
-· ---~-~------·--:--rrrèvîlnff···ë;··iièrëroacmii11fa-trva:··(tè!Vili~ea··aerr·nrëë1Tèt.pe.t1ifè:î1ëîrè·--- ·r ·· ······· ········-· ----~----------! fittlispeë!e'ëâi.ïsù1n1Snte'i5iJentâtK'~--,.. ·· ... · · · ·· · · ... ·· ·- ·· ... ~-~ ~-~-1---- ~
--------------· · ···· -------·---· · ·oiîaô1·o-·--ar!i·Pi;evlslo-l1ë-.. cŒw aif:-"4T,--"éomî11i ·-L::· i1ëna-· · !J'iù:-t&- · · · · ··· -~--- · · · · ··· ·· · ··· · · · · · · -· · · · · · · · --
~~····~-· ·· ·· · -----~-~ --rëtaff\;i_\-âŒï-èscTiïs1oiie .. iftif1ïeiiso· cliï:~âiisamà-1)etr•1ritëï-V'ëiùëi·zrrëiiüsë · .. -- --T · · -· · · · ··· ·· -·-· · · · · · -·-· ·
' . r~---:.st---·r--soi1rii\1vêriûl& u coiiê.orrùiH · ··ai~-- :sriirio··· statê--ïJa~··s-oié. · sùfilêTiinir-~it"w ~--~ · · · · ··· · ·· · ·· · · · · · ·· · · · ·.·.· · · · ··· · · ·
.· · J-· · ·--s::::::·-~-- acieî;n1Tn5iit l"'evënTo~- ·sr ·è-riiëniüa ·a~e-ëfiiësta--oiiè-rrünTctmp'fii>Simë!îtëi~---- ·--r··---· · · ··· · · · · · --- ---· ··· · ··- - : . ' i
---·-----·-r,.::j·""--l--··:aé1ro~-sët1ën11i·'i~omffirùi1~insHco:··nïâjiriss:rnfënmCsô1o-(mè-1pëtésrTn·--- -- -r .... ·--· · · · ·------· · · · .. --------· ··-··
····--·-----r'"''-"' "èiiUsà ·sq;rnvvëïiüfil··sr· pong;;··n;;na-· sone-coüsaro···m·· iîi<>ao- -·-f·· ·· ·· · · · ····--·--·· · ··············· . ( .. -·----------~cezloniile, a ffj)fciotî'!nîprevwloi'lë' '{l-(l'fii"'qu1iiof1ï.iùgO''mr:un"ffeëorsù'" ..... ·r·---··· .................. < ..• ,. -·.
-----~--- +Causale pûVo-a; preVéâ'il5l"ITiifë"îllï5ôiïifi>1li>Gà'iJàî16 <lêlf'"àliêlifO(Gff • " · [--- · · · ·· -·· ··-· ·
--~~---··-----~--- ·ci!ss-:: 2Tî1.1afio· -r 99 r.~- Ros'iâinÇ·a·.à.-s·.;;·.; ·4 dfüirilifii" zooT,TâMéo; cnss.; -· ·i· ··· · -· · ·· · · · · ····· ·· ---------~-----TiJ. ·--gmg.·l1'0"'T99'a;-·:cerrnfa6;"··· s.~fï!io"E·iii· --rrvco'ùcello·'i:li'--ë'aiis~illtà'·-----T--:········---- ~--·· ,...,.. ........ ~
----~.-----·-:so 1r;ïtvvenu11ï;-cra-soncS11ffic'iéntcrurês-clooB1'e1na]5porlo~'üsaJe·a~-----+--·----·--····- · ··· ··------
..... : ________ ..... ---+·-rKlm1a ae!rart~--4r;--·-coriiiria···-z: ·ë:p::---- àl1ëll'e·-·së · ·:non ~-posrura---- · -/-~----------- ---
---rieê-éss?iriainëïrtZr ra--èëirrîpJeüi' üiffôtioiriiitoer Tnnor~r-è1i!lià1ëïSiossiîn(i- · ~ i .... " . ., · ., .... --::· - -'-----·~-----i·i5J>èTr6-il--cilfë1fo-jiw·:re-i110fo,··~êsigé .. èômmfqiîêcnel1p'firrio·narcsïa--~~------- ------ ·-·······-w.
! ------------~- ·sffeftan1ênfe"alpëiîaêiit(faà1YâHrô tfl:.ihiisf'poüga~anfi' Tùori "di. ogiiï . -f ... ·. -----··-·
i ---~-.. -----r-preveê1ibïlëTtriëâarsvï'n1rlf5oâèUiTS'fëssoJ. ·--· · ......... · · · · · --· · · · · · · ---·-· · ·.. ·· --------· -··--· :--- -- -- --------... --- .... -·-- ·--·--
------------------i--------~-----------·-···· .. ···---·-···-······· . ---- .. - _. ____ .:. .. ·······-·-···· ·-··/··--··········· ' ...... ' ·····
1 1
1 15 i
i
1
/ In sllitesl, i criteri giuridlc! cui la Corte ritîene di doversi
--~-'- --~----l-âtrèfîiiiêpéfia.vé:n11bn, nefeiiô~ffpeHiê:"ëTfcàTa·stisâfstênia-ùè1-fiësio-·
----~------ cil causa fi ta trEJ~"evëiifci~lndkafo·nèTcapfonmfi\llàiiofiee~1â"ëm1aon:iî--
--~---···---------- l~à1izzatiï:!âr··:rvrrrcri;:t.t·rùnâaho sulla teorfâ~êonèfzi:ô"ifu1ist!câ;-vàlida ___ -i. ·--------- .,
-~----· , -··si a neJ casci""'â'f''r!iillz:Zazlô'riltilii;!nôsôggett(wi··(tfiê"pEirFcig[iMH1/à -·ar3f .. • l -- -... ·- ..
__ , .. ·.-.-----· ,.fCàto, côrï.1'ù1iëêfûfi(·nreiii>Siti'f <11 .. Vetfffiiarë· 'Së'T iiliè!îtô' ... Siii'Sfato·· ..... , · · · · ·
-- ... -... -- ---· -· -- -âefëfil1frîatn'anc1W(!~i{ cotiC()l'SO Ôi Ct~tfsë1'ôpriivv.èiriiffe; ïf'auïiîitër~,iëilRf ----i-----. ------ -- 1 . • • !' -~~-. -----------r·ro§'Së-pï·e\rcdibtle ·a a pâi1et1êll'Hl1pu1âto. âr fflhmentOin'Ci!f})"'ô!iev:r-în·· ·---·--.
~------~-~-{-esserenl conifoiTa c6iites1anf-.'{CIT.ar l"lg1T5rdo'Toit!f n'in:-·à)5ii; '22+~--- t· .. ·--~~····--/~1iôvêJ1ilirë'2&s·;L~ngerJ: __________ .......... ····-·· ........ · · .. ··· --·--.. · ·· ·-· ------- "· · · · · '"''"~--~------ 1 · ·-
1 . .
·--"-----~ ----.. -~.t-~------~--7i.1t~r·srrëlii!â~oet • preaé1fr~crirêrnrrarrï'tiO··rnvmae ··va ·'nfêriiitci' ~--~- · · ·· ~~---
!
y '. . . . . ':
";-------_-:i-- · -------. ·-r-espoWi'îilb1Ii:Ç's011c5·1rpYci'fi'[()oggé'ffivo, -net'rearë>.ëontësflito;··~.AT~fmr··-- ·t" ________ __ ......... ·t··-am~"'acceffamcn!o dêt'lfess'ét-ï:if' causa1îfa"""va cïonsiôer~Œo···--ëne--·ir·--·-··f···---·--- -
--·-~=~ .... l·--·contfiff~torrüto dalJ'ibitJ'ütafo a1Ifnfâe1JarealfzzifZîoffe(1iill'ëvelifa-···---j·---------- ·~ : ---····---rs! estiïnsecà1Com e nsillta pfo\'atëïfflnoaëf-iïièfôiif:rO\Iërso dalWprove ~----;----··· --·--..
·-~------·-····---! anymsttë'~ûn!î 15a tTîmenlOJ ne!Ja p artec ip azîône· 'iïJra()për!l.ii ôi'ïë-âèl'29. --- --·-1·---------·--
................. -----t ·giugmrT9lf4;!jUale -,-ppafteneme,-tü· ifu rlfôJO'gêf!;ffi\lilfrtTI!Tisjli>lltl~iitii" ~-!-----
i
-~~ ------"' ·--nê11irz6mr-dï-co-rrurçMïYtfnël1a:qua1-a··rürcrno ëoWfpiuœ;· e-cwr-rîiotlnlfrà _____ " t· ·
1 ' :
--~-"·-·-·~--·------'-corr!sponderftlaqi1ë!lfnraunatlnrClvire1la"'in·vat··ât'Cnfariïn~-yr:·s·:·-······--t· ·
. ~--------~--. 'k'ancrnZîo-te·c-orr'lrrfè15i'l'fl'!1ag~tôr~ct'Tïâe!fir· êltè-a:HW5VtJJ,lTét=l sî'oni·-· -----j······ -- ·-------
-.. ~-----·------j·~-mâtscnmîîiafe C!l no mi nr,-dôïï~ë15"difîl5fm;-ê"'ll11'0iiô"dij'te"âll~'flîlWtfiie _____ ._ ----- . -- --
-~--- ·· ··--·-·--···--t--numerosea!:illâ%1ô11ië1V1Ji-. -~----------·----------------··'·---·----··-- ·--·--~---~-- · ·-· · · · ---. ·
---~. ------· ·---------wo-n-:-vrun~'nr5ê.Iuderë~-rn-n~7îsër âî'ë'âUsâiit'à·1~rl~;itëtl1nâfi~~a!:fê' --w--· --· ···--~ --
--------+,oon~a la pli111!CijlittôifellitèiUr~ëi"Mil<t,câlm<n-o-.rd·1ll1<>-·--· · Il ' ' : -----·------r----- --~---·-------·--~----- --------·-----· ·---------- .· .................................. ] ___ .. -----
16
degll ornicidi con1piuti quel giomo, né o.ssnme ri!ievo decislvo il fatto 1 .
~-- chc-ifMîlè1e;-co~a con\e gh a1Iifmi1'fl:fi1'1proverfîemreratwnmnmorp~-c&rn~w--._ ··---------- ! . . .
-···-.. --- ' st~to îfîai(fafoa"àllâ1cste Cadoofcôn'ï{i i%n-flî0011UfParrëâl t:pfet11ûôteo~··w"~-~ ----· ·w.··--
--~~------· praf!cavànoTé"fofi:ure 1rrV.il1aCârîêft'f"('fc1te quû'ittî";fffe"§ïJmit1î:Ufii~,i1Tè.;li-·----t-·------~
-· ·-·-----~------+---wïiOïifaccl'li ûtîuèlJ é -11è-gglôrnrr.roctra;"&.Ymi:ftës'ë1e"vîôlënze -tre"~iffiall~-~-i--------· -
----~----------1 co,fiPiûlilîlgmn,o 2lrgïti]lilOT94'1Ti<llirzaM aïcômrn.-~. ---- --·--·--·~-- f- ----------
--------~·-------~---~---Aï-finfünnta-:-và1ITŒziôife1~îunâlca·ëôttena, -crcm "'rigrrmdo-r-rr~t--·- · · --·
'---------··-----·r·-pmno itfoga a1Jh .. susswfenza··ae1-ne:s::m··ât·mrfisali1tÇoëëorrT1nrnrr1---~-·· ........ ~
· ··)-----~--·- --CliiéâeYsi:-sï~-~~~?VTI1âëstTosse ~1tfi ûlarët ê11'paftïfcîpnf·e·~n11a-·!1nââeltic··----· -~-- ··---------
·----~-----~ --of)&azîône-mt111are, · (:':ssasl-- sâJ.-ê1:f!fewmrppa1a~·-in:<lîrcoistm'fie·-------· -----···----·
·'~-----··--:____ . ~ esaffifrîi~nHftâënnêlTè~ cos1'ë1fë.S<5sfarî.Zfiïfli1ëîiYfti-11fsua '7"sceltapeï'§'ôfi'à:ltr--~~~--. ---------
-.. -~ · --/-<l lmJesîônnîgltO!'Illi!Frtœ!imi<smtadîl!Jm!irti!l!Ul:lffillîlî>l'lllpèW--ar--L· · · ····· -··
----, ~
~-~-. ---/-~,reï'lflc·arst-ct~rrlî-e'Vi:!mi·?··--.-.-------------- .... ----------~--··--· ·--· ....... ------~------·-·· ---------·-· · · · : ·~ .
i
·-· -· ·- ·----~-avat()lnntro1ôcemraJirnëH'tïecttl1~r1ni:l1cllto·in-eanr-és-t~1!im:e· (~etc:c:nllo · · .. -. ·--t·-----
-------~IIITITtô11-str!trrâ;rJI(rrm:;ve·-rf~i;flli1l'ît~)",-. ê-t~•·a-ltfocantrr. ~rt.<:r-ctr. trun. ·tt··suri·~---·J···-~---- . _: _____________ ~--Sî.s<mît~(ùtlwrmm;--ant~"lm~ttnlf·~··Jrreeltella~ircrrn.1;'ltiva-:;-inrenw--ezi·-~- --
1
. 1
· )----------- ··inremnztomrl"e;irrvrgnre--a'lf'epcrcTc'dm-futti)"ùhrolr·abb:ed'ireaU"ordine-· -· -;---------
------~·-rmmiTcstanreuto-····urimirroS<r~m:evuw,---~vreblw-·irtfluitd'-.rella~i-~~-­
·-···-·---------:--r~·~i~zazimre-~d~rl-..,-~:mu-crrmtncîs-cr--~.Jrganïzmcr·-~èll'-mn:btt~--deJla·--···---l-~---------·­
--..,....,----,_..-j----ctr·vt· m-ro:re-HennmwGBrllr~qnmmrnreï1"IY11-e1--scn:s-(rdi ~ . . uffwnrernnrento--1------------·---- . 1
---~--- ---,--,;.......~: ·-d'e!11Uî1tel'tillel!e-vittîmtrdett~eccidro-:---··----------- -~---·---------;- . : 1
· --------- --~~ · ·L-"-""Clltfone<len•·opera_".· ùir~militàre'irr-qm::·sti one;-~ g~Se~o-~i-···~- ·--j-------
=~~~~~~-- _tj-.nmerecm:?:::=1''::f=on~,-·~e:p~va-~ôllf:~:=t-==c~~= . 1
1
i
:
17
.·.··~
-------~-· ---- ·ânêh~·aui!mx}iJnënût~ëTfe--il:ïe-d1niëij5TonC·· ....... -------- ·-------·· · · i
... ,.,,_ .•... ~ ~--·· ··~~-""''"-~-.-.-~·~---~-......--.---.·-·········_._...~, """'' -~~ ..... ·--~·-~ ....... ,..._ ••• ·--·· ..-: •. -.·4·. -·~·- : ..• ··" ... ~ -~ ............ ~. ~- ·.···:-'-< ~-.... • •• ''"<-.-................. -......................... ,..~, •; . .,. ·.·.;
. 1 In t1t! senso~ J'azsetJz~ di uno dei sottufficiali appro.ienent.e ni. 1
······· ··-~"'-·--···-·r-rb'pliitï-Tm"PTèiaiCt:iiiêiworriô .. avietl:b~--rësô·riëoësiiiirliJ-un-iidaii~ilienro--"
......... _.., .............. ,_ .. _.J_ .. ,,j"''' .. ,. ""•'••-~--·.-... ·.·.~ ... -o<.c- .. ··.~--· • .- ...... "'''"":''"••--·-.......... .-' " • '.... " .......... - ......... ~---··· "~· . • • • • -v ... .! ucl piano dn cseguire e quimli, anche se non avtebbe certllmQ:nte 1
......................... --~---T1Tipedl!èî~-f'ë:sëëtlzloiii···a~ï- ~i)1aisaërù~---ivrebhè ··hlf!tiüo···,~ùijja-·--sïiii ···--
~~- -······~·-----~-·~----.1---~~~-- - . . -~<,· .... -·-. ----~~..,··.-~"'.- .... - • .,~ ............ ['--~···.~·>-----..,--~"·-·;r···:·· ·-·-- ·--/ •·'··· -~---~., i reulizzaziolie, cmi;:;e~1tel'lflo- a qualcuno dcgh ucchn dt saMm>i la .VJta.
. l . ~ .
------~~j'-Pêr ~norïafre 6ï1?tûna ta!è'Sëëiin-ivrebhe' pôüiiô spîilgûi; "âHiT'î11f11tai-f.
··· --· --l--crérrer·,irta,-Bô1Jra1tutTolf~ï!ëomri1Hitôm provëiii;rïfr dai MusiT(J<oriJ ea- ~- - -
::· ---~ -· -'" ·--·-· --~--!i1jjë'rtTëôïaï131ri1gTI 1i1-fèrTorT~Ii1--fiiiifo; ·à'd~â1~Ire--riei1o si~sson1ocTO. -- ·'"--'":-· · · -· · ··-- .. ·
---- -- ---)~pTilfiüs'iô.ëfie~àëêëffiîrëconi.eiîï1a-fàta!îfà illefiîhabfre·Ifiàttùï:'lr rend ers!. . -·:-- . . -- .. - ..
-------- ~--ëùrresponsi-i1JHrariïnêiitiifiîè-ëOsfgiaveëd-!ù1-=-oëë:·rn--qûësrc)sêî1so1i\ ........ :·------- ···· · .. · · -·· ·······
---------··----r~Së-;_;mc-<It.ô'EEêCl1ënzii-dr-ôgïlîii1o--"irër~.;ô-cturncTalT-non-P"tiociie-aver· ------- ··-·····--· ---·
····-----·-··-·-----f-rafforEîfo~·u--prùJ)üsiTO-ënmliif1s~arognJ"affio--.-àiJ'fiiiî:tënëiifè.'itH\ii:iiUi--·-··
---·- -- ----- t m1lrtili:e:----'"'-----~-----------~--------------~·~·---------------------·--"-"-----.------·----·----------------·-- :- ............. -- · ..... · ...... ·-
-~ .. -----------/--·---:--·--N'-ercas·s··acspcë1e-n:On -èctill6-qulnarirotiiiâ!eTësisYeï1z;cai · __ .. i - - ·-· -------- ---
"• i causé cmïêclrrenff--sopravvenute che al)bTa'im-dëfennTnufo"Tevento:·· .. , .. ···- .................. , .-:'
. 1 1 ---------------~-~n'ilziOi:ie-degl i arta m1 ma:rrcori-~i -q-u~ili<ÇG'i1i1tësiaro·11 .. ëonëcii.~&~- ë€rrn· ---T----- ·-·-"·-----· · · ··· ---
--- --- -------/JlilriiCOinre drqü&llï cli<-fiiiiiiiliPOsliilïï êSôéiii lë Shijjiilii COOO~ltO clC ____ -~-- ---- -- -- -- -- -- --
---:···----------~ omicidio, non da luogo Œ1à'ffr·~-èf'ùn·aëë:of.ici .. é'iiüsalëlmprè*lelliliire·sür--w--~--------------·--·--·-- ......... ..
·-~-.,---~--qua !e l 'ln1putafoncinpél"têviëséwcHiiriaiciin·Œîntro!lo.-·Arë;onrüill\j. tïi1J . .: .. -·-·-· · --- -· · · · · 1 .
--· ----·· . conaôtfe--ë'rano ûn cran 'iniz1opi;Ograïiïmateëëîiiïeess:-&ï1irarrreria--·r ---·---------- ---------·
=-=J::_:iuaüita dell'aZIOTiô~=Ui\îf:;~~~~':o~~~~a:~=:it~Và~=] -~~: -=~== ' 1 ! i
18
i
,,,, ,J_(--.-le"'iîCTtb-e-ra~t,--a_m_e_n-,--rerul'uceisi()rie delle persane civl11 repente neiJC locahtà ·--- ...
----~---------+--rn-cïu-ëst:i0ï1e:·-------------------------------------------·-- · -- ----- -- ·- ---- ·- -------------------"------
-~ ·-· --- -· ·----i-----·z·.s:-NesTpuèi-au6rtaredeTI' eSistenza dell' e lël:nënfos6gg"é1Tivéi --------+-del- reato, sotto !o speciiico proülo della consapëvolezzacJrca ----rr--f--~--- : i
-----------l=~:.::::;;:;:;::-:; ::i:~~~::::::h:u: ~:, 1~ ===: --- --------f-prè"scTiiëiere--dali~ piiïlêé!pazwne atla specihca nuruo:t1e-lei:iuta·ra.··sera -- + --·- ·- ------ ~-----~ pnma deHa strage (cm e présumiriTfecTiCiTMil{"!eîilibw partec1pato, ma····-·· ·1---- - -- -
i ------------------- -- serïZa dlëlacfrcosfanza SJa stata pi'OVata ln modo cei1o); appare SlCUfO ~----·--'"----
------:- ·e:né:·----------------------·--- ----------"--------------------------'~-------- --· --- --·-· ·-· -·--· ·-·-----
~-----L·r·-------- earattefï··--·essënziâîe -- aen azJOrîë·-----SJal10 Stad
~ i - 1,------- ·--- =ç __ l
_ -- speclftcamel'freïnêhcah dal Comàiïao· pnma del suo ~---- --
_____ :___ _____ .:;_:~ ; rmzto, qïianto meno ag!J ufflcfah e sottuftïëJall, Trï· ----j---~- ----- - , __ 1 ---~--~- ~ mùâOCliCCiliCUllûpo!CSSO--gûTi!irrOTPfO]lri\Rimilil-y -- •· -
f ne!le zo:ne assegnate ed lVi esegmre quanto ordmarëÇ ----:--·--·------------·-· 1 '
--~-!--- - tfa g!J ordîm fosse-Sënza dill:1Dm compreso quelTëlâ.1---J- ·------- --
>~ --t-------------a-arcorsoaf!auëcîsîone inâiscnmmata âe1cWîli, ed ~-~----- ) ~--------------··a11 a-··-·aevasraziof'ïë _____ aeg11·am-um---ce··--împossiliî1ë-----/------ --
-.--·--------'----------------- immagmare che, m assenza·at tïn ·me spe6fiCoe·· ------j------------------
1 ------------------t-----------prevènfiVoordmë;rJiuurfita militari, soggetteperalffi) --r-------
------amonomameüfë conipoftaïnent1conïrari ad ëigni regola
19
-------------
-- .. ~ - --- -~-- -
-----............ _
1
1
la dtcostanza ohe qüeUo del 29 giU!>>nO non fosse il /
·-----····-······---· - -----· > ••• ~.·-·pr:iniî'"'Jer· 'èrimtnr cniüro·-~1-n·-~po):ioltliwnë' ·-élvîle ·······t-· ........... ~-----·· ................. .. --------~---···- .... ···-.. ··---------~-~ coli1Plilio èfarèpàrfl aeH~âHemfitr1i1'i:jùrliig{Pofëliè. gTa:--t---· : ................................. ..
. . . ·--~~~-----~ ~ . in preüedèhZU, nefÏnest·dr'aprilêNJ9if.iCêptsoàf''1Jon~-- J--··~··"" ...... "·-·--· ...... .
----·~------~~ -----------m..:o-tiiil<Jëlro Œifilil'U'Tutiiiio <iii'iililiiif iî>lliîiOêanrr ·· J ----· ·-· ---.... · ·· ·-··-· ......... l . j,
· ·· · · ·-- · --.. ~~--~------ru-smç·varmcc-rora: "?arifnii'i"Mù~ëàio; .. sëmprë ·· rïër------;-·-"... ... · ·· · ... · .......
-~------------ --r-----~----· ·lëïiilOï·Io~--aëlra .... ïirhviii<:1a~-df- ... "Afe'iii5T- -reliŒe-·--·--j·-·- - -~---------·····-f-·-----------------·····mmm;üfJEiTili~mëcedü--t:hiÇirliiinae-;nerifioineiltù in· ······1·· ·. ···· ·--~----
. .,.:.. __________ j .. ·------~-~uf;lâ"rriii:tUiïi'~er'2'Jr:gTuJ~nci~r9"44~si·-e-deliT)eraTèr a: · ·· -J· --- --------- --- ·· ··
--------.----·---1-----~--- --~i:m~ndêr~-~pili.ë~r.ra··-ôpêriifcirië · · ·progt.~ùnïïiat.a~·--nëî ·- ···· ·T-- · · --- ~-'·-··"
·----·-----·;·------+· . "·------------.. ·~- conosëeva- sema~füb!Jf()Tï5~iraJfëff.êfù3êiizfà1i --ë-·sr é ....... ·;-- .. .. ___ " ______ , --~-
.----~-----:d .. -L ................. _________ pertmno--asenmTolJJ1it .. rëspënsnonrfir-giufiôièa 'è11é: 'ii ........ ·(· ·- ..... "' .................... " ..
~-:~--L·-----~reSiffi\êktediilFaSaïn'<reâëTTéiilpo; nëiiae·sullilïimr·--+---···· ········· . . c~) . . . ',__ __ *'····,•~~----•--• • ••~ ___ "! __ __,.-,..,...,_,_,._,__..._..._..,_,_._ .• ·-•-·-•·':""-'---~""'•"<-,~ •'- .-.•,. -'••' •"• •--.'··~- ---~~·-'-• .· ·,•,- -·· '·--• ---·-··- ~ -'•· """-~..,.. • *'•'-"''-'·'·- '·«'•" ,_. ~•r •-•-•.• •.• - "•' - -o. •••·••'•·"' ''' """"'"·"
· ; persona. 1
··· ··---····---·---- ........ _.) _______ .. ·z:o:-Jrgnrrnœ· rup11irïô-gr.id~o-.i1a- · ëstëSâi11eiitë· ·awioQ1ëfità1o --- --·· .. , · ---··--··---·
1 ~
· · · ..------· ···- ·i ··ccoîrm· ·Ta--con<Iort~Caelriffipu:Œfo·ï-icirf · · p(jssâ --~ss'&ë' ]Iûirfifiëlifa;· -iii· ·
l
· · ·· · ---- ----;-!5ar:rièô1ii.i~- ëoif-11Tërimento·'·â1!e· scnrrîîrïîWîï:f"deU'&aemt>liilëi1to· ·aér ....
-----·-·· -~~~- • r·clovérë ·e:-dello ~§tafo'-dilf&~essltà'!nel !' àtrif di 'âppéll(fïi6ii. sorlg periiltr6
................... : -e:onœm:ae,ïrlc\râiffê~aT3Te"âsp~au(),spêciifichê·do'gHanzê. .. · - · · · j • -· •
_. .... ___
· -"·--!---·--· C'"ijiïiifilf'iii!l!iêî1iilt\l'aii$ênloro;· ttH'iiiUI>ffio; ;n·ronmrmità ffd ïfn · ·-.. " · · -·· · · · · , -· ·" ·· ·
----~---.... -.... '/"pacificif.oïiënran1êi'fWï,Pür1spnït!éiizîaTe;·b1iè .. {se l'msëthtn~:nnrin urüc · · ;- ................... · ........ .
-~-----------T·Tompâgîne sTrutrurata"sëcondo"ünà ·rigiaa·~aîs·ëtplin~ï!tëtârcni'èa püô ...... .. .. ... .. .. .. · -· -· ....... .
... ___________ i_tèï:i'âëre~'·a-1lë11'fsponsai5i1îzzare··-pJiyêtîviduo:,··-irr:··otdiM. à!Je···aïîoiïi· ··
_··---~------~-+-êo1)1pfüTë1Jël'mqine ·'êtetffiîpëffort;·ttn~mà âi"'criminrëünt'fcr·t'(mYafiirt(" ·
-.-------------J-e-rn:-ëi'i1Tiiï1Tâigïiena roobeôfenzaad·ôrâîn11::lrê Siâùcnrmnlfest!ü11ëii.ttf · · ~- ·--- ---···-· · · · ·· ·
.------·---------!··-----~---·~· ...... -·"~·--.. ·-------------.......................... -... -·'.
1
1
... ,·.,_. ,_,., .... -· ~. ! ~ -~ ~"'''"'·'·~.··-.----
20
1
1
..
ed incontrovertlbi!mente etimlnosi non puô mai assumere ri1ievo
-~~~~~~~~~--~---~=~·-~::_î:~_-;ii_ ~~.:~::-_:.:_:;;:_~;~~-:~:~:::~_:_~:-~~~:_-~a_:~~---=1--------~~~-~ ----·---~--·-· ·--projiifè .. iëêUi),SïaSSùïi)MiiüMfesfiiiiiSàliifil1iéhe 'tlu'Seëiïd811'j>iôpüii .. --·-j······ ... -
" ·-· ·---~- i ---êôncroto operare, ·-e--sr-:eareriaë''a"i\cne--ana-··r,1fluêfjuï''é1fê''~iT------j-''"''~·----~-
. .. ........................ -~Fomportamen fOUél iiî]Jeii5fèëilci'CifâSugllftllenOiÎ~. -. ---·--·-· ~--·········· ······---~_!····--------
. ===:l~a~~.~:~:;:~:~:~~:~:~::=~~ë=-;-~:::---r-~-~ · ;-------êsë1ü.salaï1ena aê1l~IfàStôlO,~iâeëHirâtoriaëfrpfêï;criïiorieûenëat5. .... · ·---~-------· ·-·-·
w~---·---w-·~- -secônaolac~,m:é-ifôn~~i'PriinrâmmissiD1Të;·av'i.ifâo nTf)ï:îniêïiroat7:rïterr·~~~l- ·- · · - ......
~-- ~----,-----·-- _,..i --ïïWiiëalî ~crm1~~irt:-TJl"ê.p~;-Ta·céïnëessionë·â1rîmpTifâfo·aem~·1iffi!iïWffintr ·-· · · .. · L · · ·
...----:s1-J--ç..-géî1'15rlë11è''; .. di êuî ·a:n '"ifir62'oiFfë:p~ïiomüi'ë11econs~ri1e a.~- gîili:îtcirar-·--"1----·---·-·-·
· · ·-'S~~=+~:.n<lëi'OIIlCOfiSilféi'ii.IIllliif .. "êffë&i!liiiZr~iliVlii'it'-·oaqueJTé--+ .. --.. .
________ _:::..__~ espressamente 1n-!Tfë!ateneTj3'fêëê'énfnfëâffiColo o:t;'"qfffi!Omle-·rî1ërfga ___ _l ............. -
------- ---ïaiT:-dagiüsriflcifftr1:ï1ia·mm1ïmtkïi1ë~i:lipen~.r'tc-oormnënâêri.n1Tevarrtii · ·- ./, ·· --·-·-·-· ·· --
~~-~ ----~-·nna varllfàziôîie"in'tonëFéteï1Ie!fa1ro;cti1~-'f5è1meït<f1.1frtmâërtrï'forrgma·~--~--------­
---------l-ra pl'!Jna e quîm.ttnspenosâ-derprîncipio ·afr"îfgîi5ft'r~'\io!Cfiz'ffï3l:tella---+---- !-------/--r;nattr~·.,-c~;;1irnJgllo .. 1995;FnlôW>): ______________ .. _"' -~~ "' -----
! J ----------J----~-~~t5lmi:Sodîspecte·lénnmct~rre-am:mülnirl-fi.otil5?fssoiToeS§ef~--r---- · ----
~------~--- --~cBftë'ê-s~e-~n-vm~H~q_ifà:Vîr.:t·tn:tf'l.n'i'lël:;':r ·ct:et·'ftttfi · ·dt·-_rMt~;·· sk·pè'r-n--~--j--- -- -~- -·
----- -~~trttritneêlnq·Yet~liClor<Sl!iftlllfà~-ctvtt!tJ'it~:rrol·e-tf·!nTtrestf--~-~-)------------ ---::-----------· m-mlrc'bamtJtl!t;'-êlomrrnrd''lrn.2î1ii1l-egnwh:a·del·-regm-Ttspmw-a-llt1···cut---L __________ _
vattttnz10nrnrs·smtrê-mr·jfes-cr111m-gtflirl1rlâ"'1!ô1ïS!dl!f~ttltrlt't'!'t6aîtl·tmlo-··----J--------·· ···---- . 1
. 1n cof!Cï'erosvolro<:tntMtitleclre~-,rrnale--g-ôrmffWîr!TI!;!Rnrfucmtmrrenttr··--i---------
---- ---rfaîmî1ttaï1c!Rrâl:Sposëf'l.)""é·pjaï1tfreart)no-r•ecctm<,-)tn'1el11tlnmrc-mtza-------I------
21
. __ J _____ _ 1
1
1
1
j di elemei1ti, in tema di cap\lGità a delinquere, anche sucçess1vi alla·
· ········-··--·----- ,- i ·-reâlfziiii!ëi:iëi dëllfï-êoiidorla; chê.assnînài1à ini.pèsà d~IsTvo -~- favore
i . . • ___ ,.".'"""A_;__ _____ l __ 71êlî'Impuï:atêi.-· -------~--w.: ·· · ·· ·· · · · · · ·· · · -··.. ·"--·----
; . . ;
·'"··----~- ----w··------T~------1h-pnrtfèolW:e;1ion i·îâûJiaiî(i dêdsfvë· iiùo ravorê ·te 'ë11·cosfà.11ié --~- · ·· · ;
i . ) ·- ··-- ·- -~-~·-··--r-ë:no:-1rMmre··:n-vi\.iiï:n'eiièëîeiitê7i.iènfë. "fiiüëï · ·p}iflij · <~ër ·cciifiii · :iriiisféafe· · ·· · · ---r·
·····--·-··-·····-~---~--f~dèi1ii-mvJsioJ:11i~~èJiè-;in···pï~eiiza-"tiëna·câf:tëW,ïi.c<imë-aîin~r~1e~&a···
·· ···-······ ----h,ronr;;;snra-laïilira!o:-aria.ro··aa · ;;n ··tùOiiïèiliO "' siiiiJTOiJO- Mn-Jr ·
----··· -~---·-------rTiêniitei:O-ffvO!Tô agtrorra-~·aëllk.giiëri·a~--fnl'àUrVëfèïnëîlto provaü5-che·· ... 1
----------·-,. ... · ·· -----_ · ·· (Pril1iiüt~fo--iv6$"giÇcoïifp:~titJifw~iïtê ·coù .. I~ ·gr ovâiië -ëtil: · uri-bï.Tùri.Iivë·uo·~ ··· ·
--~~d-~jcwu•rrue_:-··c·--_rosse __ "ëfêm_r_~i"â_·a:-"iina~am_vlûCâiiial1c.a:_ ro·rë1iâë~'i_ ëërta·.. ·· i
---- ~--~.-~-i magglèrmente """ëürttlapëvolè~----ar···anrr-:ïnorèl-inê"""····ar-·t:irifffere. -~--:.
·---~~ 1 m•n 1 fe.,umèiîfeCi1mmOOfi;-ejiffiüA<îfliiiitîi ''fuii!Vl!O'~ fféllê .Œoi11:i: iilif - 1· . - · ·_:· -----... · ·----~----jC·-ave v;,---présonarre-:-niffavŒ:~a-rëëlïTral·îi)ru:-an1Tcornï1i ffifôul;···cn:e~-- · ·-1-· · ., .. -···· . 1 . . . . . 1
1 '
--~--~--r-~_cerc_ ~~--~--~---P~_;_~~-~-~~--~--~-~---j&~~-~_,~-f-~5_~_~_-i_l~-~-il_i--------~----~---- ------.. ~---l!.~ciTfeTfr-aënë~ooci~1oJi!Yiîûperion:··~-g1ï:silif!1rtô .. aCiuno s'f6gô~, .. êlïé ·nonTo ____ T ..-----..... ·
"-~------~-------l-p"l:>îièi15êh3.iic!'7issù'fnëTë.alfiinêo1ni5orüinïëiito·Eo:r!sêguëiïtë;······-~·-:·------ ·· ···--~!----- ·····--··
------·----.--~-~-~--~linUllfÇêliâiilfHUS.ÇgiiOi\TêâlreâTh; ïlûf SOiiliiflTi\lfrà'&l\è·········!·-.......... .
1 l
··------------------··· ... irMrra<:çnH·ctëëei1nrs:ttc.:cëSSiVlli1Z9- giiïgnh-19~:t4;ao11ür:cofnmesso· __ , __ ··-r··
î
--~,---~---- ---wrooï'lï5rïtêatr;-ïiorcrrsmr.mo·~,rëmmë'fi?ï1fi~aftf ùTŒ1'!0ti -·eTernëî1Tî <fif · ...... -~ ·
-----·--F-l vaf!itare posTI.iWlmente: ·ar-cônffiîfio;-"1-ipparâ assa1 ,sfgri~ffcâffvo~-a----- ·t·----~---~
- -- -4ffiiosfraz!Orî"tf1telTa1nevifaffiHTadrl.irtiîppfêZînmériUfnëgutivo n·eïsuor··----T- --- -- ---
__ , __ ëî:iiffr'mîfï;-che ni nessun-ffioâo--ii1:iliîaâfmosrrâfü;"fiiù5aêfoggÇfoYmeaî -----j --------- i :
----~----~- rtlS!plscem:a OVVÇf\) côïhunque a.nntiiFè~§iïiq5er1ïrsoï1eâëJHqwrsoi)"e ____ f ____________ _
·· ····------~---·~~lilië:ïsë;·o-pëi-Tliito taiiîilîlifi1pêf'iffiliëVOWi:iiîrii!i'fiiiif1 mœorrerodeî· ·-··~ ·-· ·· ······ ·
==tœmposenzna commf~on:::'_"_~o~~~~î~J~~~-z~ti~~u~~==~··········~·
1 . 1
22 1
1
i
dell' iinputato appuiono da ti margiMli e trascumbiii, ris petto ru lu
,....-.·-~-~-~~,-· .. ·- ·-rn~iümfi-·gravirà··acl-fà1fô'c5niêsBito crr.-·coTtêf ·111n iia!;e ·ap-p~lr<ç 7 ·· ... · --1' ·· · · · · .. ·· ... · .. ·-·---.. · ...... · --
------------marlô-r9'98';HasS):···-··-"-·"""···· · ······------:---· ~ · ,. --~~.......,-- .... _. ........... .J-•..•. ······-: .....• • -··· w · ·--·· ·····--r--------· ........ · · ·--· · · .... · ..
----·-·------------~ -----re on 1r propriô~àiTôlu·"appèmr·wrêr~pom1ib1fuiviTë't3ô1ilesni · .. J .. ·: ------· · ... · · · · · ·· ...... ·------------~~<a <eliTéll!iltâlj)Nnf&gl'ii10;1\ëll~I1Cliffiêilté la d&i1i11\\l<'!'Sulle-~-~~- -- -- ---- -- ----
1
· .. · · · -----· ----------~· -----qï:iesfi'i5ï1îcrvrrr:··· ----------·--·------------------.. , .. ·---·----· ............ · ........ ·· .... · ... · ..... · ......... · · .... ------1----· -~ .. -----· .... · · · · · ··· · · · ··· .. ·
___ _: _______ : ......... -····------------·vi'Cpfê:iiïé'sso·cli'tr1n'sài'tl:ë6Tare"i1!1 ëvol:iljif iïelni" mo ti v azio·n~ d ï .. -.. -+--· ............... -. . ............ . 1 1
-------------~ --q uesta sentenza à:>suffiir1'ûrrpügiiazîOn'ffs).1fcâptrëlaüVfiifcl$ili'Cfrrîêffiô -....... '/.......... . ........... .
~--~------f----uei-diiïffio-e·aefBimli11:ffo·'arm;cc:rrr:o~nmzifênilnrlêsfionrûi15ilë-ëîViiif. __ .. ----· ------·---'"---··w·· ···- ·· ·····
·---· ·-'·-----------..... ! -- tontûi:i'Wio~"itr :prrtnô· · iifâo'(J:" 11 a · prôi.'i'ôsfô. ·1ieW âtto-a i'appëHo ··ai1ci-m ---- ---··· ........ --
---"'-----------------!---questîorJ·cntfnoifsë>no·-sriw.n'l1Yora rmw.·a:mo!ft?mn~.ifqüë$W.· Cbrt:e;· né· .... ·--r · ·· ··· .... · ·--. ·-· · · ··· · ·
; l . ,. . . . . 1
• -- ~---·--···:--~--- ,. ... ... â 'iiltr(fctïîitërrîsUlfafiolrmat~rlrî l~i:e.· cédënziÇséë·onao~qtfàntoalt'émiato··--····· 1 ............. c .......... · · ·--............ ..
l . l
1 J
.. ·----~.._::~ r·ânc1Y(nrancnnëssinUThns5fiinléîHll:î:ïlitT~ciVi!e;iîY'altfi pioï5êss1"'pêrüilt···-· "['-----···· ....... ---··· .......... ..
-------~~-l7dëllil'lfJ1êSSlfit-- <f""1!é1fcllteZZ1f dC11lî~IOil1êîlîiîltelr--\'1!01l11üli "4üinâi--- --~- --- --- , --- _, .. ----" -.. .
~ · -~~~-ïreëëssiincr--11n""ê§;'<lfnë"plrrtl'cmâtmMrê~1ntëmo;--pur--s<ï"'1n;htât'<f\":në-·Hr"~"-- -;-·--· · · · · ·· · -·- · · · ·---· · --- ·
l :
· - -----T--âëëis1ontr~si111in:rnê·srtôl'ilcNtlf-assumeurr<:aftiTfêi'ti:1iët"ës5ürnürRilltë" · .. --~-- .. · · · .. ·· --- · · · ·· ··-------· ---
---·---------- r·---aceërssêiril:rt1~pe(fl}'~Üla'l!eël:siôî1Cf~trgH'1f$ifëtti-pêi'fr.tlt:········· ............ , ...... "'. ---j--·--· ., ............... ·-·····------- 1 . t
----------~ j · Citrâèttb~--f~-a}>treH~'êlët''têtjj')til'rs!lbi!i§··ètvi'fl::--·si-·arri~ola-i1r-·dut;:····----~--·~·-·-- ·····
-------------~-·---- '-«mtti'lti'ylrrrfitl:---·-·-·---~--~~----·· -~- · · · · · · · · · ------- .. -- --------·------· · · · · · --------~----- ......... ------+-----·--------·------· · · ........... . 1
-··------------------·---~~-·-··--·J:r:-··~·eou·--ü-prtmn--st-·--ec·ce:pisce--··rinamrnissibtlità~"--e·····--··f····--·--·--~------·······-···--·--- · ; ' . 1
.. :~--------·---r-h't:litopfmibtl'itâ.·-·tl-ell'nzib'rre--···civile--·-suHn..,.-haser··-d-egti~--~--abb!ighi··········i·················---·- ----··-----·-
: j i
· ···: .. -.~~---·+-m:te-t1l1l'ZÎli'!Yâlhrssm1ti-llalî'TtB:lilr;-ovvercrttrhl1se·ru··c:oJ1tenn t<:r·deU:e-Ieggt-·-· ·--~ -------- -- ·-··· -· · --· ···--· ·· ···
i
-------------··-·· ·---!iîtêiim-dtre<repimemo:-·---·----· ------ ·---- ·--· ·----~------ ------··--· ... ·----·· · ·· -------~·~~---- --------·· · ... --· · · · ........ ' ' 1
-------------l~·~--"-m-_"fiàlt'i·ëa-la:t·e~-·.:st.~tôm:11TI'·a:H:-·77~~ccc&t;-t!trl .. Tran.·ato·.tlt·pnce·de,.~-------~-----···-·---------------·---·----·--··----
-~-------r-·1ûîe5tw:rlol'94ï""(:ct-rg-s:-21t'n:l94/,rr:-a-.zJ.30)"" .. l 'Ira!ta--:rimmct~;-a ·sm:r----~-- ...... ----~----- ----------- ' . i
r~~---_--------------~--.. ·--·~. ---- -------------~---~~--- -···· ----··
i 1
23 1
i
/ nome ed a nome dei cittadini italiani, a qualsiasi domanâ~l'contro 1a 1
----------·-· .. r· Gertnan1a-:ë"fêTffaèfm]girii1ru11clperîâen·re·anaéfàtadêiT'-8~5.T945·;•.·Ta·--~--··· !' ·--------.-- 1 - ·. . . . i ---~-~-Cortelli-Eass:iliO-ne; séz~"iifi-:-ii.-2·&slï933;~l1ailngirai:Citï-cfuanfëi'-ëfW1i··-----T-~- -------------
------------tsurmett& ''r!nlinzTa<'--ï1oi1--e-TiniiTafa--ana· sole-aom'aiiae ___ Pî~<;}iosfè ... in_, ·-·---(-~~- · · · · .. ·-··· ·
---------------r···-g! uiilzfoe ___ penüentranrs-·mag&rfû--r<J4'5;·---ma-·à ··::~jti ~1sTasr-prelESa ______ ,.r··· .. ··-.. ---·-- ---
~:~~~-~~--j~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~::~--~--- 1 :
--~- · · ----- -----~Tn-ô1tm~-rîe1l"-"::1i'èorâi:i:Peï;·-tr;:ëgêilani'ëiiio driilëéiiiii.qtièûloiir· .. -~- ----- ·- · ·----
--- ----·----------· r·t:llëâriiiiei~']nûi+irl'iiiiw1ë;-ëooiioïiirh7)ë jlti{iiiilf:trrà ";--soffO~crlrl'o·!Iit Ia ........... -r. . . . ... 1 • .
··--------·"' ·- ·i·-~rtëpimbliêaFe<refàltrTedesca·ël'1lïilià-:-n·z·,grügnoT96ni-Boiîrr-(<IPJ~::····--····r·- ·-··-·· 1 ' '~~ 1 1 ···-----------····--·-·r···r;r-ap-rifeT9"52-;11:T:to3)·;·fmrermnnënfe-sTâElTi1bëhe:-·"7:7l·g:ô1TèFnô ---·--··---:---····--·,-----·------··---- ! . . . . :
:-------- -,,~~---- ~ lfimïino afi:71Îêira -;;~m·soï?ô"aëfilifli:nüttii !é··at;e,idicazimrr eaè7ifësTë~· ---! · · · .. ·-- · · · ...... j •
:· · ..... -- --~-7!éTla1tëjJiW!itfi:ëi7fiilTiiiiii;-·o--(1Cjièi~onejisiche e giiiriiliclïe îtàTiahe;· -... ------ -·----- ·
"- 1 1
-- ---- ; Ciitcorcrpe!Tdeïi!Tiiêi coiifi'~~riittrilfiiRepîlbbllâiFedélàTe âtGiJi·iizêâifa- - _, - ------- .
·~-o-"'----·-------~--aërfïïimt!7tai:lb:inro ragiiiiil'sii'm'iîëlj;iihodôti·a 1FJO siWéihbFë 1939 - - - . - --.
i . ----------~--------~eT'8-magg7o7.94Y. ___ .-........... - .. ----------- ·- -- .... · -- ---· -·-·· -- ... ·-- ... -
··--.. --.. --·--·-r··--·-- ·-·r1rGoveriiôîti11fiùioTèrtâ iifdeHiii:da RepübbliëàFëdiù·c7.Ie dt· -·· ·
-----~-----------(7i.ifcilïiTcnt.1l'fii pYë!esa"l?ijii1e7lif1'5â1'Te-arjiirsaiie}lslëlùris ·gtiiHdlchë · ..... · ~-- ·.·
1 '
---~--------~--~-'j--ïlâlîbiiepëTlëï;IVë!iâic'di.fiTnTifnBJliesfë:ftlddettë'': ...... ········ ·- ..... -- ·- ........ ----~-- · .. --- ·
--;.:·------,-·----t----.. ~-· ~·sé'itonao:irrespoi1sanîŒ ëivilë"1fTrit5ürïil1è mi1itâîë-dëJla~Spézla · ....... : · -·-·· -- - ·----· · -
-:-----·-----·r-av-·fêooé~diSapp11cafô ..... 1a-èïrata· --coi1Vé'fiiiërt1ë ···ar· ·BonrÇ · ·11c · éUI ~ · · · ~ ···· --- .. ··· .. ------ ----
________________ j ___ tërnHnorogta ··~OffiCaC1"escJi1cté.re·âetlnmvatü'êfiŒcliTfîl'cT5ncèncf--tH·-~-----!··-~------- ......... _
---'----~~~ penâenza sta nferili J!e allinO!e !Jfé!OWfOndate-ii\f azlontgtuâîZilifle ---+ · ---·· --·-- --· · · · ·· ~~--------- ·----------c·---···~··· .......... _. ..... ---···--.............. --!·-- ~ .. -...... --......... .
i
24
-~--....: .. ··-·········-·····:--·~..:.-....... ,,.,,..:,.., ... ~.-~---. ,._ ......... ·!"··--:--7:···:7;'-'~-----
-~'·· .... • .. . ··.·> ...•. : .. ::·. ' ·... . • • . "
. i avanzate tra H 39 ed il 45". Considerato inolüe che in drdîne alla citata 1
·------------~----f-convenzmnë·arBon11·e·silita'.el11afiàtaiîl-IfiiHa-iiJüispëêffiCâ-fég.gë.ai--·-~~-··j----······-···
=:•-~j-:::t:~à:~::::;:.~;~:::~:~;ë·:~~~:~:~:~=······j··········-·~ ----------~--,...: ______ +--·-as pëüriliù"n~sarélSbe"i~tiiro: jW~~o--if!ë&nsrnernzior~e 'iwmï-~i0nrê11za::-dena·· · · · · · · · · ·· · ·· · -----·-- : .
--------------]-co-rte · dïëassazmiïe;S'ëf. ·~c:n: · ëiV: ;·n:-5044704Tïrt1111lTcr·aTrisfifèfn'îëfffi) .... " -- · · · · ·· · · · · · - i
............. ---~l~dëf"ê!mmf-êiviTi!Jên puo-esséi:e oggêl:ki(fi''frriunêTal:i!ransaziorii.;oi.'!---~- .. ··--~
===~===-r:::::,:~:rà::;:::~;ü:::~~:~:~:i(:::~~~~:~t::~~:~ _
.•.. -r • ..... --·-. -----·-------.- ---~-nfoï11ëi1foï:lê1ri:Clori3 côî3ël'Usîoifê:-QI13Ii1o1no1ü~éfall.à"côiisidèifàzîbiié!"dër ....... ·r· . :t ·• r
: _f .. · .... ··------J·_;hg1Cilliëë'di~p-rïii1<î··,gr-acro;·· se~orra<tëŒnrP&1amenro: ·l1.olftüfcmai1àro;· ar· -· ·· · f- w·--· · ·
. ~--_y-·--·--"'--;2· · ~~sëfisrëŒn-raii:-:mraenat:os'titüii(Wië:-~lcuna·rëggë-crïaiîfofizzaztoîf(rana··-·--··j· -··· ...... ..:.-- · .. ~:::.~: '
· · -------_ _:_s···r· raril7ëa--·(irr-orâiî1ë---a11'Aë·corao .. îil"'oggt.Rro}; Wëê·ë~isîilïa--per---ücanan ·------·;-- ·· ·-- ··
'~-~-~ ~~-;,... -Thteniiïz1onalrâi hât'trriî pôlHièà o:·cnë p·revèôâno arbitnliiï:ftëgèiiàilfëtitf' .. ----~.. i . .. -
--·--- -g-n:!oTzîafi-;J"'appêHruîrë·lmwa~e: ï1"'gfüClice··riô1r-à\1féblJc· poluto ..... ·;--
,
_ ............ ---·[-ê·ônmnq'Uêûisapplicàtë .. Una·lefütë .. dëUo-srifto;·m:;:Çsënimni~·-sôHè.vare··- .. ····i--- r · 1
=-=~~=r:;:::::::7:;::::~d"::~;~::~:::· ~ ~ ~04~··•-•• r•-••···•-• •. • • • 1
: ' : . l
-------------T·--------J2:-~sc~ra!r®~A--tir···r:;orte·-le···suîrmi?rate·~ece:ë:Zîon1~·ràrniülàte·--r -------
·c--·-------J-ciall+-a p peJllliTiè1f6îFposs<ùlo,.....essét'è-· ·con 1:ltvlscc Qüartrcr-·aJ'"frntra-to· 'â 1· ---- _T ______ · · · ·-... -
--· ·--· --- -pace'êlël'l o· fëoorâicf1947''t~In1H.1vnrrr ·iinzîtt:ntrrthë.<jüestiT.iRifïViïiëellc----+---... -- · ·····-
---:-----~------1----nrrlî .-r tY1tepu blflîëtlè:<lêt'ili!t1'~!iè!fë:rlfêî ·loro--rap}'fôl'tî"ri&d}::itoci -c vis m--· ~- --~ -· ·
! 1
- ~-- ---- ·---:--clre t·:.r-Rèpu1515J1-èTt~F'e~:lera1ë"CJt·-oern1àtlta·uon"èprü'tt:rtie)1ratmtiJ1-t;----~----- __ .. _
------ ---- ·~-comunqJ:ïeSîJ•ifeY'isëG ·(err:·anëne·d, · tgs. · C:)i.S.-28 Yjov'ërrihre1947;u-:--·-·t··--· .........
--·----~- --T430~-rm:îûcaro·ton·legge 2'5!ill'~tem5re-19'5Z~ .n: ·305'4j;11Be-do!iiânû~-- · ··· ;--··
1 ----- ·--·----------~--'-----·---·--:-----------~~--·-·-·-- -·------.~--~---~·.o---~
25
già pendenti n!!a data çlell' 8 magglo 1945 (cfr. in !al senso anche
---~----~----~·rrïbwîâfê~ miC--dêîTit Spë~Iâ~·-:r-noveri1tire···:roo6,-l\fôr<l'ffotiî.···Appat~ê-----·--··i···---------
--iiîoTtrë-ffli1ctitala tesi~- esprëssa"ilâTglüd!ceïffpn m o$~ia<!o~-c corîfëstaffi----i----- ·---- l
---------~----· ·-aaiiinppellruïŒ;-secoifdo-cunrafilloarc7TsT"ifferisëë~èsë1üsrvai-nënî'ê·----~~--··- ··········
==~1~!l~~:::~:=d 1 . . =·"~::::;:.~::;.::~~,[=~ ----------~--applioa?si aCdï~Uill.~tliitti'te- nigiàfiTcrfc"iràttêrê.iiîié:fsfâfàfC-:i;eiiiîrvE·i'ia-~--f-----
. --·--------~--[iècoréli~êonc lusrnèr~·c.or.sÎr·aëJia··&iii~rra·- ë -à--1iittè:·lê ____ (!i.5rrïai1'dê ar· -· ·· --- t· ·-- · ·· · ...
----·· -----~ii"saiêiiiiëii!O""i!l···pëiififëO"""dfillmnTOéi:Oi'Si··amnnœ ""lii""""i(iiëlfii .,, •.....• ; •.• ---·
--······ ·i>TsjjfeS~tc ô""àài:lb10ëci\fSi<ltïfiinto 1à~giïcnil"'"~"'"'"m··--·····:···············
- ~ . rn•_fen rs1 -esél U. S!Vatucttte. âf'!Tàrn_ -_ 'Tf''ri_1_'lttériâ1i' 'e' J)()}f]Dfâ'ririif,-_._-àficfië'" îÏÔn. --- ..... ·r·----------- ---~--1-palniTionJale;cfafi§ru;êififâf:ffi!fimari"deJfe vïffm'ie(Ifcfin'iinfaïgüerra).---~-·:--·------- . l . i
~-- ·----_---;-----'!Ji-tes! arretï:nalil-1ièl!1C.S.ért'firtïan:·--2s57I93J'r!it:11Ta--c-oftë.~dr·~--j--------
-~-f---ca.ssazlSnt;'Seiffin1Ufi'iîë~ravarèvo!e'a1rapp~1lantë-;-rfsu1ta:·gèïïz'1iJfféf-----~------ --~--
-~--~----·-i--·:supëfâla1nVîRl'fcfels:tfëct5:ffiVo Aëâorao âèTZgiughirt96t:sè:·nu:nnt ··-----+-----· · --------
----~-·-f··ogrït qiïèstionerelalîvii-1ttft'q1'l:i~STI5iltpreftfsë--ëlîe1o--sraTo .. îraHancr·o-···:-··'~-- ---------···· · 1 l
----------teîrradînf'îŒ1îaliiavrêboèWf]3o11ilo~aëcamrnlrë"ïjof11f6~1In:tëffifàïiiâ~-·-a.,..·····-·f··
------------(---cînaâ1li1gefmanœr;mssrnmmtr1so1fii"daTTralfam--aiJ:iactnrçl-r94 Tùàù ... ~-- ~-- · · · ·· · · · · ·---- : . 1
----~·--"''"t ctsârëtioè sltffîfalcnna mgiO.i'iëf fll ·sf5trùsëfivëte ·t..,.ulfënorê"A:ëëaMcfder'-· -----t--·---· ,--"'--
l 1
==1-~>%1~ :"7\Cco~~an~e pŒ8ctDdêfttto:1l~:~:~l~l'~~~:d~l:=:I----~-- ------~~omess~;CaüTonî:Zâzlonë"liTt~r'rattfiëa):"è--pêfn1fti'fcl'HariS:siXnô ni;:1'111edtsi . -
-------j-so1Tffiito'a:ilc:n.Tvêntl1t:az!ôni·'e-·dorri.anttë·••ana1Yra''·pehâêhtîtov'lêrcr··nncr·~· t------ 1 . . . ' • '
-----·-----~~-~folë-·ôofi1ïHlâi:r1fët ... Rr·q.tT~fli' .. ·fôsstr-gta·inîzi·a:rcr··mr-·vroc_~~dif11ento·---·--:--·------- - 1
\
----------·-·--T--glüâ.tziïifîrçaïfro1'a!îô'fltte:t1'i'tnB;-w-M1r·afictm·u:d-ôgni)11,~,'1rf13ite·t)te-resa:-----· ----r---~------
____________ [ ________________ _,_ _______ ~.,~---- __ , _____ ...... ---- ......... ------.. ... --- ....... ·····-·-· ·-·--· .. --- ____________________ j_ ____________ _
1
i
1
26
1
da far valere in futuro (cfr., ancm·a, Trib. Mil. La Spezia, 3 novembre
---·--·--·-·-·······- .. ~· .... 2W6;··ciF.}:-AJ···n!'füaüro·e··ï:;or:a:g~~vole·î.:ne-varè·cliei-11ùrï.nsüihi .. chë-:·1ê ........... ··········-···-
----atTu!i!r parifcivnrc:në--lüiii!iôclilesfo-E.t ë1taz!One~~dcr~re·spons5bne- ······1 · · · · .. ·· · --~
' . i ·---~--~---- -·· -· · ··:-·crvile:~vessërëï · pérîdentCâJ rii~aiinr- aer·:;r-g!ug1icr·:r96t:·1:JI~ocëdfn1enfi·---·--l~-- -- ---~
1 .
---·-····~-----·'···--·r--gtua. rz_·ra1·nfër1Frfs.:ârefrtiei.1loï3èr<:T.à11!1ô ·-riël:Coiiff6ri. ffoë_l-HtGGrinani1f·o·--·· --1------.......
.... .. ----~---rliCiffiiilffiîgcrlil•nî<ï:1'iiliPiifôlii;O'înesporisàb11é-èiVtre,-avrèb1>eio·----- J ____ ------ -·-·-·---------fl'êliiffiOiî"Vüf&TO"ileî'e-diffiiîilf<;-làjii'O\iiïi!èllij iüôilël!O-"Pèi\[éil:<à";;#------- j -- -- --- ---- -- ·-··---·· ...... _________ l__________ --.~·"'" ...... " ....................... ·.. . . . ..... ---------~- .......... ·-~~-----·---·-~· .. · ............ w .... •" .. ". -~ ·' .......... . j mm CS)St.ltà. :
--------~---1-............ _l:a"èirco'itâi1iFêl'ter7ŒconRrsrrilefisc-a·smo~allffoon1-andë--ilr----t
1 . :
· -~----- ---r--r:rsarcïï1'iëfît<rgHrTorn'iti11zzat!.i amcdala der:rgfŒgi'iô-1961 {!5ef-dîrifti .... · · i · ·
------ -----~~. ---r-sorrrner-pm.ïoaotnr"irT"-~tïtr<$Yilil"êT9:J9"eï -~~"'B··îùaggro·-- r94sr è'15of · · ··· ··· ··· · .. · · · · --
-·----~-~ ~: ... J ...... ;--ccrnféin11ifâ11ôï1 ;:;olo~- n1rp:n:c:iraînêntë;· ·dat1a.iffèlis:a·sëniènz<Cde1l:r.coitë·-· · · .. · ·[' · .......... \ s·l - __ ,_} -~·-+--dicâssâziôi'fè~rc-str4èfffëi'20U4;·tiüfiJiHnnnolrepliêiUi'ii.rSêî1refize'ï:m'tç·- ... T_ ..... _
M·i~-=~~--'~:::.~::~::::::;::::::~:::;è,~:::~;.~:::::;:~ ·:~··--~ ----·· ---· · _, ----~·détl!ll!llillléfWi\trlJ1<li1Jiîl!if]>ifrTiCi\-111 ï':OSfifilite:-' - -·----------------- ----·----~-- -·- --·--· 1 . . 1
------ ·--··-------+--~~---~sëivsêretoulraŒri5pmra11'é- àêcôrilio ··turl 'A"ctorazrëën 96T si .... --···· ·r· · · · · · .. ·
--~--------~-rl'f'êtlsêe·-ir~qua1sl'ast'prêtësâ·-··ii1~'otâi11~-·-a:--diritrr··solti~né!'!)t\:riot!o~---·+···-·~--········ 1 1_
----~~-~' ~-ëOflSÎ'.[.Iê'fàf .. \T'(è~f\OffSQ1.tr~.ane.· -aÔflJal. 'fi ... Ô tf'.·. âfiëô.''!.'iÎ 'pë'fitl.efiti";~'ê ·q.Jllffdl gia" ·•"--. r·Y--"~·-·- '"
-· -------------Twopos!e i'i'l""!îtlt!t5~1§imUti~HrE)_ ... ï1eao:vr~bl''îè" · · dètiVate·-ifïlàtri----utüï ....... ~-~····· · · · · · .. ·· · . . 1
i '
; -------J-·prèc!ustoneatlitj.Jl't'fl)'ql'i.faUllttl:lt~alü:mi · dvi Wnmr scrltvne! cmltl'cmti'.. · ·> ·;--..........
/ ' ·' )
---. ---~---- ~dë11oSmro-redë&ët>;-rrra·-act1~he"Jiëi MnfrrHftt-·di .. citta:dtn1 getmaniï:!i;· .... ·; ·
) ' : · _ ... - .. -···-----··
1
-- ·ëol1illt'1er&nr··r ësp~ëss'tJ'-·të'!'lofë·-det' 'f>'oiftü"Yi dii'ffiiüi.!.o· Atcotd6""('Cfr:··tw ---· · ·;-· ·
----·---------t-·rrurTrib"':"MH:-JZomïç2TJtrgHlY1997~Haslrë Prîe:okê;·~e~~!~d<Ycat tft11r-- · ·· .j .....
! . r .................... ,~-·-~1Têrl:lli15îfâl"s1C!G1l~c·snsst~lëtaà-·f!ellti··toi1&t.lom··!'ë:r--·ta··ëolWlnJ:IDa··u!··········}··-·-- ......... .
---~-~------·---~--~···----.--..:.. ... ,... ..... ----------- ---- --- ---- -r- . -- 1 !
!
27
.-.- -------~~--·--- .. ----~--'i:i"si:1tdtrterito---aëglfTn1'Ptiiitf--aîifi.tuce-ëJ~ü'Acëot;ct() sotto:ocritto a·i .. :·
----..-...~·--~ ... -.-.--•(',"'·--··-· ~-~--_. ... ~---·~ ... ~---··~-·-··~~--·--··.-··-...-------,--·· ·········'-•··~-- ~- ·---···--··-·· .,,,_, _______ -····~-- } .... ····-·~ .
i giugno 1961, giàcché tale_ atio nonnativo non puo sprigionare effett1 1
----------------------+-----~---------"-------~~----· .. -- .... -............ , ............... --- ---~--- __ : __ --- ~ ------ .. -·--- .. : ... -- ---- ! nei oonfronti dei due imputati, i quali, alla data di entrata i11 vigore del j
------- -··--r refatE;o--:-d.fR:, non a\icvano·a-l6iü"ë~iëo--pënJënirùriv6nd.i'ë~zio!1iê----; -- ---· .... -.---
-------~--~1-'trchièsie"· da partê.'deîië.ïitftialriiai1TéiV11C~·r;;;-r-T-:tâitr .. Jrëfiiîsâ~- si · , -~--- ·
-···-·-----·----~--~--f-..-----------~---------·~-------·--~-------.. ~--- ............. c---"··-·.--..... ___ ...... ·-·--··----.. __ ...... ~--- ..... L ........... --~- .... -w---·-·-N -~·-- ! rileva, inoltre, ne!Ja suddetta sentet.iza. che nel corso qe.Jl'udicnza i ·• ••·•·• ......... ~----~---------•·--·.-•--··--•--•·••""-'"•--·. "-'·"'"·'•'·'·'•····-•·e>••-•.-C ., ..• •·-··-~"-'"'·'•w w.· -,-, --. _..,.,; -~ -· """''"•" -.·"" ... • ·-" ..... t ... -- ... -.... --- --- ........ ,. -.... "
~-t-~~~-~==~~=~=~~~~=-- . r cui vietava Fesercizio deWazione civile pressa il giudice militarè, j
• 1
------.------~--f ... quêstione- risolta---d'afla Corte- -ëoSiiiiizfonâfê-êOJ-i- dêëlâràtôriâ·-ar-·-----; ....... __ . ______ ..
~ .~~~;-~-== ! d.P.R. 1263/62 avesse àVuto- valenza preclusiva aU'rnsorgere di i
• ····~~· ........ ~~ ,..,.., __ J....__,_,..,_._, •••• ••• --~~~-1-~------ -~--------__,..,----..~~~~~·--~-n~~~-----~--~ . .-• . .- ·· ~ ...... ...,....,.(,.~· ·---.-----~·-·--·-------~ --·------
------ --~-:~~li~~.:~~::;:e~~i:i~::lii:;:~~·l~~.ïi>gflo·-anooe-nëlla-~------- ...... w·--· ---.
-----------··-------/-T'arrëffiiaiiane(confêni1G.11ëîTasênfenui·aël~'t'nî:>~ Xrëzza:·-r:rlîiâï-w---~) --. ~ ·· .. -~ -~--~ --
---~--~i--wo7;-Femnr·c-.-·-Repufîfilrcal'iecfèrale-crï-()~fïüanra;~--se-èo1iaô-·<i'tif'(~~----- · -· · ··· -··· · · ·- -· · · ·- ---
--------~--eVidente c110:iUSëgmfo~iriopraggiuî1i;êfO<f0gfi':'Aciiiiiili<fôiTgi ugiïO_____ T · ·· ---·· · ·-- · -· · · · · · · ·
--~ 1 1961, non puo pm -parlarsr{Inn1procêàil1111tiCdeHa <fon1an~-co-n1ë·----j-------------------------'·---·------ i . i -Tave ' --- 1 ~--~--- ----~-- --··------1~-- .. -----·-··-······· ........ , ________ --- r------·----~----- ................. . ~va ntenuto di fare la Corte di Cassazwne, Seztot~i U\ltte, con ,a j
----;,- ---- 1 sentenza n. 2857f953:--ëOn"i'i1'siidifètta-·Bëïifèiîz'i"sf i-Tgetta. 'fiérfimtO,-nr-·--+-·--·--··---·--~·-· ··------··-
--~- ~eccezion'ëdrl11runmTsslïJflTtà- C!'a .. 1înp1nëe-dibffrta··aëna·-a-o!naiiifii'Téîf. · · · -+---~-- -·-- .. --- ·-
1 - 1
~-------i-PP. f 6-flr:-ove peiaJtro --si ri trene det15aës'sëiè···rlêùnoi6lûüi"'Iii'Vâ1Taitr·~---~t---- ------- --·----· .
~-=-=rdeîrobbn&o:-Msunto d·~~~al~ano :~-~~~~~_:~ër:96J·.~~==r=-=-=:= =····-·~
28
....
. ....__ . . .... ..1 munle~~~-~~~o-!~esco .. ~~lativanJente . ad •.. e~-·n~u~ti a~1oni. ci Vil' ....... J ............. ···-·····
_ .: proposte contra di t"'J:SSO), 1
~····~- -~~l=~~;.;~~··;:~~3~~~~~:;l:;;:~':,:~:.!~~id~==:~ .·:[:=:=· ..... . · ..... ·-·· --·--------..... l ··-rï1têrrîaifonafe!îi.Clll'-·grt~S1atf-sCèï eûin111i:1Jno-·aïfà~frâi1'sâzfone-aegil- ...... ! .. ·.-· ·--........ ··- ....... . • 1 . . 1 --'--·--···----·· -··---j·--(isJJcrtc~TviH&t1êr;·"aiiêîiê···â' .. i1~mc -ct6Cïifôf.itr ·c-maaftîl:' Jer ·a[dfia;·:~r--··----- --·--..... · · ·· -------·-·--·-
--,_ ... ----~---·-- ---~---;:rsarëllnêi1Iô--cferd:âi1î)·o--pe-r·· ·ëîTin:tîïr arjiûêiî:â:··crc; --~OI1~ · .si èoi1ù:i~t8-- · · · · · ---r~----- ··--------,------- ------·
l ' ' . '
... · --·--·-·. ··----- ... rf~J>-etfu-ana· tèsi-~f.!ëCrë-sponsàliiRî!:lv!Iè ··11oii. 'è 'TnfâttCT''fnëfifeaèli. ·-.· .... r· ..
·········=== ~7\Cc"f<ï~~el-!~<>l·.··~aïa s:; ·r,JàPPll~übi~t·--~~ P~ô~iidU~ëntii~n~ : ~~: __ -- --···-_:·: _-_·_· _:·.-~----~- esmne.
--~~-----:·------~----- -------cc·oo-(in-.. secô~âo .. m'i51!vo··aLi]JJiêi!(iîf1:'t~spdnsnSiîêî~wrre;······ i. · · ·· ·-·
::--~~---~~---/-!ilëv'ticî-iëTrprrnëfJ5Ii>·ëlnfîrmo'iiiiüiiëiaro·nêTràse!1reniâ-1Tïil'iirzô-~too;;r··-~-~--------·-- , : ::--~ i . 1 .-~'···:::.:::~- T-ri-3044704-éëire·sez1ûETD11ite-:-aëtla"C\)i·fë~ar·;iiùïsiiï!ohë·{~"ëëôrido·ëurîr··----- ;------
. ·:Y· ..... ·"·---------~- ïi rmc!p î'o-·m·rriili1iiiîi~ii'tfê1lô"'Stalo~a:ana:, gTtirîsèHîionê no ii· puo·· ês&~I&- ··---t · · · · ·-· ·· · -· ·· · --- -··-· ------------------~--mvocifcf1n--casô .. ai-grâvrvroraiionr·ac:ro:ii1itt1imâi-ïiYïion~,.orrTspoïiaë~----i ---....... --- ·-··-· ... · · ·····----- 1 . 1
1 : ---------r--wra·"-slâlo'1i1iüâfêlrera!nùo ·mlërnaiiôî-liro, ri:tla1uce~-Oè11a.p1tl' .. recênte· --~--l··· ------- ...... · · · · · 1 '· '
------- -·- --- ------~-·-g-rui:rsprûêfërüi.:a--· ··c1r--q:ïiiiŒ-;o.···stiüra_en 'Un!oiië--Eurüpea;--r-iohaiecJër ·· · ··+"· -·--· · .. ------- · -~-------- ·---~ ·-ê-ontenuto dè1I<i'Convënz16i1ë'thii'fi11mi.iïiiTiïaegTrSüi'troroii1ùfgaflfin ·····---J------------------··-·· ·· ··-- 1 • • •• • • .. •• J
1 ;
---~~- J--Së-:-no aiTëNazîom Omtë."·--·- .. ···~~-----------, ........... ~----------··---- -------------- r ------------------------ ·- ..
----~ -----,rr:-S"ëèanâïfTa 5pe11à!itë~Clcvôiîô-··essèh~--anz!Iiîffô--p:résè·--rn-·--~~ ·-~--------·----·-----·
--~----------------------·[colisïëienizTonelfis~g:aëriîri:lëc!si_'ôl1Tgil.i6sf,ïù:iâêï1iiiiTI:-·--····-----------------···---··r······-------------··········
,. ·:·~----------r---- · · ....... · · --::· ......... --1r:s ùprëüüfTrihi:früirè--sp-è6 iiŒfi.ifeè'i5;· riê11asei11ênï.1'i'ln ·-··· ~ · .. L--------·--· · --· · -·--· · · .....
--~'----------_J ________________ ctàThêï~l7séttem6re-2ooz-, -~n·rrrarm.-a.rprmcïpîo--1----·····~---·--·· .. ····
-----~----~----- -----------------~1>EecëJcîilëilfëi1Œ-esJ.1i~sscf-aâ1ra-süpfèihif"C<5it! .. q~rëêa ............ ~------------ .... ----- . . 1
--------·--------in -aâfa~4 magg11)·--zooo-Tproi1iii1êia-·rW111~rriaüi" c!allrr·· ---+-· ---------- .......... ---------- . 1
•-·----~--,.-~-----~._ ...,.- ·•~··~•"'""'~~~~-~-~---.----~~---~·--=---,...-.----.·--·~---~··-~~---------~--·..,..-----~~m•-··~- •• "~ "' -·-·---·~-.,..··----~------.---....~ • ... ~ .. ·--·~•~ ·-... • • • • ••" •• "• • -~~ ~• ·-··-·"""
29
----------------~-----1' __ ---- ------------------v:arra!Ui ___ geuei·a1e--c11e--peri1-ïeftëre1JTJ-e~--Ei-'aerü ga--ar--r --------
---------- ---------- ---- ---------·------------p-rTî1Clprà-·----a-ewrrnmuîiiTa--srarare;-·---ar-· ·e: ii:are· ---- · · i
i ------r-- ·--·--------regtttfrrïaïùëntë -in- giuéizra· -ürio ··statei iruümzî --ar -- -· 1
i . j ~~~--~---1 --=~~-~----1n1JUnaiem-tlî1-artro-srafû-p~~; il rlsarcfinèiito- dai1rii --a· ~-J,< -~----
1 ---cail sa-d1q-ua1s1asr-genere--a ,--âzione--iTlecita;cne-lïa-
---·------------~------------- ---av1ifo-ruoga-·ùe1 Ja--SüiTo ~:reT Toro --e~TaJTa!:ïüare· Iiailliü-- ·· --r-·- ------- i 1
=--=-rn·------~~---~~:: ::,~~:, q""''~:::~::~::,:~::~:i"~:::~···l-·~ ·----~ j --- azwnz ablJ1arioV!OTato-To-riZs·-cogeiisopplîre s-ere-rorz:e-· _ .. ; .. ---- ---- _;.) i
--~ -~---- ---c-----ar!rîfiterossel·o-stafë()-[nenocomvolte ]n uno scontio -- ~----
~~ -~:'--~---------------- --------con-aHie-un!fiimlnate-,y;--· - ---
------------------·
1
:-------_-----Ja Cmie fecfëra1ecrn;assazml1e teoescà, ne1Ta sentë:ù-ia ______ r----- ----- - 1
-- r--- --- -- -1n da:tà 26 giugno 20o3~ lia aec1so-cne ·-secoùacï1r---r-------
----·-·---~---- ------prii1ë1pîo-ïiile1=ifaz1oïii=ile-âëlT'îiiUnY.ii1Tfal1îmlta faTaegii~-l- -----
---·····------/ -stati,· uno· S1atcq'iüo--e-sïgerë ·:::--gîà--·n~::rprôc~:ssc5 --aï· -- _; ·
:~:--~--:~~~=~J~~~----~~---~:---~-c:og=nîZîï5fïe---~TesenzJone--aa:n-a---gïufïsdiziône- ·ar--üD.o · ·--· · ---r---- ·--
--~ --n r m •.... ·_ . ::;:: .:::~"~::,:f::::,,:·;:;,,~~:·e:;::~~~-~ r ~· i . i
~==-~l -~~-~~ :~~=~::::::;~~=::.::: .J __ ----------r---------------- vigen-:~a---ael-·rnncrproaeTiaïmmurilfa--rrsü'etra---sTr::· ----+-------
-·--·-------··· -·-··------------------~--------------------- -~-
30
---·--------- ... :.;.·----~-~-.-------------
·~·-·~----~ ··~-"-. ·-)~·- --------·~·~·-~-· --·--··-·.-~--~~-~·- -...-~ ~ . ·----··~-"·-····-··-----~-~--·-~ __ ._.,. .. ~ ...... ···-·-·· ---~--·· ... ---"' . '~- ........ ·"~-~~ i esprcssa anche la Corte costituzionale tr-de.sca co~, l~t
-. ---~r--··· 1 ...... " .. __________ ..... --------------------·--·-·--·---.. --.-·.··"····-M"'"-· ......... · ............ .,._ ........... --~ ..... ...... •.·' . ----- . . . . ···-·.---.-.-.·.··· .. .....
! sentenzll dell5 febbràio 2006;
-----------j'-·····--·--·---~- ~~-!a Cort~--di-~as~azi~;;-n:;;c-es~~~-~1~--~;;i~~-zâ· iiï · ii~tfi 1
16 dicetnbre 2003, ha rict>nosduta che i fâtti enunci1:1ti,
·1---------- ·-------------·drffi9EiliiiZiër;;-aJ -~;-:6-~!:Vi:ziù. di iav9·i~- · ri"b b1i.tia10:~·i0.· ·----- --:.- ... ·· · ·-..... --- · · ·- · · · · · · · · · · ·
····----+--·--·-------~~--------~--------.................. ""'0"'" ............................................... ; ..... .
--·----·--1-- compiuti dalla potenza occupante noxt soim di natura :
tale --da ostacoï~;:e ·-w----p~incipib--d~iïâ·--hmi]i:i~iià''''-'1' ... . :
· ---~---- · ··· --··- ~----------·----~-~ftrrf sd izi'druiï~;--- --...... · ·---...... · ...... -..... , ..... -· · ., ... ------·-· ............ [··.. .. . . ........... . 1 .f !
~-c""~•............-------- t-~---~--,v .... ~~-~---~- •~._.,.._ ~"--: • ~----.- ... ,......-.._-, ........ ~~-~-..,--':"• v• -~~-:">" .~,...~~-- 00 0 0 "' ~~-·;• ••~• • ~ ··~-.., .. ~·- - 0 o• •-.•• 0 • ·~• • oO 0 oo.•,o"• • 0 0• 0 00 0 • .... ~·~-. ,,. 0 0 0.,; V •,• ... ~ • o •• 0 "'• "'-~"-• 0 __ ..._.._ •··~····- -·~·-~
1 l ! la .Ho use o-f Lords del Regno tmlto, c.on sëntenza in i
--· ....::----1···"··--. ----... ---------~------~---·-""" ....... -·--~-:-· .. ,. ····---.------......... ····-·"·' ... ·.---~·-····:·-·--· .......... .f... .. ....................... ·-· ................ ' .. "
1 data l4 ghlgno 2006, "ha nuovmnenw rl.baditq i
.................... ------·-·--~-·-·••-.•.-·N•.· ................ ~ ......... '". ,. .....• · ...... ._.. · ·-·. ··•· .............. •.·.•.w.·-:N·:·'-" ········ .· ··-·· ................... L ............... ~-.-. · · ... . ·.··· · · -~--·-
l'appiicacione della rego!a. dell'hnnmnità dalla i
.. .... : ... ~-- ·-------------------:·---:·-----~------~--:----·---:--------------------- ...... :.:-.... -...... ~ .. --.............. ~-·------- J .................. ., ................... ----- . ......_--2 1 . gim:i-sdi:ûone civile anche in caso di gravi violazioni / ·
.. ··· ··";:5:η------------------'---~------ctê'f'di!·iitiüin-a;:rp•~---;;~rïiâ--êütiiiéfêiaio-1~ï~~~iefiïü ·-ri:··· ...... T ....... -------------------------.. ..
-- ........ ...:-~------ ------ so44104 cteffê ~sê2iOnCün1t~-:;-"û!1. ~;;~~~~;im-!!;···;;n-iï-;sto _____ . r----- ....... -. -----................. . ---'----------··-1···--··-------....... _.. __________________ ................. .,.... ... _..:.. ................... , ........................................................... J.............. ........... . ............... ..
i con lo stato attuale del diritto intemazio:uale'\ · ! . . . . .
--~------·r .... ---· ·· ·--sëëü11.èïô · · · or·aJ'iJëiTan'ie,·· · ~1tiiî1CfÇ .. ü · · ·riTiîëff)fô-· dë1hniù1ùnttii · · · .. : ·
·------T-rfSiretta .... "daDa ____ glurTsd'iz1ûi1e:-··avn-e--· ïTê"vë·-~a-nêora- · ·ito\;art; ___ pTena __ ... ·· --~ .... ·· · ............ _ .. --,-------~------------~----~-- . . .. ·. . --·-~------ ............. _ ... -.l--· ... ) 1 applicaz.Jone, anche nella materia trattata dal pres:ènte pr:çrcedimerHo, ! • 1 :
' '
~ ~~~~~~~----~--~~~~~=~ -------i : riguardo sono ricordate âucbè-tre.deèTsionrcteHa-ëorte eüropëa .. del -------·[:· : .·- - ·--·~---- .. --- .. -------
---------t···dTiiftT&û~tiomo(purcritTëiifê ct~n-a~sentêni.i .. n~--·so447o4fcne hanno~----- --· --·------ -· ... _" ___ _
=i rÎbodi!l> I''!Jll'licabiiÎUI d. ellar~g;ia-~èil)i~~n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~-~~--~~------~~=~~~=~--·~-~:.·~~= j violazione di nonne di ius cogens. ,
~---~-----t-------------------'----------------------------------------~-----------------~--------···----····-----+-------·------------·················'•
1
31
' i
( . . . . ' . . 1
· ~~ Non rilevanli sarebbero lnvei:e al rlguutdo le clec:isioni &:!le i
==~-~~--. . .. ~-~oliTüsA t?*~a~b- ~t~w·~~~~~J.~niënto~deTT996~arsovêrè1gn 1n1n1unrilë5-~-+ ------- ---------------
! Act, che stabTilsce licifiroga awlni!i'iiiriiii'ti.tna gh:!ii~Hfiiôi1ëneFcas6:-- . --1~--- -_______ ..... ------ - --j dl azionicTVrH~'--nei~Ôi1.tt0nff11fâb.1ni- Stiil:"'sp~Tfitiun(:fîtë''lni:r!ëiitr""------r~ ...................... , ... ,. 1 ' -------r-comesf;onsoJ:;<ie-rreiiofismo: fil quéstot1~c>''ra-aërogii-ifFfinmuiilfa·-"------r--- --~---~-- ----.·
, __________ - --··-r-n on deriva d~l11î-Hi1Vrdl1àz1ôn~-ar-un-ntïëiêo·:ai ·norme aTTus--ëë)gêlïs''. ------!------- · -------- 1 • .. ~
=----=~-1
:~.:::;;;,;;-:~=:~;::::;;~-:;:~:.::~â~~;=r • ' :
..
-•.. ~~==--·~· ' :
-~---------r-wüi'i-ippos1ta. Hs~a, -~~-M-----~----------~--------------------------------- .. -----------r--·------··----------------
--~-------~--Quanto a.<i alcunëàêêTsionr ëfë]f<l-Cm1i'bii1aèfe5fed 1ï(g1es4!1effé---~t------ ---
----~,ali -ea1'Jëniilttii' .. fi:'Sii5iilstenza ilellô"îiûiilliiiilil;" pùi' ·-e;senu.;-: --~-- ··
,-- ~.-_--. ---_:.··f·-'-~.n.-auf5ifaE1le~-.cT1eê. n.· t·.r·a· 1·:n. be• . .. 1ë.--~_r.:ortr.·ïitjb~ . .i!iiio-. nfë.vatïi-·nêr·.:èa,.·scloro--·~---~---··--·-----·--·--·--- --
·:----- ·~7-hatrôpruîtr-Ja m.an~uniîf-creH'è1ên1ëï-ifêi--d8f}oi'ui1f"-êo1t1mlssr-cfeHCi(··-----·-i----~-------··-····------- . . . { . ; --~ ----T-appnreàTtr~ffâhfô innegiitillè cn~''a'èt{ôcrftëfiol:·comiii1i:]ii&frn1evrultë·----·-;-·------"-----------···---- i . ·.
--------------r--laifllove--slàdenscà~iUà tesi chiromrâ"'viO:l~f&he-~füfia·noîn1artCius··---i ...... --~-··---w- .. l 1
· -· --------------T··z.agëiïs-·a:errva!~ appffciiiiônê" ·a-eT-prluê1piS-~aelPüïûv<5.i~si!HriJël11C-· ·T···------~ · ··-····· .... · --------·---~Î--güîr1fdTZione".~~~-----~----------------- -----· ·-· ··--·--· · · · · -·-·--- · ----.. --~--------·- --··--··r-··-"·--~"--w. ···<-·-------
1 ' ---------------r-- ---KrCor~~tî1èora-··rr-ï~ê'SJ.)ôrïs1:!Bi1e · ·c:rv1Të-·ë1w-·1!f'-CohïïrxîsSîèi!w-· ------r ·--· · --------- · · -· · · · ·
1 . . l
.. ----~---~---.. ---1··'"ïf:ic-arTêatiCdï ron11i1Hirê'cisser-Va~Janfëîrelrir progeffo ar êonÇënziOnîrrn------·-;··-·--· ··:-- ------- · -·--· ' 1
----------------~-- __
Î
___ tema-·ar "11rïmlffi1là aegh · S'tati~-ë'Spressümêiîfë. r!C1ifestitâ r·e-s-pnmer-s-r· ----~----- ---- ---------
-----~------ -----r --ëü'câ~-1 a--posSib-th tà-â'f"imi'érilé~ ïln ·anrcoJf>"-I1f "lêi'tiâ -··cli ___ esëii ziliné~-;· ------ --~· ··· ·-- ·-------·-- ! . .. . . . ' i
---:·-----------,:crmrTn1inüffiŒJ)~r grtst.itiïnë1isèî· ·an IoTiizioi1e1fetdinttnrmruu:·"h~t ·· ·--, ·-;· -------- -~~--, "- 1 . .• !
--~------·-----~-.êofiefi.ti59-.-·~v1.aeri:if"'.· ati.âo--CI1·ë--su11 .. ~f'1fàsë·~mm_a···:giu. risp.rüîtënüi·.·stat.aliif'·-----··r----------·-···------
---------------,--·esru:i1hmfâ;s!:Oovev:à-1iffefffiife ·anên-é-·m··-·rfl:msTi···casr-vigentê~-ê~---+·- --------------------···-- : 1
-------+-·prevruente ifprHJdpîifiJeirTinmunim'~-Anaëo'ncJusiohë··crëflavotraer------:------~--- ·--
--------~--- r~------·~-· --~-"--~~~--~-------------- --------·------- ...... -· ..... ·- ........................ ---·--'-- -·-- .. :. _ .. _______ ... _ .. --------- 1
1
1
1 32
1
'r.·.·."'
' -·----·~···-·· -gruppo-ad7Jôc-·FsuiG:l)éniHro··n:!ijjiovüïii~Tt1-(Jtiiâ9rloyem~re ioô4, î,i · - :·· ·------- -----
-----· ~ ...... __ ......... .,_. .... _, ___ 'C"'~~--------,~------- ..... ----···--.---.·-··c··· ·---~------·---·--· • ....... ---~-.. ~-·--·-·-··-~-~-· ...... ···!---·· ..................... -~
~=~~ ~====~~~ !
==~= ~::-::::c:" ~::r• ':ën\itQ<_t:~::v_ë~!OfleYUiù~ë;,=l~-==~=-~=~
~--··-~-rn-aeiuiffiva; ... !iêëôî)ifaJiapiiêUiiitC,litoopfosiCtr·re;:;entlssii:na· ----~··········· ···· w·w··--~-----
------~ unspiï.Tdëniii·;· J1onché gir·spècinërsv!1ur}pra"Hvêi1(3. CcinvênzTôi1aŒ:·~~--r-..,·- . ~ ............. - ' . '
----~·-:rnau-ëono a riténërè che, . a 1fo-sfiiüi iiftuaîë;"'1Ij)rlî1cij)f6-JêlPâêêêsio .. â!Ei-------
1
i--···"· .· ·.· ·-· ............. -... ·.· .- ......... .
·---------1··· g1urfsdiz1cùie .. c1viTë~per Ta'v1tHü1i:l.(Iràrâvf·:-v:xoi~1on1··aer·airHfCümaï11,·w ............. , .......... -.- .... ·n-···--···--·--··· 1 .. . ~ • • .
-----""--~-·r·non sTa .. ün-priïîë!plo-prevaiente~iî.Spëtïi:ïaJiii'regoiii'd'éH'IiîtriîunitfaegH---·----···· _______ ., ________ ._
:::_~---s tafl_d_ an a gillrfSàizTO'nê·-èi'·l-vlie":_ ·a_ o. ani~lî·e_-···r.·ëi:trî~~l'az16ri·ë·. -~i.vff. ë. - __ __j_) ----- ............ ...
. . . . r---r~connessaâ'Tî:isa.rëimêïi1oTetdannfsüti1fiïiâŒ~vittime, a iliffèreîii:a·ar·------r .· ·.· ...... -----------··--· .·
- ~: .. ·:·----~-q u. e!fâ.-pëni1F; 11onrl. en. fr. a "iiè.11à. --~_s_·--,].ëra. a_!_p._• ii5Iëz_k_·,-rre-·a.·ë1. ~~- iwrm_·-_e-·a_ r:t.'ilS'~ ...... _t ............ -----------------. - -----·-r·····wgens, neppûreT!rrïitâfâinènfëm camfff"gravl-vToliiZioilf1lë1dmtir ........ ------------------·····--· .... .
----- ---u:mam:-··--~·--·------------·····--------------------------·------------------------- --------------·-··--··.··
. 1
-----------5-:----A: parerede!Ji:r··côrfê"''1T--re$poiis1llii1e···crv1rë···-p-ropi5nè-. -~~-----·--.. --------------
). . i
-----------l·--··argomentazioi1fmerrtev0Tfa:! Bitteiffii'riflê:<iSToné:·~---~--------.--------- ~-------·-· ... · .......
-----l--------Non .. appareuuàili.pîfva'"di"iiHêvo"Ja pl-;èëëë{ip!i_zi on~-totmulata ~--~--~----------- ..
. _~ •
!:~::-::::~'::::~=~~~:::~;~.7:;,:~0=:: 1
:::~ j~~~====-~=-~ --j·
-.,~r:l;;~;b;~~:~~:~~a!;i;:i:::.::~::::·~~~:=+===~~~==~ 1 .
stes~o modo Hl cui quaicùno fa notare, specufânnentC,-cfië-potF8'&nêrô ___ i' ______________ _ 1 -~-----.. ------·-------------------~----.. j------------·· .. ~-----·---
33
1
1
1
-~--·>·----~~- ..__ .... _ ......... ____ ~ . .........--... ~-............. ~----....-~ .. ~-·--.. --···-~--,_,_ _______ ,_ ________ ~-····--.··~J ... ~---- ----··
... c.---+;~ a:::v:~~~~~~~~nll~-g~.o,~i.~:~•ri_Oe~J~·-·····I--·-··
-··· ·---~~-~
1 -----clô-sbiîîitïütta·-;;e-sCcoiïsiCïera~a;; Trâpport1. fià~ si~H· ·&~vûi1ù .. " --r-·------- -------·---~----rs:v'Oigersi . in modo da assîcume.sii-Tà-~Ce"rtêzza 'êiel~--···r:;;r~êii1r··-···-η···---- -"'-~
....... ·------~----· 1-----~r- .. -.. ~-~-,,. ~~ --------· -------................................. .,, ....... ,-~- __________ _J ____ .. __ -------- i giuridwhe, sia la soluûonè pt~dfica delle controversie: la decisîone · f
---------)-unil~lêraîe--suJI 'azTone--èlvlTê.Ji i)'àrtë--aëJTe--aütôrrt.::tgitictlzî arledfîino---···· ·f-·--·--·----- 1 . l
---·-··---·---·--~---~~,----------.~----------- ------~-~---~---·-·-" .,. -.............. ·. ··-· ... -.. - .... -'• .·.• .... ·-----:-~- •.. ,-·-.. -.-- '• .•,•, .... . ....... ; ................ --- i Stato pottebbe non rappresenta're Io Strû.Ulento più adeguato per r 1 ' 1
------··--....... ;-·iieriîi!itî:!re·una_s_ùcwTsta~efiië'sôi1iilôite··&Jî1Sèiliûâ1ê"·;;-·p6irèiJf)·è· iiizr ·-
3 --~~- ........ - •~~.- • .;.,. • "'"""":.,..,_,"' ~ .,___.~.....,...--. - _. ·-«--• ..,-"' .>,•.-,-,·~~-.· _...,..,.....,., .. .; ........ :-. • •'•'• .-.-. _._..., .. ,-~•·•' • • -····· ~ • ,._,., • • .· ··'•'- • •:··· -·~·,,-,.,_...,.,._.,..,.,.,., .. \, • • .-. •'•" .- .... ~ '•-..~ 'l' ~' ,·~ .,. _,, .. , .•,·.' •,·,• ,•.•n•
1 determinare in certl ensi un turbmnento per la stabilità deUe rel.ai1om
....,,__.,_,__·,,~•"-'·"'"'-·--iv~_..,...,.,.,._.,l'"""-"'~·,.;_.~,._____.,._,._.,_~_,.-~~••~~•-••~•·•··~-·•·•~~-.""~-~•L'-,;...--i. ~-~~~• •-•··•..,._• • o• ,., ••'·•••-•••" '"'"""""'""~' •••·••· •• •·••·~• •' •-•· •. "r••- ··••·•• •-~ o • • • ,.~•, • • •""-•,.,.
: di:plomatiche (cfi:, il Pr.eam'Qolo atla Convenzione di New York del 2 ;
... , --~~-]_~---:-·"•'··-~-:------- ---·--·-··--....-, ..------~---,,------·;····;-·; .... , ..... _ ............. , ..... , ........... , ............ ,..... . ,., ......... --- .... ----·
. ~ ~m;;;:;~r;ë~~o:::r;l; :~:;O;ï~ë:~~:;:i~;i:•;•vo d• ~ffo":are • u • ••• •• • .
==---ç~-- ---- --(--------.. -----tr-·priiië!iii!o-géneiale'··ërëna· .. "1rnrrninftà · · cteglf stail -- i:iâHâ- -
· .------ ---~--giüi1s'diiione -ha tiufn~ri~ siiHao~ IOrièlrunënro; ·ma ë!!) ·non-togH'è'd1e Tl-- -· .... ·· · · · · · -- 1 .
--- -------l~suo~an'lbTto"Jl"applŒ.âzf.mre-~debba -essèfe vërH!càüi aTfa··ruce dellâ ... - ......... -.. . ~ . .
; '
------ -·-·r-co-i1Hrîüa'ev:olü-z!ôiiiifiiefdîf!itô--:rrifèîmriir6iïiiîei:----· --- --- "·--~----- ·--·- ........... ·- ------ )
------....... T ---- ........ · --~.srcîô~P:rci1i~ssô:--vaaîù1fiirio··osse~ato ·che!iari pàitê degH · · · · · · ·· ~-- --· -- -· ...
-------------1 -·ârgornentraî.Idolua~IPâj}pëlbnte .. sî:iüo--süitfgià pres!. in coi1sfderazione ·-. · . -. -.-- -..... 1
1 1
-~~~--r nella-séntenz?i1i:·-s:cpJ4704' •'(fêmr·cort'ë"(!f "èissazi0ne:-·sèiiôi1ï" ùni fë". .... ·: -. . '-" '· . "
... ···--·t dVHI;Jn· éùîTlquesdoii<iliî eiâffie O.litaOi&étto·at-ünâ apprô feïiififil- - ,
-----~ -- -è(fësâï'm ente <ma11SE.sentenzi-êf1e<êtsiatapôsta. dàf~.üafae!arpnrno . --·:'--·----· ............. ..
------- 1 grado a7oodân1ênto della decfsfanè Ciraccogfiére-firfêl1iî:isfa'&alcü11e-- ' 1 l
--------~1 parti dvrfCdT~é1uiîi'bt~ë·dèna-~R&pùi.1liHôaJ'ëderate--ar-Germaniâ, qüaTè·--··! ~·----·- --
---------J ,:c,spqnsatiil< crvne:-~ -c -·-- - ... --· · ··· t-·- ---------- ~---------------~---~·--~--·---·---·----- ·---... , ..... ._ ______________ ........ ------- . ____ , __ ,_
1
1
i
34
••• 't-"
. i
i
1
1 Nella sente.nza della Corte di cassazîone, in estrema sintesi, si : i
i
a:tfem1a anzltutto che----=1n~fcîrza de1 pnncrplüGTa.ëfàTfamëmo- sancîTo ___ -~
-- -- f dai' art TŒ,-pnrïJocorrHüa;aena nosb~:artà(Sostitûi1oiiaTe;·reTïofii1eë11 --- -~--- ---- - ------- -
mm ~ mm r '"':'~- m tem~zoo":a~e -~eneiii!~enre r;cOfiûSCiü!O' ChrKitelanO ~a ·· 1· ·.~ · ······ ··· · ·
lî5erfa c ra dtgmta Ue1Ta persona uil'r?..na ·conili-valon fOilllaffiental! e----~------- ----- : :
_ __ _ J conflgura:__:_ome _ · cnmm_1- Îl)fériiaz1onal!'-1compoYt1mitSfïû--ëlïêpiîc ·! - --'--:-----------
.. -- -/" graVemente affël11ano --all'mtegrita~ar-·Ea11 vàJoi·f;·-s-o-:no·-arveilliTë---~-----------
------------l·-·-.,-aiilorfiat1c"iiin-ente..,.--pîirfe" ÏÏ11egüïme-dêfnosfro orëlmaifieüt6 e s5i1èÇ~--r----- ------- -- -
·---------j---pertaDfo, plenarnente-iifonee ad·-·assuî'fière ·o ruo!o-·ar:-pararnetrci j ----------
1 delf'lngJUstiz1a éfetclafJiib CaltSato_Ga_ U1i-'-falfo'- (f6)(5soo·colpôsa··--- -~i ,-- - - ..
?~~i~~:~:~:~;~:~:::~~Mill~~~~=~= -. ·m~ tmœmazWili!ll~minacciar!C>Tlillefa umannae-ll\inWo le l'OüO=enca-1- - --
--------------T·s1esse l:Te1Ja coesiSrenz;c 1titeinazîoT1ale'';-Tfatfaïiâosî-ctlael1rtî- che -st·---t---------- ----- -· -- ·---·--r--·wwctëtaii o nèl ta ·vto-lazîoTre-;·-prrrt1c-ôlarrnen te gr a ve---·p-er tnrensîta -·o--------r-· : 1
---'---------~ si sreinalici tà, dei dirlrfl"'l'lndamêl'ill!1Hil1l>.!'l:rsona;-"l<r mri tlltë lae--· t----------------- ------- . affldatâ-----a11.0fme-ilîderogaoill- che·· si----co41oca .. '10 al ·verti~---r --- -------~-· ·-----
! 1
-.:-··-------------T--ctëtï ... c-:rdîname1Tto·tf-yten1atioijale;-prevaletrdcr·srr--cYgn1àttr~rTîôrrrta~--si-~rdi~--LI, -----------------. _: \
~~----- _j ____ t aral!enn::urrv~n:ztnrfâ1e··ctœ-tloïiST:ietud:1na:rin"~-è-qutmlhtnc1Iesrn:rne ltë-- -- ··· · · ; · · --· · · --· ·--
--· - --~rnm>nbïmmuniW.J5l:n>.ttortmillJtono Anindi stati-ilitti'princt~l ... _J ......... ..
35
!
1 protezione è da considerare invece, alla stregua di tali nonne e principi,
-------- -~-essenziale i)eî:T'infèracûmunità lntemazio11aïe-~~E non-puo esserv1--
i ! -- ---------- ___ _: --- ----------------- ------------·-------------·---------. ----~-----------------------t-- ------------- : dubbio che l'antinomia debba essere risolta dando preva!enza alle j
. ~------------i~~------;----~--;-;--------;----··-,~--·-.-·-·;··~--~---~----···.-···--··, -· ··-;··- ' - .--.;.::. ·····--· -- .: ......... +--------·-------------· i nonne d1 rango pm elevato , esc1udendo che, m ;potes! s1fratte, lo
--------[--stato pos,a gioV'fsi -aeiPTrnffiiiffità aanag;ur;;a;zrone stran;ero:----- ~ __ T
_____________ _ ---------- --~----- Affêniùin·éï,-ancora, -FsëZ1oîi1ünite C11e-''ll rispetto- cïel CiîrJ ttf
------·--· .[ --- • .. ------ ,. _____ - ·------------------------·-----·-----·-·-- ------- ··-··· --·-----·------·------ 1 inviolabili della persona umana ha invero assunto, onnai, il valore di
-------- ·--- -----i principio -fondàll1entale-2IeTPofd1!1urncnto lntërriaz1ona1e . . . . ·· E.
---·----···;--1'einerSione-dTta1e ï5fillC!pü>nêin-pi.lS-nü!ï1iffëüeù1-siiila·iïüif.ataC!eglr --···
1 . . .
·-- ------ ·: · -aïüi pnncipi alqïla!ltare<.lidinarrieiuô ftràdiz1onaiillerùe -1sr1ratD ê, iii ·
--------_-----r-partiCOlacé,-ar quel l o sU fla -·sovr;ma ugll3 gliffiiZit' dêillf Siiti; -cil i si
· - S:· ---:J=JcoTiega.Tricüi:iosc!me;ifü--aëna--irr!i11lli1ilfstaüi!eQallag!ü!1sdTZionè -----~--·-- ·-- --
___ -~~ cJvJJ-e·sti1lmera;'-. ------------------------- --------------· .. -- ·----,--·---
____ b-:::- f--------5.2~·-va·-;_;në.-vato Cfiè-rplmcipi espressf;1élla sliddeRi1selitenùi--- --
---------- ---t--·sono--·sratJ-ribaditi, nelY àiïif.iito cfei!a-- grm-i'spruaenza-1taiiir1a-;-11ëlTa· --- -- ----. --- -- - 1 . 1 .
--------------T-nlotJvii1one a:JW1a--tîlfëi1m~esentenza---a:èlra···cürte-crr-·-ca:ssazionë,
l
--------T S ez!cïrïil!mtei:Sivili --(serit- 2r· apnill20D5;-- Born)~ in--cu1, -aopô -·- . -.. - -------·---- ,
---- .. -~1'aftermailol1é--sec-ônaé)clli 1'"orainameiif6 iU1Iiano ha recep~to~ -ai sensi- .
---------- -1· deU' arC 1 DTosc;~11pnnc1ploâeiTaîmmurutarïs1retfao ï-elat1và; irï 5asë-
------------------ -')'·--a_r;i~uare-TesenZ!oïle ëfëgli ·sTaff' stramen aaTfa--g!unsd1zfone-(~ïvffë-é
1 ' ----- · ., ________ T_1lmitata agll attl r.ure împëm e noi:\Sî ·esfeîille ag li at ti iurë-ge:;;lîofliS,s!·--~-- --- ------
--~~--------+ncorda 'Tü1tenoreiTirnte --(dlrec(mte,per altro, ev1denz!ato, m rag1onë____ 1
-- - ..
i . __________ L _______ _ -. -. ------~ del va !orO ffipriflCJpiO- fOtiaaii10rifiiTOdelroTcfffiailleiiloîflteri1ii.ZI on ale ;
.. -·· -··--- assunto-clalro'])bl!go--dî.ITsj:ietfo -cfè]mnttl mvwTâoilf-aëTra .. pêrsorfà--~--------·
__________________ l ___ u!nan:a) pcr cm st convwne che anche f'esercfzJo-ael1a sô\rl'àhifà riôù -·
_________________ j__ ______________ ------- --·--- --· ------------------- ' ----------------- ---------- ---------------~----__,.-------·--- -- -!
36
1
resti coperto dalla imntunità qua:ndo si risolva in comport~1enti dello 1
···- .. ~--··---1.-···srato estcroTéi!vi~''âjljiûntô~;·a:r qiièt"~·aforrunl.vëfs(ifCdTiîspëüri·dêJla··~~+· .......... -- ---
-. -- ---1-flr~a-CJie trasEëii<lôiiO-gJJiiiiefë.ii! ifCllë' iiiiijiO!ë OOïiiitiiü!i ... ·1· . . ... . -~~----~-... ~...........__··-~~-----~: ' .. ,.,~·~· ... :r ... {,---~-~~---~--------... --....... ---·-~--- .__..._~_.. .... ~- -.-.. --· ... ~--. -.~.- ·-~- .... ----.-...... ·-··· --~.- ........ -- -·-.-.-- -~ ·---~---·-· .. --- --·--. ' ·-· --·- ""' ..... ---· ------·. ! statmu . . !
· ·-· -··-·---· .. ··--~--·--·- -~·---v~i ·:quan iü .. êQnëerïfè''J~tgTlirt.sî)fiûlëiliaar· i11êiffo·· ·ruo ;sss!Erë· ·~·-·t· · · ·---~--·-·--·~-
.. · · -----···-·i ·-·-rrcordàta 1a-seî1ténz~i-tii''t1âfà' 6 re15b1:-arcr2'007. ï:fena-Coriè ·~mi~;Ftî·ë!ïië; · · ··· · · ·r · · · · · · ·-· · · · · ..·- -· · · ·
; ·arè~ria resplnto r'Op{foàiZTo-ne.pr()pos'fa~ii~l!altêpiibEiica~Fooêrilie·-ai . ---)-.. -............. .
1 . \
... w--------··--·r··uei1rüfi1üCàvvërsO:Tih .pfe'Eedaïte'ifê:s?ëtèf'ai-ësooiilivïliraënii'"sentèma ·········· ·.· ·.
-~ ·:·---··-· j- ·ër.ïêRsiïac11 Iâ-Côrïè âî"E,àssiizloi1e"gi~E.a~ rri··;;tara r:r2}'iri!a·::::rmaggf8·-····· ;. ·.· · ., ) il . ' • .
··· ---:-·-·-· T-· 2tiou-; .. rera.tTv âffiênre-·âna-doiliânà~ï ·arxiitlênniiîo -pl:opôstii dai!l'"êrcilf · · · ··
' .l i . .
·- ·.-~~-- ~aerr;s ·vi:trrmé-anii1-n1àSs?iào·ëlïëFiiJ r· comn!i!to·aàir'&.ërertô. '·t-edë.~ëo j . . . . ' . l' . . ..
·~--;:!.'s·· -orëèi1CaürüiWe.1iCsëw'ilmcgîiûr:a· ilïoifdfüTé:···iii···târë·-aëëîsiorié
-.._,
~=::~·f--:fîl5adiscë~-6IIel1orf'püo·· ë~~êire-ë'miillvlsa;tn- rèTù7.Jonè-. iiifoggéHoï:Iêr·---·--r·· .... <::.. 1 : • 1
-~-···-·· .. ·-+---gîudtziO~-ratesl aeïri3Sèü'z'ionlfoêgffS1~m··ààmn~mffs31ïilii1è·êi·vTie:Tx------r-- --·
-~------ --s-en.renzaaemr·cone·ar ·âp·-~_--::mr·a.i·rfre1izè ·si ·hrc&iîscê-~àu~.nise· a:e-mr · ·· ··· .. l .. --- ·· ··· ("·~· i • 1
·-· ·---~-----'[·--·ëscëüziëiii/3:· · ·e1fê'"ne1J â'"C0:1W~lz1t1ffeal:-NevrTinx·e·:spi:fêificâiuëfile ·------1· · -· ·---··· ·· ·-· · · · ·· ·
·----------r· truttara·ag!faffi.l s~ss:; m cu f'Sî"sTà15ï11sè~-m. gefi ef~i1 e,- è11encilr-~i' püo .... -----r----- .. .. ... ' ....
--- -, -[-·rroceâerê-ââ ... â1cïimfmîsura'l"SÔ·erciliva:·--i.1iüile if pig~ora~îénw 1)·-n ....... T .......... · · ·
-;-·-·:.--·' ···i-sëq'ilèsrro, ëoîiJfô~ i ·Ç;enrar·:un<f ·srato-·1n·rëlazië5ôe .. a:·mf'p:rotëillrnenm-~~r·~- _, ........ -.·--··-- . . >! j (
............ -·j ·-aâi;antraurrrr!Olîî'iàlë"âïTliïallrelStatc>.-······ .......................... ··-···· ....................... ·-·· r ... -.-~. ~· .. , .... -- -------~ ----· ~-·----rrqsrop6sitôv?ictinsîdëratù'iS!itfîT ·pi'ot51ëm~f'demr eseêîitt\%Y·cn-·--· · ~---··· .. ·-·· · · -. · ·· · ···-- i i
------.. -~ --t· "se'iWenze--cîVH!ï)ëicoJ1fr'cü'ltr ·or ü'ü1)Sttrt<r ·e·stêl,.ô; în ·partîc"olarë· st~---sî .... · --~- · · · · · · · · ..... · ·· · ·
------J--~rfûl'fa1rerfrconâiR:'tmènlol1etT'èsccu.fiv-J:ta. dt sentenze.cmcsse:â:a-gîUdiët··----··r-·---~ ·~-- ......... -
--~--~·strni1feri;""pfesenflfperart'fo .. as•pètfi··aênurtrj5ecï.i.liaïî ~'rrattmidosi' aire h"e------~- ---- ···· · -----··
1 1
=---rcons<defaretrri!w~~"!~~~~~~·~ne·~-1a_c:~:e"~Oile1li:=-r~~~-~-····
37
...,..... ____ p'~'--'~">---~.·,•;·.~:--~·~·~·~-··..,..•.-.. ...,~ •. -.:.;·:~.~~~~~;~.~;~ ... -.. ... ~··~~: ... ~·-. ----.:.;..;..-...~·;;.:«-:•: ... __...------~~--.~-~----- ~-----
,< -·- •• :-:·
=·:·:~~~~~--~::t:~~~~~~~s-~~érZTsë~e~nre :~~ô~l-·Regol-~nr=,-(ecy,Jr44!-200 1--- · --. t------- Î (al nguarào cfr.--cürce di gmstJiül-àetleOJmmw.r europee;-sent:·l-~----T---- ---
_:_ _____ ........ j ... ±ebbrato :2UO'/, I:echouritou-;-crr:- <méhê-Curte·-cu-st:-;-·z-lugtirr1992; n. - ---1·--q------
: i
=~·::~-~~~--1--~~'Z~ÇCiierïa·diëhJarato l'illeg:itfîmit3:'ct>;st_rruztmralc~ll'-articoln·unico-----~--------
aer r.d.L 30 agastOT925, rc10Zl,-cu11:v:-trrt-rs luglia--192&;--n.--+2-63-,-- ·r·-------- ----- ------- - ~-----·iïena- p artë!n-c:-u-nno-ordî na::ûtra:u torizz:l:zh:me· del Mi ni strcr--cl:i-grazia-··---- -1 --· ---------
: 1 ----- ----- --------·r·e· gîusflz.îa_îT_ cômpîîi16fifO--âJ-;itti· CCïnlfCfVal:iV Î- o·----m>ecnti Vi SU. beni---. - i ...
--- --------- - -· [-- appa:rtenènlî-acCüTiü' Sta1''lî-0~Xè!Yf·citv··e!'si da· q1Ietlr· ct~·-· seconda le· ·· - , __ _
------------- -n-onfîl§-·del dîfirro-mtemazîonale·genera1mente·ricmmsciute;:mn·sono-----; --
-- )
;----- -2 - · ··-rerquaïiror1guarâa iiWëëë-t~Eli1-etrzn der'l'ri'!J:--Arezzcr;-·U -.------ --·
--~-- ----inili:Zo"ZDD7; R~mn'lc-:-Rep1IbôiicaFedenmn:tiverman:ia; -cit:, questa ----· - ,----
------· --- ---~----liii u-tf.Yî11-ev-o-marginrue;·in-·orTiine-at-rrtob1etrra· in ·esa:m-e;··ess-endn···stato
1 :..: . 1
----~- i preclsaw,ffi:-inbïiVsLZ'WTitr,c1Teüte Jativmnente;-pui-;-all 'eccezione- -dT-----1"
-- ---- - fâüèftOili gi udsdfl:t<l~t!el~ gil)llltnrtito -rer!' osserita~attuate vi gema ·· - : · ··~ - --~~ ~-
----- ----f11el · â1riT!:o-ùTrermïzt5fi'àl•e; ~mhtilko·---ctet--princi:pio ·ùeti''-il:rrmurrit:t-in--
i ----------------t relaZtone alh=i:--rfmten~-zte-qrra;--dr.we rilevnrs1--che-;---sul-pTmto, questa ------ -----
, '
---------------- -T- -giudîcê·m:rrr·--~·n::rtr··ftm:-a- menn---ctr--cunfmmarsi at ·pri:n:cipio-·di--iliritta --- ---- -' --------- _:__ __
------------ ------·r·--ern:rnctatiTdana--suprermr-û:nte"':--- ------------------ --------- --- ------~-- -- -· 1 1
-~-------- -------[------------6:-Tii e-·e-ssendo'-h:J:rtatcJ-de-tin: giuri spnrd-enza-italiana-sul· p unh;,----+ --------
1 1
--:--------:--crœmTIT orende1 e--m---esarrre-I-e·-.-argonrentazioni-· ùeP- -~eHante-;--in __ J
1
----- 1 ' , 1 <LJ:-'J:-'
~------- ·-rcta:zturrr:..,.crt··dlre-p1ufiti·csserrziali-îllcui:--shrrticul:ano:-a}-l'ind~-- - -- -·-
---------- '----m--nmnemse-·d ed-:sion ]---d1--'-giudi ci--nmr i taliarri- che ·-soo:o- pervenu ti- . a·-------r------- ----- 1
--------------- ---cunchrsroni op poste 1 î&petro a ·qoe1le deHa-eort-e--di cassazi-one--iî:3:li-amr;---- '-~------
. ·----------~-· ·-- . ·------- .1
1
38
------------------------------------- --
1
--~~---- _L~ __ dn ~~vo~-ChOiL<SUffié la~~COiiVêi1Ziiii1Tili"NeW- YOilCSiilrirrnnuni tic ~~ ~ L~ -~~ ··
. / aegfl StatlciaTfa gturlSdlZ10ne. '"'-·~··· -- _._ .. _ ... _ ..
t -
---··---------~ -~6~.1~J~_-frl(iï~dme alla eccezwne âe11.,.appe11ante-ùn!a pluralità. cu· ------1- orgaT-i!gmâlzlarï--Cim,···m··-ruvefsTStatl~ liafma··-atfermato pnncipi" ____ _
------- -----~ co1iiraSfaî5fi--c_;f..iiï-quë1li - âeiTe--sGZTcïi11Uillfë--CiVili-âe1Ia Corte di --~-L-----
--------r-cassilZ!cir!ë·; va nlevâiO m pnmo ·1uogoClie gran paffeaer!eoeëîs1o11l-~- - 1 •
1 1 ------r-eJ la te--nerf' atf() d1 .. àppëTlo-sëWü:TS1:3fee~;p1îë1ŒnTefilë . ëohs1deraTcne1la· .. --~----·-------
-~ . : -. ::---j __ -_:_ enza n-.-w4412DUZJ:<:it. ë--ncccwre·-arcassazwrrenae:·s-presso-·ir-·· ·--T-· ----··-- ----------- ; -proprto -rriolîvarü--·convi1icîn1enforiŒ:netidô êhë- -, 'ës.islêtrz:a-·tl.r-un --+-··-- ---- 1 . 1
~---;[~~~-~~~regr~~~oonëmameiWO gl.ünsprudenzmle c·oï1fuggenre con la ~ropr~':c·-·- ~------
s poslZlone non fosse ill ostacorc! ana· formuraz----ro-ne-âcl----prlï1clp1o · · --------
- :
~--.. secmi[JO-ëüi, perle grav1 v:olaiîoTï"fae"lcîüitti tifiiaï1î,-nÔrrp.os-sa~ërè-----~ --·-·-
___ nconosc1uto ilifcl.1rîuo·deg11Stm:i-mtiC1TnTnunin~cââ11a.-giurisd:i:::·:::.i1e--·+-----
l

! . elvire.-. ·-----------------·----------------------·--. ··- ---·-··---------------------· ·--···--·····
-------- ------ Sembra---qnîilll.i · h1êëB1mfieprenâere --tn----------col1sider.azio-ne·---+--------
------~speciiîcamente s01l:anto le sêrfl'eï1Zè;ëltàrelretl'atto di appctin-;-erne:s·s-e· - j ·· -----
1 :
) success i vanfenre al rrflrtztT2-oozt;-dà1a·âî-âep1Ysi1ëfùélla se11tënza de-!1~--------·- -+---------· . i
----$"ez1oYft"--miffè-.--·1rr-partkoî:rte; ·ohreat~n~rcr···ctetla--em1e · ---- 1-----------------
------- -. costi"ü:ï'XÏOilal:eœdesca trëlt:5-fehbtH~.Lr2006---;-f!·r-espunsa:bil:e-Tiviicrita___ -
-------ha pmnünr,ia âell4-gtugno-wt)ô<lolla-Hum;eof Lord.nnglese;-rreltT J ~-----
____ ±~m. mo:v:ZJOné la sentenzau. 3fl'Pl1200'1;<l<ll.--Corte-dr c.rEsazwne~ j --- / l taltana, Vl ene CorisTaèJ·a:t1CUU üi1tcunnrn:;onntrste>TT)!1--!cr-statirHttUale ---r·----- 1 '
--------~--d êl dîrî tro-intermtzlo-nale.m1m:tiermruùienza-f!--respn11sabfu:civi J·e-·hs:·----~--- --
: i
-,------·-------i--lfïillt.n;·-cttaTIYTfna·Teëetit!ss irrrn:-errtlm--zilictta-Cllrte·Euro pea- det-Dhi:tti··c·----: · · · --· ·----- : 1
---~-----------------------------------·------- ·---~--------------·-· .. ··-·--· ·------------
39
dell'Uomo, del 4 settembre 2007, che ha ribadîto H proprio precedente
1 orieniamento:·---------~------·- ·-···--·------------·-~----·-· 1
: l
·-----· ---r--------AT nguardo è -ürportlino in pi:l!Y;ü--ruôgo --ë-üiiSTCierài:e· ci1ë--riëîE1 _____ __c ______ ---- -
-------------r-sëtitënzadelfe-sezioni ullite--(ancfie-së, -ii1 tcm1in1 geiîeffiK S1--aiîc1ma --- ~ 1
---------~-Cf-le, rer r''crim1ni-1ïitemazio-iiaTCïi gwnsct1ilo11e- a:1idrelibe ëüil-!ùnqï.!è _____ --r -------- ----------------·- ! --.·-----·----------------------------------·--· . . ··-· -·------~- ----------------·-- -- . ~ ---·-- J individuata seconde i principi della giurisdizione universale" e che .
------------ -- .----,-'i1oi1-sT"ëfu bita -che -iÏ prlncipio deÜa Uii1Versalita-deiTa -gi uasdizi cine ____ -~
1 1
---------L--- ... -------- - ·----------·-------- ····--··-------·-···-·----·-·····--··· , ! valga anche per i processi civi1i che traggono origine çia ta,!i reati") si
\
- - ----- ~-sottoïinêi che''Ctati.Tsill qualrsi fonda Ta-do manda -sCsorio--Vënflëati ·1
·· -- --r--anche în ïtaifii''.---------------------- -· ----- -- ---- ---- ---- --·
------ -- ----- --- r- : -- --- --1i1o l tre~---con--nferlitîento ___ aJ 1 e déci STcin1.secl:i11(Jo --euT gl1-Stai:r·---- -~-
:-------~------- -T-liannë1-if1:E1·Fitè) cil"-a v v al ers1-ëfei1 '1":.Umun1tà(:ia tîa--g!unsiilzlon e · r ur ;_r~ -- --· .. -------- -
------------'----j --~-- ····--------------o·-----~-~. -----.---·--.,---~·---, --·· · --,- --~----r·--------1---·--- --··· ···
. ~ ! presem.a dt domande d1rette ad ottenere 1l nsarc1mento det danm i
---=_ :s2Tderivati dalla co:rillnissioi1e-ar crinil"ni inierncizionazc-rJ.aïa:sëntenz.-a n~ - - -· --- - -- c- -~ , ,
--- -----------~:so4472üü4 si ·prëcTsatraHarsraT"''(Ieê1s1oni-cfië .. :dguàroru1o casi ne1- --1--- -- 1
-----------~---qualii'llTecito--era-·stato-co11iiiïessoin· uno Stâtô-dfvers:c1ruiquëlu)âèf. ---- -·
~------------:·--]0/~0'r- (ccisTm-partTëOlare -riel nôto-caso--:~r-Aasaiu:f~e; quinm~- ùon . . -- i . -- - ------
. ·-ip1enamentecoi!ïCU1entiCon las1tuàZIOne cheV!êne in- cons1Jêraz1one
---··-jnel presente giudizio~arattenzzata,· come-s1_e_gia po:stonin-l;J!ievc):·
---------- ·icfalla{·:ircostanl:a-cl1e Ta:6one-cr1rr11nosaern ù1iz!atanel paese in cui îf ______ ---- 1
· · :-- --- ----T-gliiâiz1o-èstato mstaurato __ e_._ srera--co11ngurata,- gill m·qtieTI'a:mbifcJ-
1
-------------- -(-témfc)nale, come cnmmemter11ciiio!wle": --- ... ----·-- ---------------~------ -------------: ~
---~-------------l-----------Alicne ___ con ___ ngu ara:o-·ane·--aecl81àni"1ii-Ültl n1o--emesse (con·----------~ -~---- ·------
__ · --------~plli11Eofare-rirenrnento_a-auella---aeffaHOUse 1 ...
-orLoras·-ingTesë~--clïe-------·-r-----------~ >
1 • '
---r concemeva un· azwne civil~ ~~~~ata~ ~~1, Regi1~- Um~o, da_ ur~ci~a~mo-~~~~~~--~-~
40
---------
-j -- bntam1IC_o.,"ë(:mtf'·a-T'Aià6Jâ-·satÎd1tiperrnàTiratta1l1ëritf e toiti.rrë-"iüJ:iite-
1
lnef1êmtono--ill quest'u!fi:mo Sfafà)vinlevato- ·aïe r·presüpposti 'irèr
----- i giudiziosoiïo-rfe!Tiilioâ!ffèfenH, r!spêttëi- alcaso esarnii!afO dalle 1
- ---- --i'<féziOnf'Uiiife- aëŒ:i--Corte di cas.saziorie, tràttiilldosi" dCpr:ocedirnentî-
-- ----- .. - - --- ·i- rë1âfiv1·a fattiavvëàutïâfdl!uori del Œmtorio dello Stàfo dbl foro .
.. -~------------- --·--- ~ - -·-···- .
··· · -~- -· ~-""' -- · · ·--··1-IOU~~e~Of LOi~ as, secoiidO .. Ci.ti il -precedente della· ··carte di cass:iZlone
-- ------! -- ifa!ia1')a" appàre der fufto- fsoliito, si 'rifer:isëe soltanto ar principio, 1
-aTfermato· ii1--gëi1ë1·alë- dalle Sëzioni ùiiite, della- universalità della
--·--rgiillisd1iio1J-e: seconda Ta HoiiSë -Of Lords, infàtti, n0i1vî sarebbe-alëuna
:--- ________ o<.. J .. : -pro va -cne "'glï Stati -abnüifîô ricono.<iëiuto J' obbligo di esercitare la
~1 . s-r gîuni;ciü~îoiie uniVër.saTC- su--azioï-ii deïivantf dii pr·ete.'ïë violazîori.i di
;----~::/. n·arme'cogenfl. ----- •h·---------
1
;
- --------~;------n-· piimlerria concefrieiite . le--vïolazioni dei dinttî umahï
-- ------·- ----- ---~ ë3.ommèssë!ïfene-n=:iicir1o-de110' Slato de1 fon:5 riniane quindi, ariche allà
· --- -- ~--hice-âelTaèîüifaâecTsicine clel giùdièi:i" iï.ïg1t:se, imptêg!ud[èato:· cio,
------- --t--nmfo--pîù'se--sr-ê-émsïdera ene1il"secC5 dello· Süitë lriûnunity Act-
1
· ~-Orîfa:ïruco, -a:er 1978~ esc1iïâecnë l~fmrimriitâ i'Jossa "i;ssere opposfa per t
----------- · ·- ---- ! . dann1 ~ëiüSéd by· an à ct iJi~ .. OfiUiSiOn il{ tne-Uififéd Kingdoiri"o. .. ·- ··
-------- -·t---- -----r,o-sresso-:rnTevo·--plîo--essere 'ü1osso-ëoi:i r·iguarao -a:na- aécisione- ·
--- ---------~--a-en:a--c:ôrre-Europ·e~c dei· Dlffffî-éielrDOmo· derw-setfëm1.Jrë 2001, cita ra-· 1
-~~- -~~-i TI UdîenZà- Oai âilënsore ~ifeT -fCsporiSiilii1e~-cîVi1e, cmlÇctilênte iJ· .
,__,--------~ provved1mento d1 un tritiuiïa:Ie teaesëo fëfâlfVo a faUicofï1mess1 al d1-
---------------------~ 1
1
!
i
41
1
1 . . i ·------~-----·o.r:T.A.ppare è1'â!rro--caiffo~non··coni1îVisibîleTaJ'fêdù~ŒîoriH-- t··------------
. ---- t';; ellappëllal1ü:rseëonaèf-cün"a1êri'ùmtodëTjôFiùi-f75ôniTilfs.ff-'i'/ëlti~H-•'(:f-·.- ··t-·---------- · . 1 . 1
------~ -ëorrTtîilquë--m:iiev•mfinauûavlfsiTdèri~c~raiHctesi··tMmnla"'vto!U:ziMê-- -~-r---··----~
-----]-ar una norirfaaî ms cogw1s~a.ewâ--''1~app1icazîoné:--êlet-prîùclp1o"···-t··--·---:"'.
---------,---/-aetrun1\letifâ1ita-aê11a~giün~mz1onê'':··r:·a:rg;êrrW:iito··e-·--srat~r· mëg1îT'i.· -----j~---· ·
------~t' sViluppâTo-mseâ'ë··a;-·rnsëüssîon:ë· orale:; ·laï:Iâovë··-srtr· restu~Hniëntë· ----· -~---- --- ···
• • 1
--- -------- '"osservâfo-c11e"Ufsên1ëi'izifrC50~/2ùtT4"s1J.'iotl1f cohi:lîvfdere · \:rïùè!Jo !
---------1--{l'Yôf'nornSi con1l1Vîâîali1ô),-ri1ïf'Iïffern1?.Cun"i'itiiiëfipiëf logiéà che è b -- +. 1
------- ----t-·scôlttwra--·nrfe---·~.:u--urr rag1'onaïi1'ëiito ·-MLi'ëùter: ··cmr··ëcWidütë"'?llîf ... - !-- ··
i . . . . ! ------.--··---r--âiTëff'iüi2loiï:ë-dê111fgi'frrisdîzî&neûmvëfsaJ i:rJ5'êf lavlô1'§!:lüi3f ·ru·c~îoïf11C:. ···· · ··· · · · · · · · ·-·
t . . . ' ' ' :
--~ --~dî---7îiY~cogens:-percm:u··"§îrieon&ce·~ëhë- ésîzite- urï::c· glürîsdïzîot1ê- ~ ··-+-,··-~ ---- $1 1
~ •• ç~;_~j-::~::;~:~:,:~:~::;:~:::~i~~~~.::~::;-:~:.~~~ =J =~ = -----~-------··r·--re:fr:-rra·~·ex1-z: 'iu.t·rs·dtn~t~ior-e"zoot;p-a.:gg:Jo=Jtr: ----------- -··----------· ·-· --·----- ·· · · · ··· ·r-- ·· · · ·· ·· · ---- ' • j
~----···---·-t-·--·--·--1n--scr::-uirrza-;-se.~ë. ofi13oi'appèHifflië;"s_e··~rll 'înd1î'î2:zëf'ëhtfësë.h1de·.l;r· .... ! .............. .. ---------f---pi:rs~fb;Htà:ll!TIJ5Jforrë--l'lrrï.hli:mtrà";·pêr··1e-·:gra.vt··,:·f:i:5tili.~kïtâ--·Jd -dlritü····· ·-- --···· ·-------
1 '
- ------- t··nrramt;srpz::rvieheW~!Std~r~nrdo.fJFe-va-l~tl' le11·ommtm:perativ~ p1:.lste :n· · ·· -··] ----· · -- ---· ·
------~--tmtela-ztel~dtrittrfondm'1w.ttaw-del!~rrdlv!tlrr6;- hr tnl-e--'prosp-ettiv~· b · · · · - ·r· ... -··-----· ·
------------r-li mita:zimTe--de:U"im111tll1it<I-uon-"j5rrà-·e'he-·opera re ··pre-sdnd eJTdo-·ùa -----.. ··t· ........ ----- -.
-·w··-----t-qu·atsrnsrtiu'litc'Lerritcrrra:Je:·A--pp1n'e:-qtdn-dr-cnnre-una··inconrenza;·'taie·-----i --.··---·--- ····
~-~-~--~d-~n::·onrprmrretten:ia--îogfi;:rcnnseqmtn:zfaiità':· d et! e··affermaziorri-·di·· ----1------------ i
pn'mrlpio--c:tei1a-CÇJtè"'ù r---mr§sff.ZJôl'fé;-l'tnttrrduzimre;-all a·· stregua:-dt----. ---r--- ----- 1
--·---~- --crircrJo-:l:tHclt'i'i.'l1Nêf"êr'stfbbtdütat!'Çde1l'i;i1em enttJ·del·ftil'mn· cmrinzt.<tst··· .. ,·--r----~~---
1
----~ '"7lë1fClî.'"'""--------... ----------------------------- --·----------- --------·-----.. ------·--.. -.. ----·- ... ·- .. -..... ,,_ ·--·--j·-----
--~----"------~--------~-~--~~--~----------··-----·-.------------..---------------~-··------··--------~-""--·-····· ooo•-•••<>"•OoH 0 •.,.--·--··---·t
!
42
1
i
1 1
1 '
t
' 1' l . . . . d 1 a e r4gwnamento non convmce m nuanto, quan o occorre 1 ~· 1
1 ···-"·-.-.-·---- . --r!cercâië-ï.ïïîasolifïiionentrffiîaiëU: 1n -ûitariililto·TiïùüCoperanO' normei~--, .. 1····---------·--·-·····---··---····-···- t . .
-----------r-·ëo!1I1iggentT;nMSèmp~rê~èq;&-ssmmf"sfàoilrr!f'ta·pù:=&;sJeEzirli1têgi'a1é .. ~---.··· -----~~w············· ··-·
1
1 .
..... ···•· ·"·--··--r-èfëlrunifodên 'àTfi~:ü1oinHï:'Teslgenz~rm· ün equl!lliraro I5ilru1cïafr1ei1To-- --· -· ·-··· ···· .. ··· ·· · ......... . 1 1
·--------··""---t··-cri'a''ïff(éressi'-confrapposri~puo .• spêsso~·essere··-p:erse~gu'ffa~s(}lo-·~coiï'"--~t-···-·-----·--· .... ,, ------··
__:_ ______ J·-ruaozïoiîê-m crftën~ê}1e CQ~~:;ili!fanèl'lapiifüâ113llîiiü"àï1ônê âëHe .i{(j.ffiü~' ..... :.î-........ --·" . ----........ •· ..... .
-·---·--r-rnéonmrŒ-( c rr.,a--mora~aentltro·es-en~flîffëativô:·carw·ëOsï::··sëhc~j--- ·· .. -.-.. ----·· .. -- ----·-·--.---.. ~ 1 •
·--·--··~----j-39372DDD,srê·cmfâG-cüt'•'jfJ1~'elTO~-èti1'î1eWlrlzrrdelriiitèressifptéSëi'V:àiù --- ( ... , .. -~ -·-·. . . 1 . . . '
;--------.f~--·-aan5nncipîoane(rciatm'i1A-·a!%mc r~rf7.iirtW1-:·:::-tNà Të"êïi1èrgë-a~r gi;~mo·· ·· · --·i-·· · · · · ··· ···· -----~-~----- · · .. · ··- , !
--~·-··y··-· ----~~~ëJî---pfôtèzione.---àëëô-.roàl·o·ID·r·ërar1fir .. ttrër. ·m.Œmu;··oJm-cfie··aa. r'i:lrM.no--·----··t---· ·:· .. · .... ·· .. · ·· -- ·----
---~~--~·-1ntciiilîZtOnaJilCOnveliZi<iffii1<-e 'dlifôîi!!fOOOmuffifâb~ïffiïiliilO ·a;c-r-···---······ ·· · ·· ·· ·· ··
--:_:s--··r-·Yffëüerëêl'iê~îl vaiôfe~ZUf.ësiio ·ro.Œhio·· puo·· essêf•e··slïêîifiëâlô.<lâ"Tiî'lâ'""'- . ····~· ............................ .
--~--1-·1r5ggë .. ofâînanrcs01ç1-.,..1rc'fàv\)ter:trmtere·sstëll-ânalirgo11Uevo";·'c~mrl<T········-··!~-.. -· ·· ---- --~:-i . . ! __ :.=-J_I···-crnïsëguëYiza·êneTosè:trrtinm·-ar--èôstîluziônâ:lfta .. dev~:r·Hip~i'àtë ... ürf···-----r--· · ·· · ··------·-· · .......... ._ ...
i ! --~---] 9iî}JtîojYoltf!V<fZI:t1agîoîië\~"olë'iza)'·;······· .................. ·.----· ........................ r---·--.......................... ..
....... ____ - 1 ----ms-sun a ti1com'l:fnzasi--·v·r.~::--i'fiêhël"ël5lfè- qühîdl";'iëi-câs<rtncul~---···~--i----··· ····---
-------.. -----11-- ···n ~1 t~cstess-lCJrtospe'!;riva·ftu:lîëat~camoi'ëvomrem~-- ï:hlle .. S~z:i'ont ·un ittr-· · · ···· · l ------"· ·· ·· · ··· • ' • 1 • • i ~· ... L-~-~--de1Ja-eorte--dî .... --c:as:;ïtzî<J:fitç·sr·-!1ervm'r~:;~---attrr ë'Vîtêlns:tôtië .. ëhë; .. uel"··-----~----··· ............. .
·• )-~----comusr?J·.-r.·rn·!e-rrcm1~-im .. ·· -e-m ... -~.:ïzl6riaUch. tdmpmrgorto·t:rm.telatl.ct-dtri tt. i .... ---·····r--'-·-· ·· ·-......... ------· ..... . -----.---·- ·--unra.ïn··-·e...--·qiie!le--· ch~ ---prr:ven1Jm:r-· ·t'·iînrm:m i tir- d e-.g!t ··· Stati····ct~lll:r ··- · -l-------· --.............. --- ·-~------1--·gJm'i"sdtzit.-rl'e-c:tvt!t;,'si-m~nè~se:·~he--hqmxssi·il1ten:razrdira:ti:rrrpervemrta:·--·--· r--------··· ·------· ......... . ---·-···--·--r---atf'Tf!'l"trqni lthrntO"--~lîntemj'iera1nenn:r··amrŒettel1d1r·--cJn:r 11-- !huiter·all~:c ·· ~------. ··· ···--· ---· · ·-----~
--..... ~ .. - ·---~mT11m1i~Jt--up~.m-. (a:îto-.. -sraro--att~.Ir.le di-wi1lnzi_""~et-~dit1tto- ··• !---------····--··~~---·· ~----~ ~-Tntema::r.mna:leJ;-tTe'l-cn.scr·delle·:gravr·vrolrrzwnrderdmttl·umanr;·pect-----:---·--··, ·'" ····· ...... ··--·--·- . 1
-~----1--nmr--cnmme::ssnTetto-stmu-·dei·foro-:·------ ---- · · .................. ·----·--·-- -- _____ L _______ ............. · --------
-·---r------ -.~- - -------- --- ~ --~ -- -··--1---~-- .... ----
1 43 1
i
i
, .. -. ·-~·· .:. ·····r"" .. w- •· .•. ·-sortotrré . -;~ro ~ filoîiôrf . ·.sCfiv .. ëlif.-(fi:i_c· !si%. . -~·_r_ ô.;Qiëzîd.W: . . . . .. , ... S.eëonôo~~ · ·· ~t. 1 · · ···· · ·-· · ......... ·· · ·· · · · .. · · ""'··-·-·
1 -----------cmneraü:t tto mtemazioria1enon ptioa11in1etrets!. nemrstê!iisi51nol;k> iïr····---T-·----......... · · ..... ·· · --... ·-··
---·--+c~avviené---rïët-airilfo-:"""TiHëtfiO..l:iërj5crveiur'e-:-M·iil.u.---·éorfèîfft.t·· · · · -t--·------------·· ·· --- ~-----.... ·j-- ·Tntél'P reta21 onè de t· dl r1fto,Ttrtîttzzaziôii'ë.âëlcnrefioï.1èl"l5i1â.nc!amëütrf--···--1··-----------· ...
----------~ --·rra·-grrïürërèssi-piuteffi-aa.·n:omre"(i.iV~Œ~'"1rctô····râttro pitrq-cra.nao"Sl·~····r' ·· · ......... ---
·~~· ~ 1 pong<~no m éNUPiilaiione oorme collôëaŒliijr6Siiiîrne âJJ'l'Mlnte.ncUa- ·-·r ...... ·-···-·-·---·-
·gerarcfüaôèlle fonfl (iutalè' senoo sfnVé1tïfêbl3":3"fonifaüt;l"ooîéZîü!1tr··----r··-.-.............. ···-· ..... .
.............. __ f""SeCOridO CUl SC sni'fiene COO'Jê''"'ff0rnftfUl~l/S cogelÎSpfëVàtg6rfO"'Stf1Jë .. ___ t··-···--·---······--
---jaJtre non11e ù:ïŒmazwnah, cônsuêtûâinif!ë opatûZ:ie;-raJe prevalëîiza . .. 1 ·----------·--------··----·-------
······--·--,-j ~nonpï1oëheoperare m 6grlî':êa<f(f;--:-prescÙïü'èfldù:~dal1à"''pféStfnz:fa.l . ~-L.~-----·-"''"'""'''""" .............. .
---~UJ1'ëfi0n roqmSlnr---· ---~···-·········------~--··---------~------····-·····••w>~-"------J······· --~·.··-··- 1
·;:- ---~~-------~sëm5ra jnvece nverarsll:lëëfSiva-p"rop"ri:Cil'ifl~r:fss1de%J··. rsma,·----····· ' . . . . . . . .l.' . 1
: ----~--·----t··spessoT.spirata, ·pergar.m:n:rn--ûmn~qï.ïl!ibrata-:--proleZionë-oeglrtnrerêssi----·---r-·-------------····-·~---
.................... _J_conï'Uggennr!'iéVanu~!ffir(inctwn'fè'd:îaftteîicinôivi:duazîonë·<:n-·-----j-------~-----····· ·········--·-··---···
. . 1
1 un a ltffi1rniadêtcrgaalta·~~n1cgt1Srm-da11â~gî1lfistlî"zîô1lë}âU~~ ... ---r--------------· .... -- -- --·---- . ' ·----va;tortzzaZi:omntetëfit'éffl)J'let1ôrus corflniîsst'dé1Tëfi~ .. -------------~·-· ..... · .. ···---:~···--·-··· .. ··-·---··----·--.................. .
,-----~· -·m"'ël~"Cl~nr---prô~P~""if.'--hrlîmirmatfe·deu·lrr-rri~:mütà-'--tlnna·······~-r-~·--···--· 1 . . . .
~---------·-r··g!mtsth~i't:ïfie~!Jpcrâ·nou-solô;· ë5-uftm:;-qul1te--"""e-ff~tt<:nsJ:fectâle''~-dèl1a·_· ·-"·· ·~···· ----~-~ ... _ .... · · ·.· · ·-·-----
--~---~---r·-rurvogens;--nurp<~r-n.-1'"'itMl:'·"'î>:trnt><!l-1l1lnîuriünlt-dlrin,,.... ·1-- ~ ····
---··--------r-1n:rërffazicrfial~nsu·e-ttn'lma'tl'a:--·tt·nrite't".R'f'tl~lbtlami'[f'l."œnttrdiinreœs·si--!-... ·-------"-----·
1
--~--------hftwi··-.,cm1truisëë··-qtlinctî~·efit~I-·-mt~neper··--rtsmv~-.. t·----~-------------·--·---- . . 1 ~ . 1
- Î 1'antlnom:îaîr'a .. ~âre"1Përëf.tetmcte:r-qrra:-ler~tru-mr.rn:re;-·-r-------····----·
------ fquélla1rnporalîW, escl\lllecnpj!ltclt2îooetlctl'llltl'a);-nra -piuttosro--·t--·---------.. ·--·· .....
--. --- cnterlo per rico,struîre l'êsatto comëtfuro-ecl .. M.trrïiri·rtethr"i)\:'ifirra~v!ge-nre----~-----<··------.w ~---···-- -------- --------------------·-------------------------.... --1-------______ ............. -----
44
!
l
1
1
1
~~' .. ""!~~:·~~~-. :·.·:A .. :::'.r. """""'~~- ~___________..~.- ~;:>.~/~\~}?:.1
1
l
1
1 nella cornuoità intemazioua)e della immunità degli Stati dalla
-~-.. ··---- ·---~-~ gmnsdiZiônê'{èl'i:anêhe iii}'ra, süb 6.;r:4.y:-~---· ·--·--------..... -----··w .... ••i• ,..... . "
---,. ·---··· ·----·-----~-o; 1.3. crëcorrë.1nëiHreaggliii1ge.re-al'ë.lë .. i)roilii:rl"ëëï:lëné ï·~ùté~iîfir ----·r-· ~ -- -----·--··--~ -gfïidTz!arle sono -So1oui1"o-deg1"i""element1âicù1. püo· esserë- frâifà .... ····j---~· .. ' 1
--- ---··-------..... ·h-,...eststenza dl un a norrnad!aTî:itfo firtëm:aiion~afé ··gei!BâTë"éconrrii•q u1:i--~--l---- - l . . )
-----------------~f----oon-:·srrratta ter.:tadrstaliilftecïüi1ê's!aîn:t!lniëlro~pe1ffiiouene·-~--·-·
------------ -scntcnze aravore ilëlielësi 'in conillffo;oâ1ïnoinëïïtlfêriëëio ël1ëcaiit1C-~· ·-1 ---------
! '"" -.·-' .· .. · .. ·.· ......... T -è s6prat1ü1fé{Hî'"fci.Yf·è· 'ttèm .. :·a. ë"ëoë"r .. ëriza .... ·dè.1fe".iifgornënfSiï. ionr giüfi dféti.êC ...... "1""""" .... -. ...
. r ··--~--- · ···· ··1· ·---------cciïilf~1ië"nfir:ïsrvü:ore iôilëfîEré ·êiTiTa1~1üiïsprua<miairan~î:ta· · · · · · · · · :"-.-... · · · · -<--.--· . . 1 . . l
.,,s·· ·---------····· ·-t···p:i:i'S"SieVentuafiiiénŒ .... ôsûnas;sr!i{}f'prôpu@arê" t-e···!:~.r;sp-rre···re:s:r·· <Jiui=---·· .. l .......... · ·· --·····.c·-::d-nlëiiûte leg•ttiiiiC, riëll'âiiiliifrdrtîiîii 10!\ûiitiiiST<!îiiiliêà-êifOVôliïi:iVà. · f -··-·· ~---- --::;.:S-l---de1Të--noniieuiteffia2Ional iy-!i1 ___ ass .. ô1ufa .. ·soliliîufiîë ... ê ... qii:.i'rfâô···-sïa·--····-[ ····· · · · ···· ~ . . . t
~-··-:--~ f accertato che ü:f1ut1TgT!artriP"aesïs1nfie"ii"tq:>reViilëiîteï"una·cri 'èeï'sa -------·1-··--------..
............... -------- ·--soluzlone gmnâfëi"---·-~-~~-~~-··'-··-· .. --·w~-~---· ............ ~ .. --.... ·Î-· ·--~- ·-· · . '-. .._.) j' . . . . i
. ·--.. -. ----------- -------së,~ilifl• péro cO. iffilâlffiorito, iîiiC1le se 11"011 ïif'O "VofiliêâW:Tina··-l· · ·· ·· · · ··
·--------·-r--aa:esronë-ëofîsisfenfeM"" parre"<fullifaî.iffifftlcgî.üëiizi'arië .. uèg1fiïlttfStati~---·1·· · · ·· · ·- -- -·
<l ' ),
----~------l·---a1Yonentain~èmô-~dë1f:igTi.inspri.Tdënz<rî'tarfâWiçsqsoss!fafreiiTiarëï5l'ië-!a-··---·1- ·· -- ·-· · ----
) ..·--~---"i- quemîone-ô~ ancorà~àperta--êfSüSëêlûffi1edtsVî1Uppf~fU'ïürf;··çofue~--····+------------· 1 . i
j"--------~--L-i~icônoseiûtoanéhe~·â:a qtrëll'â:pâflë~ôêlnr'dottfina·~friDiiiliâ cnë·'ncl'îîâma. ---"-1~·---"-- ......
-----~. __ L;r,rr,na'éSlll\>!iZaarcam.ta;-miciiiillll!liiëii .. COiilîiü'îiië ·.cne; nnlteiSioile·-~ ·r-·
·-----.------J· .. aerl~tC'f:irted!CassâZ1oriësf·wi1!ignhr·q~ratë·ëonti'mi.î:tôaUa)5'fô1ezioné--·~---;---·-·----·­ ...,. .. ~ .. ~,nnolvit!iiF-Villîmli··a;-gravï-·v;ô10ZîOlii-âOt--propf!·amw-·-+···· ············
i ! ~----------,-ro·mraïnëi1fâlf;Tffgraâ5âîlnciâêre-posîl:ivanrènlè.surr~morzrunènto é!o---~---··------·
----~--------~-~mppoôï"""1enctënzr·à11K···11rl5gtêssîvâ·--erosrrrne . âër-~ pnï1ë1pîo_JI·_ -.-----~ . 1 '
·------------J"'"'""(fell"immmiîta; gi'à1n-atto-rïë11 amEJto rumaCotfüinitffttitërtiâiionale:·-·- - -- i ---
-----..,---~~- . . ······-·-----··-·-·1· --
1 !
1
!
i
i
45
i 6.2.1. Quanto alla approvazione, il 2 dicembre 2004, della
~~ ~ - -~ ~jctOiiVëniiollCOrNCViYOili; e VërO èhii~il1 talè CiirîVOiii,îOriCUOri è stàfâ ~ ~-·~ '~ ~ ~ -~~~ -~ ~~~ ~~
--------~-- j -lîitroèlüttàaTëunac!erogaiifPTir1rrJil!i.ila!1eTcaso-di violazioiii dei diritti - ·- ~-- ·- ----- - ----
-·------ ----·:r !.1r1-ianT,'1ï1a-Talë-arco:sranza-noiï-liss\îine-aTfaüo--ifsfgnTfîêatoairFmerife--
------· --~-----l---Chë-~-;r--r-espOJ1SablfeëlY1Ie vorfëbbë--altfili-U"iiglf.··-va··· p-eraltro subitO -· .. __ \.__- --- --·· .. --- ---·- -- -· 1 .
----~----------__) ____ _,.-- ..... ----- --- .. ··-····--,-.---------------'-·~- ----.. ---·-···-······ ,--- --------· -- ------··· --·· -~-----~---- ·-------------- --- -----
·-~ -- -r:~:on:he p:,et ;: ~::~~;;o;e;:n,;.,,:"::::: :::n:::::: --r -~~ ··~·· ~ ~ - ---------.----i -T~-ipj)éTrarïfe:-sô1o· nellaTonvenzione europea di Basilea dei 1976 -erâ-
-------·-- ;- espr-essamente--·canienuia;--a1ra-rc Jr:· -L-tn~i" -e·së1ï1sione·:-corlÇéî11èntë.1e · ·· --~-
'
1"
~---- ------ Tîïiünui1itàëi1pi1vi!egTa1cüfgoctcuoo ·statoconti-aenre-per Tëazionnï·· !
' '
-- --i-orriTsSToru def!e-sueTorze armàtë"sfiwafc-surTèrritoiio- di·-ui1-arfro--------~---· ·'- ----------- --
---- .. -. :4-~ato cm1trael11eorefat!veaif-esso;!TI:ila sùôëfëttàC:onVêniioné-aJ·- --"·--:,-----. -- --- --- --- ·-
~~ -~~~2---- i-- Basileae ï.ïnim1ïnemerite ritërülfa-di rriiruri1<ùifevai1za ino-rdinë-ànem.a ---- '--- ---- · -··--- · ---· ~~
-----; -Tn esar!iEÇfiî1ücTr3almenfeper--essëre stata rat!Iicatà-éla-p-ocllissü1:ù-SCà1T, ___ :-----·---· 1 . 1
------r-ITaTëïüalTnon·c"-èTTiaTüi. ·-- · - ~ -
1
----t------süUa tematlca dëUe attnlJta mîlitan e 5e1Iîe1ielaConvenziofie ____ ----<-- · --------- ---- ·
1
-~----·-----~dt New York, mvece, nulla dtce e se, m corïform11a:a:traô.lctûarazfone· ·-·:---------------------·-
-----------~reslifeiilë- dèrÇôiiifflitë\ speéfare slilië imrimnità, üJ.Ie siléüzi6-- -+--- -------- ···----- ! .
· ~~ 1 :ovesse essere rnlerpre!a!O n01sen50 CliO-eSse nOif«enm:iro ~5è1Carripo-. ---· -------·"--·--
·------------- 1 applicazJOne deŒ1 Convenz10ne, ciô-porreb15e so!oslgnîfiCare Ch.è ______ t __________ _ -------~ per tall aft1v1tr conflnuan-o·- ad ··a-pplîcarsi -le- regole ·del diritro ------ i- - ····------------
---:-------+u1teri1azJoiute -consueru<lïfïi'!iîo-;--sîa ·c-arf1î1erî menroam-prevîSîoneôe! ----1------------------ ~-- -------t--princlpl o dilla:î-mn1ii11Irnaà1Ta-gîuiîsâîZîëiï1tÇsïacon nfëïïmeYm'i·-a.na------r-------------------------
----------:-mdJVIdua.ZîOnel1i1îmîllùën~aso-mgrav1Vi:ôlâZioni dëi diritti unïànl. Üï ---- .. .l... .. - -- -- --- --
! ' i ----------~-quesro casr5~----m-·:mre-·p-a:role~----rr--'"'Ïafti5lmovo , costîtTii~d:atl~a--~----------
______ J_~--~----------------------------------------···-·~~--~.-····· ··------------ --- -· -1 ---- .. -. --
1
46 1
1
1
l
!
approvazione della Convenziqne di New York, sarebbe del lütto· f
--------·----~--~--~---ü1ilëvïmfé.1ti"Ofd1. nê--_at· Ti.aWJ_-} uz_ .._~ one·a:_ el pr?i5'!@1;f!_W_ .o}il!isti.on_·~:_·_· ........... --·----. --·· --·-t------. -- --------------··
-~--------·-:···--t~·-------------w-importiirït:!f1'in'igufififo tilëviifê-·ch'êla·-ccmvehzfooe-a:rNê\V .. ----t~~-------------------------
1 - 1 .
-------~~----~----·T···-vorR coffi1uiscirïr--püfifûararr1Y<rariUf1îfiigo··~- 'ti't'Vliilfiit<tpercorso~ · · ···r· -.. ·· ·---:-· · -· ·
·· ·· ·----··-· ---·-ra'e-naportiilOililll'iilO\iitiiiiîà2'rona~èasupe-rnë~rumenre·u --1------·······-· · · --· ~----------~--"·T-iS:fihëfpio---aei1a,--if}irrîüi1mCli5&eîmfiï;".Originâcfian1entë"BO.riaivfuo···aima··-·---j~---·---··-·····-----···-·
----------------···i·p1Tim1Tfà-Jêg11~n~·-·a----s~cê-êssi~;-.w-Eeniê-ï:lë!î111mitô'.ïn~·vrffif--ô~11à _______ ~--j------------·--···-·- ··-··-·
------~-- ----- -----l---&aèsJQrfct-arY-a'ï--sëmj:)k:Trer,~-611të' i'àüï1êr6 di statî· tfi1lZ1a1ii1ênllfBê1gia·· · ··-·r·-·· · ·- - · · · --
--~-----~---j--·~r1nïtiaTill · pfinëlpw·--·mma1ih111um &l_''n$fi'i:itta:~-sotto· quêsf6prrffi1ï5--·t·-w -- -·------.w--- · ··-
\ l
L~----~~r-TTmf16rtiüiza·--aëlnt··-cô1ivenzione···-risiifdK"·p:ift···é11ë·--1iër·pnnëJpi5 ---· · · · · i · ··· -· · -· ··· .....
, .. ------- - ·-~Làmi'mâronënrâî·Cs'(ëhê"'fiêônosc·e;Tfs ·gèi1'ëfâle. iroerîêJicilq;;er"gif- -- ·j-----·--· .. --- - -- · - . ) ; .:·------ --- ------;:::,: i -·-sraTi-dëTiaiT-rrnru11mr-grir-rŒdlzioifàTêf1avru'itlâltriliunâH"t:!èi~1f rufi1 ___ -~ · -- ... .... .... .. · ·
:· · ·-------~Œlij;lienaprevtl:îài!eéllplî<Îilildî<OOi fâl'CT(ns: F ti'êiîi' gtr SfriU non-··---~ · ·· · -· • ·-· •
-------~:~-=f-·!Jôï;·soii!nn-vocare rtmn''fünrta:·------------· ·---~---------- ··----·---------------~------------- · · ·· ! · · -------------l1
-----tt2-.----nt pattîc151areti:ité\llf'âl'>'ifàre-' ·arr1gmrrcro-rï3f1:--l2;--cne·· -- -t-~ ·· .. · --· -· · · - . . 1
---------------~:--t--éoâtfiëaïr"èrÜmô cOsÎâilèWôè1!a~·rafre.~è1ifi1lô!i;-- 'ieé6rl<toctii tmo [--- . . -- ---- --- ...
1 . . 1
---~-----------~r·srâm-- ·norc·pl:ïtr--·urvcrearêî'lrifmmïilâ:-·gturi'sâi'zioniâlë----aa.vântr "tr--t:iri ·--. -·- r ---·- ~-· · · -- ! l
----~---~---:-·wttmffalrrdi'1ïfl··a.~tro··s-râm--;-MHlJ1ëHffi:t'tf'ln··rü~t'é:na;·itr-u-o·r;·rotM!fl'ltinto---~--t--~-------
i !
---------------··t-·c6r1ë-ëi'tiëi1!î:ru:n··l!Ztonëï1'!YiJ:fa-ra-zfôîferpëëüJ1frui'f'Citi'·e-:Œn<:U'-d-eët!ssï:n.n1î -------·t
\ ' i . l .... L-~--~-~t-tês·toné'7'llell''lnregtîrâ.n~rnad1'-unâ~iSë"fsrui:,ç wür-ëastr'di"cl·:ü·mo: ·n--tll _____ ·· i -- ---------- ! "" . . ):! 1
-~----·-+-petl:tint'lu1îlt'··tl1i:rfé'~~O"flfôt~èlôvutl····zr·rur-àtt'lr··o··:a·nn:··omiss1m1r··--·-t--------- ---·-------···
i ' l
-;-------- ~~1--presuliîiDHiiiêrrteüttriurilbt!ëlil lo-stattY; · sëtite~ âttocn5rnls-I;!6Yü.~-·§f-snncr · ·--· ·--T-----------'-·--·· .. ·- 1 . j .
~~~= r~:.::::::::~:;:~;::;;:::~~:::.::::::=-t==-=~- ~ . 1 ---i-·niomentomc-ul'sl.eprcïd'ottt:H"a1'rool 'umts-s-i'6ne:-·· --------"---- ------------ ~
----------------------"·--~--------~--------~---------+--- .. -------·----------- i
47
· E' dari1evare in proposito che già nel1a senfertza delle Sezkmi
-- ~LiriTi.:e-n:··-so44noo4····ëra ·r::rës-o···rn--·cônsiifdîizionê-·!r-Progtttô-·(fc·------:-· ---~--~--
________ .. ________ Tcorivenz.ione ~ufFmiiiïïi~rutà gïurisdiziormle degli StaiT;cûnparticoTare·------l--------------·-
-------------- -·1·--.rireriiiÎènTo~f dfato~ârCf2eifa1fa opxnTone sèoondo cur''li"deroga·ar ..... ---i---·---·--------..
-----------+-prinCip[o derJ'ffumumta, statillita. dalTan-orniaTrTesàme~rfëOmprèn(fe·--f----- -------~- aifC!îiiTdàrtùi-.--'iiiiSiTôiililt'-.;-qüëllillé!Wiiiilfdifêata;iiOil-~iièlllii ~~----·····---- ----~---~-- -r·l\mîrdctfo·è--:-PàssassiiWo-pà1iti<:o;;:··ë-·';Ei--iHsirüiiôi!ë.tii .. âfH 'êomn1êss1·---·· ---- --~ .... -- ~----------
·--------·--------;-ï·urë-IiiijiiFTCë--:atl1_p_ost'l-inessere--iûre gesilonfS·:n-qn_· assume-·aiëili1~----- __ , _____ ..... -- ----- 1 . .
1 ------··-------r vafore'''!Tsp-etlo a11e prefese. rfsarëffor!ë'. onginiif~- -·da... laffenfatf ---- ;
---------------t-·a:rf'Tntêgrff,n1sféa~àCuna persona', ovvero:aaUiperi!ita·o-daiiiTesioile-------t . ------------------·-clrt1n fiel1e--,ë-orporâ1e"'·~:--------- -~------ -- -----· ·----- ·- --- --- --- --·'- :-- · · -- .. -· ------;--
.: ........ , --~ -~·-<-- ~-----·-----· ·7:r2:J.--I::-a:-c1rcoSfaüza cne! .-a!i:-1'2" sCpossa rifêrifê~ traTaffro;-·---" ~ ............ --- ---
--~-raT fil \•lùf:UïOiië"èféf"iiTfiltl ûiiiiii•i;"" reà!rzzatilnTPOiCSllülclië-diïfiiiifê""lO --. -· -- i
--------- --r·s\'O]gJmtmi:o--:--draülv"ffa-nl1lffiiiî': "è-'cêiifemfâfaTnoiRilifinŒITtfëofirrarnc·----·r··----·--·c··· .. ·-
··-·----·· ··-·-·-·-i--of5mTônë,purâîitofèvoië,oëi1'resiaërut:r<réTCO:mifàTôcilf7iôcïrrè·a-ntam·-------.
--------------- r- âi--?ëêl1gèré--·in:estô"'âëJ1a .. ConvëiiiîôiiëJ: .. âiiiifü~tô ... dallif f0fuiü1azione· ... j· ................ . ! i
·--------------------;-Ièllërn1eât::Jra-:ïionria;··ëriè~non prévëâë··umitazionrallif·su~rsfënl"or-·----'·:
1
ap_p.licaoï1ira;--61ffct·a--nüe1të--es·p-1k1üirnëntë t.fènfâmate:--2:·--stiifêî ·cdsl --~ -~- · "'1 '· • !
--~--: ··rnëva1a·miÇàT-:--ser1ru-·ae11T'ârF32~ de1IîiToliveriii6nè ar Viehifâ sur- - · -.................. .
-···-----·-------+--aïnrro-aer trattafi~-irdëoito·ai'lfivO:ri"iftëpiliiitôtte ànünliisibi!e soto· ·
i
· -~~----- ---j-- êfûa!ïdoTTnfêrprëfmoné;-ëir-ëftuàra impîêgru1dô' i câllôili'"&'ciil"àirart:- - - : -- · · · -
··, -----------i -·:n·-de1Tà-Slëssa~-Coovenzîone, ·ThsêTitil seflso â:fi115î gUo -6' osèu fti; ùppü'tê~-'-----; ----- ---
1 ------------~---r-conaifëe·--ad uri. risrt!fàlo nianifestamefifé'am0i"ftu6'-(f"irragiôtïëvdlë"' ----~-- -- ------- i .
-·-----~{Petianto, quruôf.i~-r--ret!atlor1· · -aëna·-ConvëfiziOn.e--àVêSs·ero vo!üfcï ---- :
·--'~~-fesCiüdere aaiTasferà at applfCaiione .. ë!ëll'afC"-lZ-n~ ·siftfazionr·-m-----~---------
1 ---------~·-1·-·----~----·-----~-·- .-................... -·-·--······ ............. ----' ........ · ·· ··--· ·-·-· -- .... -·· ~" «.w-•- • .......... · ••· · · 1 .
1
!
1
1
1
l
48
! ~:· 1. .~r ,.,.~,~~~~--:'-··~~ ...... ~~~~~·~;~,.;?:~:-~7"'-····..... " ".'"':'"":·:~x.;~:.:-~~·:~~:···~"~__,.....-~:~:.·;······:~--..-~ ..... ·~~~~,~~~-~···-... ···-~.-..,-. .... ___..~...,..-~..,._-
.·' :····
i
i
!
1
cmu1itto ru-mato, avrebbero dovuto dirlo espressamente). Tale 1
===-_:"ncl~îè·app:~;:~::::::':~:~~~-~èl;e~~l- . ~···~·~········~ t
~---------- .~,------~-----·----~ ........ ·-----------N1iz!onFUi1îttC(:lël-·:.raiëèmbrèï. :tOoir~stiHè~-imîiiiîi11ff --···-· f~ -------- -·--..... " -... -- l 1
-------------r----~-~ffffis3.i:Zfonan-creg,Jr··sraî:Ç'i'ooatfri··nn:-visra--·de1Tasiù1······-·r···· -- ------ -- · ·· · ....
-·-----------~~---------1··------~-----------·-approVàiT<>n:&-D.a ï:iartê····aênë···cân1ei:E·ved'er:anr·crar··--··r···-·-··-·--···-··- -·--·····-····
-------------------~----~--------~---nr-pâïtrn1ê:ô'!o· tciaernfëaëii!f'âlrarresfêif<relTli"SViîlern~--- -· T .. ""-··· ·----~-- · ·
.. !_'. ·····--·--j·· ......... îii .. cfiltîi·n··g,erinaio 20'07"(rat-m{)i1Q'-reso pübh!Ië6 ·- ·- --·----- 1 . . ~~
-~---·---- -----1-~---···------ -·-franïïtë iiill?hici)~--sï: Tè'füfê, -··côif'ïitt}rînïenm---at-·tëfuif" ·· ----··--- · ·- -----·· ... 1 ~ ·- . . --- ---~---- ·"'lwinnt~fifa··uêgli·sri:iJi-if"dii'iitrïféltTioi7Jo";· dië"'"pef ._, ·· .: ··, l . . !
-- :L.--------~-,--t---····"····-···---········,tog1i~e·'T'iïükitüiit1Cae1lirs-tarô esteréï· in 'i.iil'iiziohe·-- ·· ·- :------
l {
-<~-----·---~-r----. .. .. -.. -.----- -.-.... "ëiVi1ë: <iërî'Vàiifê~-·aa'Jesîorira!l"infègtit}'f" fisiëïi'. ar un a.--·... ~. .. ·- -· . -............. -. . . -
:. · --· --~...--- ·----------------·p-crsornr(foa a:rumraroënr,ra~·pr;ésënun~ôiWëîiz1oiië ___ ······1·---·· ·· · · ..... · · ·-----·--·· .... · ~1 . !
_____ :::._..,__~l-'-------------ëS~.ge -cne aûê"'tègai\·n ··têrritorrâif···siaucf ·rru:nîtr: rmm· · -·---~-- · ---·----· ··--·--- -
1 . ! -----·-· r--·----------·-aerfmfô'!;o"{(f'1'ofiiî31ii'ôîle)··deve··essérsrpi'ôdotTo''sùJ'·'•······r.
' ' -----~------ -- ! ......................... ----tëm'tMH:r-deJlo·--stàto··ael'forô· é. Pamot.ë· dèU'attf:fdevê' -----···;·· .............. . 1 . . . !
------ ·· ·· ·· -----·r---------~---------~-è~~'êre-·snno ·prëscnte:·st:rt~lelë'tl·tn'ff1o. nèl-mamenro wr· --· -l·-··----·-----· · · ·-- ·-
---- ·· ~ëutstt~:CofiïpîUTo--I'atrôtJ·tcYm!ssloù:;;r(ci?CJ2J:·E'iilgt":të ·· ··t· · --------- · - ,_ 1 . i
;;·-----------------·!··----~ ··- --~--~---1-e-g:a:n:H· spëëtût.i--ëi:fn~·u-Temtarfo·aello~--s œro··nél"fôro:····-· · +··· ----- - _! 1 1
-~~----------~----- ------------------------·---pl'!riegnrn1iarè1tq5'Mptl'â-tùmpèrenza1~;iu-r·i~mt1o-n11le'e····-··-··r··-
·--------------------- ·--------------------------·---ëptrfdffi"a;: --:a: na· ··J;r.<Jt!M:· ·ae-~-w· ·smrt~·ii'f ·--matëtlâ··-d ~--------j------·- ---............ ----- ' ----c_--------------r----- ---------~~m1tîm11t'à :· ·s1'lrat:Œ·$opratmtto··arëvi t~e ll1i--fêl1on'feifcr~· .. ---t·-·- · ..... ---- -· -·--· ·---· · ···
---~---------r- -~-----~-<~t'mrurn-"'"~'~'ili'g';-ctt•-,mptto•-proe.alm"'ff'-à"""il't--·-- -+---- -·-----··--. --.-- - act~·a.morira--Jâ--·ënl-lëgtutm:îrà:·appa:t"?f--dubbi~c ~:n::!'it · ·1ü ·------ -+ · · -- ··--··· · ·· · · · · · · --- ·-· · · ·--·· 1
. ------·1f5Varro:·mqJti1.f:Troppo~·utstat~tl~-ctat-ll!ljgo--·cte-w a.tto··i~:~---- __ l ____ -- ----- ··- ' r------~----------------------- ---~-~----~-----------. -~----------------- ----1···--.......... ------------·--·
1 . 1
49
1
1
j
1
1
questiône per riuscire a risolvere m'la·controversia in
·M·'"·---········Î·~·---~~---·---per1'éf(~~é0Jlt'l$'5erlifn~rcaus~lUitaVJa COJl'SèU{Î(Ô ......... +-·--···-·· ....... ,.
·--------···--t--------·--awëi.'Ietsi ~ie"!Ifiifhiie-esigêt1ia··norf"'s1ICifriropomonara ·· t·· · ·- ·--·---· ~---·---~-----·---~-m-c-asif-ar:ëântrov'êrs!eêorfcerhelitr·Vimazfôï'iigravi-----:----- · ·------ 1 . i
··----....... ~-----r' ---~-----~éTC!ir-rm·_mm'rromo:·. n1<r i::iiŒ!ffionë' ê·-.s:rarà·ega.:n31n.à1.~·c ----_
1
------··-----
·---------- ---------------------üal griïp-po·m-ravora-aena:·coran.inë·âf"ûëftërmitl'rutr-··-·· t .. --- ·· ·· · ·· ··· ·· · . !
----------·~--------------- se fosse oppofluno preveêlere ..... 1ffià--··âtsposi'ï1'ôh'<:l ........ l_ .. ___________
·· 1 . . . . '
"····------r---~----~specmcam gradoâ!neglifëTimrnunirâ-:-aëg1t'Statl'i!êl--·--··· ;·· · · · ·· · ·
~--------··1---.. ·----------···caso--df azîonTcivîlfconseciinvë·ïr·gra\'tvîOiâZîottr·del ______ }--~---- -----·· ·
.. ----------~---~----------~----aifittt-·de11"Tïo-nicr · perpefran~--mo-rr ·tk:IUï-suïnr üêt···· ··· ·t· ·· ··· ··· ··· ····-
··----· ·--· · ·----·-r··--------------m-ro. n-w-uppù !itîwmd rroil'·rm:--nmaviirTômHllrtTo· -----~---- •· ··-··· · ············
1 : .:;--··------.---------t·-'-----. --~. a!Etuîâ fflcctlîj$a:t'ü!~oJfe''éof'iëi'i'.'ü ·ttn:ïue;~ao· s-tnrso "~--Jl" -~--: · · · · · · ····· · · · · ··· --- ----
: ~-·. . ...:_ ______ p. roo. 51l!ih. Ià_·~'$!1fo_''11'ê'qï.tînâ.t'ffo1reo·n71fffinŒ~tfb~--a-tcâS.ltfl~. -1--- _________,~ , ------~· -'cuf·~·crrsi.S1'ônxrttmtrrrl:fü1si1i·!~nâltî'ittan~art:-f2:{~ortnr--~-;····- ·······-······ '----~ 1 • . '
l '
"-----------------~;-- --. --- --~-~-vvftlnë~ · s"t-nb~acltsëfè-;-nel·-· pt:ssdite·prl:lëë<.Htï-ren:ro:----· ·- .............. .
i . -~--------r------ retarrnnr'ftmt·-a'VIletluri-iiTTrali:a;-en;ompirrtilta-scrggettf --------~- -- -·-·· --· · · · ! ' 1 ~ i
~----·-l-·------~ne--sr-1:rova:vmm·--m--rta:lb:r-ru·-·mnrn:ent<11ietla·--------l·----··-----···· 1 .
------+~-------.....,.,écrrn'!.ntsstcrrre-d"E!-fatro);ma:-c-on--riguardo·;·invece;· ·;;l'Ile·---···
------------1-------......,---- 'V'ittltt"tît~:t:rf-dt!r~mri'tthrnrant-p-erp-e:trate-· fuori'de lT o"Statcr-,--~·· · j · ·· ·· ·· · · ·---·--·· ·-·· · ·
j : ----------··----\~- .. ---. ------d't!1~'~f!JN'5:---mlë·'--questi·oi1e---1"i?:m:··rtleva,--··tuttavin-;--·irr·---- --~··--· ·-----------
-------------·-- -------------cz.ttrermn--;-neU~ltti1 bitu-t!ef·--·ghrdiziù-·di--competenncdi----· .. · ·· r
.·'i,
·.
)
i
1 !
---~------- . 1 ~----------~-i~-~:~: C-OuHhlù .... :.:, ârt:;.la(O; ... ~~=~~~---. net ~~:~e ~!g11lllb~U> ____ ::~. -~~--~-~l.:~~-~-----~~:::t.~---~=-·····"-L C le q_Uiefl~~ tc::rmtrll_ 1 ... ~-·---- ·~--~---·----~· ----------:"--]-" ______ -- ---Tiâmi& se{5ô1ïà6""11"-(!ifitfcrTruërnaztlfrumrmnam'!ift-"fô;·e·· ···-!-· W- .• -·---····-··· ••• ••••
--····---·-·-·--·-··-· --~····arre····-nmiïi!a-· Tnrrapr<>s.>-:-ilaJœ·--rorze--amwré ····· +·-· ·· · · · .~ · · ·· · ·· ·· -----~-----·-r·----~----·.--·-.··----~nrul'anenipn:nenlo ufllëiaJëfaemnofênunziôru~Së-pey··---l-~------~----- ......... .
=+=-~:~:::::::;;:~:n::~=:::::,"!;: ~-1 ~=~~:.·== --------·---·~comunqutn5ptl1#tüno;·rormütnrèr Tiii~l"sï"fëëitic-:i·nserva,-- -·· -- ---- ···-··----
·$ ....... +-~---------·---ctcn5ô1'fféro'l)f1-·a·-é•orftrah'o:-la·-roîYâatêZ:iâëtrula·-u~sî"~----1 ~---- y --- --·~- •· .... ······-
. -,------~------seco1faa··cur--1 ~a-rr.-----,z;·-~ne1ra··----~yifc----rrorrat.â ___ · · · ·>j--· · --·-----------------· --
----:·----~---J·-···- ·-·-----~------Cffifïrëorrfprensiva~--m-fi'~ûiaooffifîrêiïâere-;Tfé1-p'fi>prl'6 ........ T------· · · · · ··-· ··· ·-····------
·-s-r------~-·amJJifll<l!ï'!lev-ruffii;-1Œêhêl<f1ftfïVifâ·ëomptrrreaane~-··r···········--- ·· ··· ··· ···
~ ----···-·-------~---rorzë"':ififi'~~~---~-------~----------~------- ·--- ---------1·----------------·····--------------
..... o-:2XË"'Staro prô.speffi'it'o1'i11lo11rmauînluboî<:nmna possîbtlir?r ·· - --t··--·--------------------·
·· ···--~---- --·atltèl>rui:;t-:e-t'ë---effe1tt~.ïtrtvr---rur"trrt:-12"·--ç1tàlo~-----qua1e--··nortffa~-~--·· ~~~----
. . . 1 -rl'!'ïp~:r~wpnvvenmacn--e-st11ppltc'fra1i.chë-a:tle·sittïaZiont:glm'tè!1elïe-·---·-,-----------·-·· ··
~--~-~~~ri~~t&~~tt~-~~~trc~~~~-~------ ·-------
~---·--··--·f----ceonverrtmnl3~:he-;·---p-er··I~espressa··--previsiu.n-e---ctffli '-a-rt.-4;--rro-n·-h:r--·-i--~--'---------------- . . 1 1
L----·-r----e-mt:aci:rrerro<rttiw)-:--------·-------------------·-------------"--'--'--~--------------· ----·-··1------------------·------
1 . 1 -------------·[- Laprevisimre~s-pttctnrdtirretroattivittcpuo--rutta:vin:tmt:emerrr ······--r·-·· w··-----~-~-----. ·-. -
---·----~--ll ___ snitann:rl-e-1iis!romzfm1i:itmavrttivtr"della·-eunverrzimre--e-11tnrque-ne·iu---,..---f·-·------····----------
• • 1
--~---·----~--- -crrtv:fmr~t11J5~errœnwc1Jl:ittkato-urrprincipür-pree-sistente-ro-diritru-·-~--------------·--··--··· ----
:
~-----·-- -imemaziunrue·--conmretudinmto:-··Irr---propo-si:ta·-eed-·nnche serrza--t:r--..:.·j------·-·--·---------- . 1
--.. ·- ···Mœssltln!hiohianmw·tt?r«amb<>l<rdetla·Cnnven:<lone·m-NevrYm:-... i -~--
==-~-t s~:~ eut îe~egot~~~et·-~::~~~rn:~~~::ons:~dinur~---- =~~~~=~= i
!
1
51
contiriuano ad applicarsi alle questioni non disciplinate dalla
Coii.veiizionë)-vâ-rlfevatô ~~hè ;r·p-nndpio de! joï-uin comnÏissi delicti,
1 -· .. - _· __ _
~- ·pr!rnà ancora ct1 essere~sa:Ocitci ail' art. TT deif.i Co1wenzioiteln esame,
-- -,-- giudizlaile:nori--serri1)ra "affaB.o" ·arbîtrado: riteiiàc qûindr· che {ale
i ---:-rnncîpiü-Sia ___ âà--ë·aniil:lerm:e--·-vliienfè, --s!a -aiitecedèi•tërrié-r1te · -che-
--------- - -------: poSl:ei-forn1e-nfe--ana· C"ônvëiliioi:lë di New York ( oltre che per glî 1
----------- ----·:·iî1f61ft1ni-·aa-inc1ê!ente str~adâfe,·e pe-rî""ë~t.Sil1ioïrifcidio politico) peri
---- ·-~--casi;·al-regola lJei!più-gravÇa:raeëësso 0 di lésîonë all'intêgrita fi sica
-------·-- -- . ! origiiïaii âi:ïa1Ti-6ëfomi"ssionfcost!tlièntT gravivlolaz!oiiiôdk!1om1e iri
--·-_l tema-CilcllriTio miïâniTano-beJTîé·o-owerô-oitu:tëfa d"è!dinlii î.in1anl: - - - ' . !
~ i . " ~~ ~~::e:::::l::: :~~~::~;ë~'a:O:ell:lp:.cl!~apf:;:;:::::l:,~; .... n •
·::-:=::;r-=- 1
---------·-··r··aomaùüà {come-·affèir!ato a nene-dalla. Corte di. Cassazione riel1a sent
1
----- --~n-:-5G4472DD4): ne! casa al.s-pec1ensUJfuclie-1ë p~1rlîC!viF,ïnlërés·safë
--.--------t--anaëifà.zü5i1é- derresp6i1Sa5î1e cïviJe, "si sono costituite, nella fase
i . 1
··-···----·--;aélrüdïenza preiin1ïriài'e;ali'iidfenza de115 giHgi16 2005~ --- -- · !
i - --------~-------A---cohTêi'ffü1-êfelrïmpoi1ruiza· ·crer -en têrîo -- ar-·co1fëgarnèn1o --- -. --·
· ------1-oasarusül loclisicommzsszdelzcfl puo-essere ficëfrdato;ad esempio, che
-------· ----~ (antefionnen1ea1laTonnu!anorie;m- parEJcotarewopera de11o"STatüto ___ T ________ _ ' 1 ·--n----1-a:effa----cofte penale mtemaz1i5naTh~dflli1nfmriêipio-aiï1i:livëfsalî1à};a:i--··--;----------- --------
1 .
1 sens1 dell' art 5 a.erra-mîaraZfëïne adi5ftatatïa1T'"Assem51eage!i."ëï'a1é ___ ------ - .. - -- -
1
-----------!.,.I·Tellël''1azioliiTTi1üe con Ris. N. 3074 der Jdfê-ëmorin97T~'1éqiersoné·-- . i ' ' ' . 1
--~ acanco'creriequa11ësîSfol.1-0.provê-cne"âîm6"sffajjo""" i:Jïe···esse·· l'fanncf -----· ---- --- ·--------------·.
1 1
---·· --- T coiiunesso cnfii1fîî.Cii·-guerrae· crirrii!lî"dïnli'oTürnai"iîta:·aeboono essere- --- :· ----- -~~ ~ ~ r~~~~ -
... ~~ -
.... ~ -- -- ~--~-~-- ........ ~~~- . ·~~ ~ ···~ ~····
1
. !
i
!
52
-~---------~ ·-----------~---- ~---
1
' i sottopôSte a giudizio e; se sono riconosciute colpevoli, ptmite, i;u Hnea
------~-~-~-tïln,..,.m,co-erpae;e Tiï<l•rîiiïîîiïaOoO."iiiiiiSO-t.iC<i:Jm!nTAr - -- -- ··· -~---- ----- ----'--·-··-----~ ngu-ardo, ·g-rrSTiiti~ coôiiüâno-liâ-cilloio --Iii iütto 'if& .. ëiîê--ëôijêêri~e- ...... -- :--------........ ----p---..
-· ·· -- ----~~l'esU.illZionëlllifëlte Pii:ûiliO'é. ·· "-~--- ··-· --- - · -· ·· ··--· ··· - ' .. ·· -·~··-·-·!·- -~~·~ ~-·- ·-- .. --------··t··-----------··p·è-r-ëîô-·a1é-'èoi1èëi11e !aç<;;Œpëùiz1ënë1îin1ai'ënicti-·è-sù1lèHitoéïë---- ·-:--~- ---------- ·- ·
/ l -------- ~---r--âncfïëTarC~OiîiïU:i·2·:·aerrrï·orocolkïA.ïigiü'iiHvo alféT:oilvciiiiioür· ----··r --- ---·-- ···------ -·
--------r--··ar-ameviâ,---stâl5!!Tsce···a1e '!iLA1te F~ùif' côn1iiênt:i-rrpi:eliiieraJmo 'îi1 -- ·---j -- -·----- - --
--~---------1 aeoifâ--ëèmsidêriizfon:ê:!a--iiêliîësti ctëllo Sthl<:i"suJ aïi 'tùritorh) è- -r· ·----------1-iivt'eiiutaPTnfrai@ni?'~-------"---···--·--·------·-·-- ·· ......... , .................................... J ........ .
--· -. - ~~-- ----·- TI'iillëO"'düîtO;iW!· CiiST ·espliëffOij)tîii!é[>ièViiifi!i. dèii>iiif" ar-· -.J .. . -; } : ' ' 1 -,------~~--S.ct----rnnëi]Jrcï--aëlra-1n1n1uruf$Caar.f· glunsafz!Oiiè~--agir-artf.- nr-ss ae!r:a--······· ( -· ···· -------····--··
F·: : ::-..:=:s-l·-convenziorië'(J'[NeWYîfrli: <nn g&l<iièf>rotoSii·unâëiiiTrilâiiOri'é" m1a --J · -· · - ··· · !---~-escl us1one · :aëTI''!illifi'i:mitir·~è--"Ta~~c;:i?Côstiiiii:î~ërîê~Toggêffo··· ···de!lf ··· ·----i -·
......... -~. -----~--r· cr5ï11rfNè!;s1a"·&nr1~gâloaniiiTîTonëï'dëUCi·sra:fo·aertoro{éTr:·ïia-·e-s·::·arL··-- ·----·-r·---------·-·-·---·-··--···
~~-............ ~--T-c'--TT~-ïi1-oi:atrîê-ai pi;oceâlmëiitï-ëoôëërüëiîfi .. ôonlr11ff1-anavai·o.·rrrcür·e···---·-r··--·--------.·····--···-
------ --------------~r·--~1aJ:te -Œ1o-sŒro:·-r-er· · presm:.W:inTa!i"êS:êgïifrsi; ITf'tffittr·a·riq~nme,· ner··--· 1· -· ... · ·· · --~- ·· ·. · · ·
=~~±~~:~~==== • 1
----···------- ------,rë-fègoRt .. ëoâifiëafe---nena--coï1v:ëiizlô1ie----drl'few -·Toi'k~---- ····· ······ ······
·----~------l-co:rifêfi1'î~fio"qlïfiilif,---ë:ontranamente a-qüanro····n'fië~'iê _1 ... âppë11aiîrè·-~ ---- ---------------------- ··
Î i . ~-·_---------1_ ··rëspôW!iili11'ë-·ct\fne;:-lircorr.·êu. ë.zzaaëmcd. ·e-êis-ionë·atr gf.Œi:1iëe_~-a.rpnino· ...... f .. ~· -------·-... ··-.·~:l·-------'--+·-g_:raaostfljruriîô':Afîcnê'êorri1TèT·inYêntë>"alla-disciplîî'l~cmcuîa1r:-art.Tr,--+------------ l ' . . l
-~-----------r-c!-ie--rêce·pisceT,..ësistehüiaïtuilfrnrttnma--opposîZio-nëdêl.rinirrruffira-,--·--+··········--------·· ·---
___________ ,._______/-- ·purë-ne y-casoïii .. grâ v t "viôlaz-iohi (J êT'i.1ififti\i'ii'fàili;1nà pürcnëT"azlorYë- --~------------- ....... ·-.
i ' '
--------------r"'Sla!mentàtâ-presso·-grtofgaïl:tg!üCJiZîân-aelTostzmn-n--cüt'ê aWëïflit[r1a·---· · ··)· .......... ----··--· .. · ··-· · -
----------------r~------------------~----------------------------------~---·------------------------r----- ----------·-··
1 !
i
53
................ -.~~ .......... ~~ ... ~.,.---··--------.....,.,--
• .. ' ..... <·_,· ..•
i violazione, puà rilenersi fondata l'affemwzione secondo cui "ii regime
1
------------ 1 mstamato dalla L.Oiwênzwne -ae1fe-1Tazîüm---uiiüë-sulle ·1mrrfühifâ __ _
1
------ -· -~~------- t_ giuriScfïzJOnàJ1Œeg~'TIITfeaeî1oro ·oenirTësceàstarmTiTlTïYequuitirio·- · ·
1 . --------------l--s-oa-crrsTacente-trâ_T,_ë-sTgenza-crr-pï=oteziorrë -îiei soggëtti -m-ilirî1to-e ·1 e- --r --
-------- ---~---t--pl'ero-ga1!\Te--Cf("f16tei:e-pï.i1Jo1icocJie sm'lcf a pp afillaggîëi- d ê l rô-Xfa tà e 1 -----------------1 devono nmanere 115ere-aa-quals!àSîlnreYfei'enza dei tiibùnalt-esreti" --------
·· ----------- ~- lcrr:-, -ancora; n·cifafo-Râppôito\5spTicaTiVo--de1-mpart1Inen1o- feôeràle· ------>-·
---------- _ .. ___ icregJ.!iirranesteriSVîzzerof.- -- ··-
------- --~----- /. L Sostienô 1'apj5êiTanle; aflëora; che il didtto ·a! Tisarcîf11ënfo-
---- ---- ~-·cr er damïünêinpë5ssa-essere-mai_ê_onfigiiratêïcome tn'iposto--d:rn:orm:e· dt --- ,
• u-~ :·u~~~-p=p~sî=~ohsidef:to c~:I:::Olig~ periTCo1péVOie<lîün- ···~ • ... ·
--- -~--=-+·--re-ara ëli îlsarcîre1n15Iilir5"cagî0nato ~iln1\fi ttirr1 a ( ovvero -ai-süüi a ven ti
-rfsatcito, oltte al tlanrt<Ypatrimoniale, &'iche ii danno non· patrimoniale,
! -Ëcquellü--previstoperîltearo- (ài·:~e-nsi-dell'art:294Î; cùmma 3, codice
!
·· -'----c-iv11e; seconda cui "in ogni caso, se il fatto è cDnsiderato dalla legge
f
-- -------T cum-ere::l:toe-p-et-llrenm è"'stal5i1ita umrprescriziorre più lunga, questa·si
-- ----- -- -- ---- -fappt\ca anëlïe--àil'a:ztDTJ:e--crvil-e"': rtet caso di sp-ecie, trattandosi di reato
! ----------------~irilptësërilti'!Jite-;-::~ëëondcrla-'leggeitaliarta anche l'azione·civi!e norTpuà
-------- !-prescr!vers-it __________________________ -- ·-- - ----- ---
i
--------f-------------st---e--tnc:rh:te ril evmo--cre-îi--Msarc1mentri- ctet-danno da reato
-------+--pôs-sieâe--urc1ndub1Jtü·caratren:~--aff1ittivo e non e· priv~-di- rif1essi- --- ···- - - · 1 .
i ----· ----.--.. -·-------,-----· --------- . -----
1
54
--- ~-----------------
pubblicisrici (cfr. ad es. mit. 62 n.6 e 165 c.p.): cià trova unü ::dcura
-~~nf~l~~~a-n,;Ùa 'r)rev!s!Ône (ari ... :ffctefd. !gs.'28 agosto 2000, n. 274),
·--·-·--·----1-----·----·-··· ----- -···-·--··-···-·····--···-·-·- ··---.-- ----- - ........... _....... .... ... ........ . - 1 seconda cuî, per i reati di competenza del giudice di pace, puà essere
---· r dichiar~üa. l 'esÜnziOJ1e del rëato "quando l'impÜtato diri-ïosfra di a ver
-------~-L----·- ···- ---------·------- .. ·----,- .... -~ ··-----~ -~- -· -. .,.~ .. . ... ·- ! proceduto, prima deU'udienza di comparizione, alla riparazione del
··------ -_J_:_éll_~-~~gi~Î~~~~-daireato, -~e&a1~te !e r~~ti.tui~o-~i ~ ~r~-i~arciwento~ ~ __ _
j cli aver climinato conseguenze dannose o pericolose del reato". In
1
·--. -·· -- detfJ1!tfva:-·seco.i1d~)-·Ia.d.1s.cTpïfria v1gentë,-poidié la sanzione penale non
ha· di për se natma riparatoria, Tà -tuië!a della vittima dei reati è
assic~ra~'l-daTia--fegge . -aüci1é-l11ë<Hânte una clisdpliliâ ... ddri:i
··-·------~--------1-----·------------ ·----··-·····-~- -···--------------·------· ·-·~··--·-·-··- . ··- ·'- .. --··· ..... ,,
· 1 responsabi!ità cîvile che si distacca per aspetti non secondan dàlla
·------~-_3i~o!m-ativaë-ivilèordlniina~-rëfàih;a aÏ la responsab1iità per fah'o i1Jeèlio.
=::. i
.. ;----~ ·-----Quësto.per.c:liS"èhë conceïïlë'!îd1riTt01rùeù1Ô:-QuâTito- al d1riùo .: --......-.:
·: ... _~;_c:>-·~·----·····----------- ·- ----·-· ·- -··-·-.... ·-··· ............... - ..... .. ... ...... . .. . . ····-··· · intemaziorwle va rilevato anzitutto che, ai sensi dell'art 3 della lV
......... ~--···! Corivenzimïe detF~\jactên~-oftol11:e-T90'7;-,·'La-Parte-i)êl!1gerante cEe---····-
i
-------· -: violasse le disposizio11rderd'ctfc3-.R.egoTamenfosarà tenüta,··se"del êaso,
----------1----------------------------···-········-------~· -~- ~- .. 1 a pagare una indermità. Essa sarà responsabile df futtf gTfàttTëûiiü11ess1-
.. ____ ----; dallepersôiië.appiuteÏ1enti alle propi.:1e.Toiz.e-·a1T!Jatë;,.. Noù ·al)pare ·;iJ .
i '
··-. --lr!guarifo-·11so!utivo,- considerato-·····rrconteiiuio-ob{êffi\lo .... della ···-- '.
1 ;
1
--------- -------T'd1sposizione, far notarecll-ëTa· resp<msabifiTh-aCi.!Tïillorâ-ërsrï:!reriva·~-.!---- i !
-====~ =n~~:::~e~~c_::~e~a C&ë=il ~~: îài V~ ère-sui pia_n~ _ __.
-- -----··---r--·--L'arC75 dello Statuto Jè1raCorte.pëna!e1ntemaz1onaTëî1a··pof···---!---
' 1 Pi ëViSiO ChOïa corte: >ta5iHice·rprmapi àPPiiëaiili a f6Jlne- di r
/
1
riparazione come la -r:est!tuz!Orië:-Tmëlennizio-ëi·Ta--nabiiTtazTor!rilfa--·r·- ·
i
------------1-------· ---------------------··----------' ------.-.................. ,_ ......... .
1
1
55
i
·-----~------······----··---------
concedere alle vittime o ai lora aventi di:ritto; puà emanare contra una
------------------·----- ------------·· -- --· -· -'-- ---------.-. ------------ r persona condannafa un'ordinanza che indica la riparazione dovuta alle
1 . . .
--------r·vltti1T'ïê--o--i3Cîoro--avêï1tTC!Tntto."_Aî_l{gîiardà-, nulfa-·consente nté1lëre ____ ---r~-
i
1
--~ ---- -----~ ~~Che 11-dJrltto---creHe --vlftime --all~-rncre;mrzz-o--·-sla·--sur;orcthlato a1Trni ti---·-- T ·- · ·
------------1 ulteriori 0 diversr,-lliresemp1ü' in tema di pi:ésci1z1one~-Cia'qù"eiira;e·----l
--------=-~ c-oncëffiüî10 ï-, azion~en~le ~:~ 1~t~t~~ prodLi-tt~v~~i-:_s_~o~sab~~~à~:fi-. -____ •
----- -- --- 1 anche Convenzione di New York dellO dicembre 1984- Convenzione
--- ·; -c~nTro -ra-Tortura eartre--pene-·a--tiaffai-r1eiï.fl-ëniëfé1C 1rii.'iii1ani ü
---- -------i(fcgiaëEintT--=--ra1Tr-crafPTialia(:cïn_T. __ Ynl)verrilirë19&(n: 489, art. 13,-- 1
--~--- -----r--secoi1ëlo cùi ogril-Stàf.o-Parté.garantisë·e-aiiognl--pëi-sona êhepl~ëtenda----;--··
---- ----~Tf esseresiata sottoposta alla tortura -su. guaïs1asrt:eiirt~111ü_s_üttüposto aua .
.-----~ jsuagrur1sct1Z1onC,T!'"diritfo--i:f1sporgere dërninc1à C!avantfafJëï aûtoi!ta ------ i - ~ l [
~-- .. --.·:.::::2-s-L competenü Cf1-aetto---Stato;-âiT 14;--secoi:îâo ____ c\ii-ognT-Stafo--Parte-- .. --1
-i
-- ----- -à!rTtro--ai-ofterîere--nparaz1oï1 e e ch es sere -ertumilen te marc ïfo-·e-a--in- ---- ~ --
-----t--T11a-n1eJ~a-adeguata, mcilisl'l-meziln-ecèss2..ri alla si:ù! rfa1i11itazwne p1ù --· ~ --- 1 •
1
1 r
------· --·-l·-ëonip reta-pOsstlJTre:liieasomiiloifê--aerla VTftii!iii ~-rrsü nante-daun-att"i5-~ · · ··~~--- -· ~
····~~····· ·=r:,~ar::~:o )gl~ ~Vell''. ~:âus a .di ijUOil'uJ!iina .h~nn"._d i>~ttl> •. al ...... : ..
·---------+------TI!rëëëore·; mome~"'T'A:Ssemble,1generare-·de!r~-r:ré~wm "Lirufë;-· 1
----------r-con--Ta~ns-ofïiZione-aer 2/i11arzo ·zoo6· ("Basic · Prrncrpres ·-aiic7- --- i --- 1
1
--_._---- ---:-(}ù!delinë~~ on--the RigliTtoa-ffenieCly and H..epùra7iônfiû~VzaTm:i-cif~
1
------ -r--Gr:a:~s--nolatlo7Ts()_J lnternat1 onaTHiiinan-Rrglit!,.-r-a.,:;; -cïnzrseaoùs--
-- - -------!Violations ciilnternationaT71un1an1Ta!:Tiiii--üiw');-n.a-ës·ortato g!ï Stati 1
1
t aa attnoiïlreuù--rimë-ct1o- errettivo allë '~>itt:iii=te-crr-g=ra-Vi--~;~61azïoru der---~- 1 1
1 •
----·-------------· -r-----~--------- ---·-------------------------- -----~-- ------------- .. ----.- -- - ____ _, ___ . --
1
56
', ~-··
________ ... -· d~~~tti_ dell'uomo, in pa.rt[colare 1-·n .. vitando a lico~10S~-er·e----~lle--~-~~~:~~--~~------L--____ _
. [ëffi·itto di accesso ad un tribuna!e. · · 1
--------~-- -- .J __ ---~---~Ne~ casÔ 'd!-~pecfen.oriap-paredUbbia, -1noltre, la-rÏe~es~~~---: ..... J. _______ _ --------~-- 1 di riconoscere il caratterc di ius cogens (qua!e definito ail'art. 53 della i
_:_ __________
1 Convenzione &Vienna sul diritto deT trattati del 1969) alle norme che f-- ·-·-··--
------------r-qu a !iii-cano--sotto-lTpromo-peri ale fatti co-më-queÏllper--.::m è r;r-c;œ-s·s-é-;:----T------
-----------r--ë~-a-rcoiise :gu-ëîii'ii;·a-quëflë,-connêssë; Cï1eTn1ror1-g:üï1o:nëiiCsrëssrë-iis1~-------r----- --
-- - -- --. ----r·--yobb!Igo --dT--rîs.iircire i1 d~ù1iïê1 patr1moniâ1ë. ë :-non--pi•t:i:irnoï1l'afë--- --- :
-- -----------f--_;·--~-------r--r----·--· -----·--------------- ...... .)_ ........ cag!Onato alle v1tt1me. · · i
f . c (di.. ,. ______ :_ __________ _
· ----~---- V anno al ngua.rdo--richîlliriate ri1oltcpi_i61 -~~~ne-----~~r~~o --~---- __
~~~::~:~~~~::;--1~~ ;---:oc~--geliëralë-gJa pl:eêe~àënfëmeiite eSîsterite:------~---- ---------- . ·1
5=] ~ - ~- ariziiutto lo stesso artllmfèTCOîli<iêpéîiàlëliiilltue ct,--~~---~
__ l______ guërra derT9"4T(!ndlcatD'ne1T'1iiij:1i1üiZîonè)~1)-rèvedeil · ----~
~- -----~
1 . -----::,":~:;:~~~:":~~:,~.:ot::;en~;;;:;::;~ .
=:~~== 1
-----------~ ~-------------·neirambJto del L1oro11r,'Tîfë.)l{J"1Yc:-p.n1.g,-"JJet reat1 ---~ ,------- , 1
-- --------;-----------------~ ~contù:J leneggfei?Ifusfâella guen-a'" (nelia Relazione-----f- ·---
-----r------- a! ProgetfopreTîmiï'iare· di tàle cod1ce sï ·os'servache let ... --)------·
----------------------r---- -'ë)miinsslone ntennë opportuno "msemê-neTprü.geffo·------r---
1
, !
\----------------- -- -- -del cëièficeoëffico uri tn.oTc)'specfa1e'5llnë!violazJOÜÏ ___ ; -------·
·c-'1 _______ ~ cô'fltrolê legg=ïe-g11"usi della guerra pér modo' cfa------~------------ . i
~---. ---------~ creare anchë'j3'f!f--qüestadelJCata eà1iiïpoi1ameïiiatefîa _____ -~---
==-
. i = -------u":?iSfC:~ Or~fuûéo ai~i~EiO--pêliSfe~ mtlîfa~j~~
1 i
1
57
-.-----------
i ! .-
___ 1 _[ ___________ _
internazionale, armonizzato ai prindpi generaU dei
- didtto défie gerùi", ês-sendo-ii1diib-bio chë ."attraverso
-rntëi-11azioi:-iale, si vada alla ricerca- di mezzi atti acl
----r·· ----------------âsslcu-fare-TosservanZ:ci- èëlre ·sâë~i:ê, r!aturaH lerû~i di- -- T
------------- -i - ---- ' -- ---------1----------- --------------------------- \------ ----- ------- -----
1 \
- -------------~-----------:: -------- f'arf:---4() --··aer· Kègolàrrienfo - ·anegafô --alla - IV
--------- --~-----,------ ----- -----convenzicine dell' Aja del 1.8 ottobre 1907 (sulle 1
------, --- - -----------ure,g;m---e--usi ____ â.ëTia- ·gu-er-ra-·· Terrestt:C'T -iJ'rëvëde, -- 1 çb'
1
-----(:7 - -- i" -- - - - nell'ambito--dëifa -géiioîie III '{refà11va-allâ-''Aüforità-
S' -- -- - ___ l" ____________ mîTJtare -suT -1ci=-ritorio -dello -Statcî- nemiêo") che
~
" - 1
----~-1 _ _____;~ 1
-- --;-----------j--1
-----~ ________ l _________ _ 1
1 --------t-------- essere --·nspettaTI'":""-A.T !'fgï.iardo-- è- · pa1·1-n1portante
1
_____ ._______ J ______________ nëordare-ëh-ê--;-nellii sentenza pronünëlataâ9TYrîmïùalë- --- - 1 ·
------------ ---~ ---- -di-Nünii1oërgà-i1-msellè1nhi~-T92Hi-;-s1afŒrma-ëlie·re·- ··-----
i -----------r------------·--------ccrego~.stablhte da1Ta· Coiî.veùzloùe-aew AJaâeTrs··----, ·
' i
--~-~-------T·--------------------ouoo:ren-or,telativa atrè 1egg-1 e·-a.g,1tus-r oeHâ guen--a ___ - 1
----
-~-- -·--+-------------- ----- ·· tërréstre; èfa11o !icoi1oscîù1e ·ëa-aëcettilfe-âiCfütte le··------ -
-- ·---·----~---+--------------·-nazro-riî-é1VIJ.'l,""ai.fcof pnma -de111nîiï6-·creT cëïfïl1îŒ5,"i~d-- --- -
=~~~~===avrnnoquma;-assunroramrz:o e1rvarore-ar ,,on;,e- •
1 consueTuâffiane (cfr. Corte cass., sez. rn1. civ., sent n. ---- ·· 1 . '
~- -- ---~ 5044104 cJt., prg. U .. ). ________ _) __
1
58
----.-----.... - -------------
!
1
1
1
i
l'art. 28 della ''Legge di guerra" italiana, approvata !
--~~-----·-.;t _____ ._ con-f:â:-s-1iiglio191~n:-t415","pï"eveii~~ëi\~=~-·rn··(ii.mn:rif"·--·-·!:··------- ...... -·- ---. -·-..
---· ---------·--· --- · ~------······""·"~~-·-·····tr1ëggeni5în'îispoWga.··a1ü1mcmt;··t·ln:t•àti··ën-e· Yi on···"'·· ·j· ·· ·· · ........ --· ·· ·· ·-----· -------------·· ---~-~---~ ·--------------- coi1lptà1!151i'l:tldf~ost1l'ita;-~Tncotchê -s;i~trti'ifh1ô. at:segnttd--·-·· ·-r· -· · · ---· ·-- -··-· · ·
"""w· ---,~----·-· r···---·--....................... âe!Jë.~:fôf<-~e arti'ràte·~::~-Ûê\i'ô'f1o'é~Séfer·'!'îf'OH5tri ... ·pt;r·· .. -~~t"-· .. -~--- .... _. --··· ..... ·- ) 1
.... ··----~---- j-·-----··-~-----------·····ï:j'UMm··---t:,ji·iëërfH:r--·ta:·--·sitUFêzt~r--d~nl1- .. persnna;'··--··--j--· ..·- .............. .
....... -.. -.-... ~--j-------~-·rb~tt)l•n!5il!fà~--dë!lîr···~mfitiërff-- ·tr··jl····}:;o-dhll~nta· ·e ....•.. j .......... --·--- ······ · · ··· . - - - - r r ~ - ,
!
--··-----·--------~----------------··"·'·""~S:taŒtfrdët·''1'li.Ot!tl!tlcr'ti1iliŒ'\\'fimtmaziotmle:'!'1er la···---
.- • i' . . j . . '
·:·-----------~-----··--··----c·---·--'f1'ütri':i.Jone·dm-gi"J!ni:lt-ertm:inaWctt-guena"qetle·PotellZe--~~·;··-·
: 1 . . i ____ , ___ --~ __:_;-l-·v . ._._ ·--···----------:'d~U .... As~e~~--~Hëg:m_,- -uH~:A:c:-co-rda --ut~· Lot)dra··--deî l' s- -·-.- i
..:---------------- --~ -----------·~ig'\3st<:r-l!l45·-~u--ctü~-pti11ctpl·s6î'îtr-·statt··confermati··---- ·!· --- ~ ! ·--- -----~ ------··"'"·~---~LlaWJ\s-s~mb'letr--ge-.tïerate--de'Htr·Nat:ior.f-tJtüre·-cM·-!a---·---·y··· ·-·-··----·--·
.,_ ·--~ t
-- - --- ··· --- __d... --~--------------·<·---·----'!'I~ùflZtan_i5--li:---94~-d~U'-t1·-·tt!èëtrihr~r--J94'6)~ prevcde-···--~----------------------------.-
1 . . . . l --- ---------+------~--------·-com-e--·crin1Ü1tr!it·-guemrt'omi·ctctü:r·vatomari6·del!e·····--·---r-------~----- -·-----
----------- L-~-----~----p~po-htzioni-- ci viii -dei --territ~ti - Oocu_patf- -e;- -co~e -----1 - -- · ·
----- ----- ---------1-------------- · -·--···cnmnre--contro--··J·'::mntmtà;--J•omrcnho·---vo1ont:mo~ · -- --+ · ·· -·-- ·--··---
1 . i
. ·. . - 1 ~ • ~ } r------ --~-----···---------····--uvvera--'!u-memmrrcr,---cummes-sr-n-dmmo-di---tm-a·-----~---- ----~ ------
-'" ~------------·qutrlsiastpopnrnzione··civ-1le;·-----·--~--~ ----·-w-~· -~~-~-------------·· ----~-.-- · .... --·---·- ·· ·· -. --.---.
-~·--·- -----::-----~1'-art:·-ss--del- r-·Protocotlo·'~ggiuntivo a:;le C,anvenzioni·------~--- -·-·-·--· - --. ·-- --·· ..
-------------- -----·-----.-------·di·--·t:Jinevra-···qurrlifica:---cnme·--rnfrazrone·--·grave-·-(e:·------t-- ..-----------·---·· -
------------·---·----r------------------p-ertantcç ·"crirnine·ùf-·-grrerra'~-secondo· Ju·definiziorre· ----- -l- ... ---- -.. ·· · .. --- · · ··--·--.. ·· ! . ..... . . )
( :·
-~---c-------{1
-----------w--1-ttenut_a-_ ·-a:lt'ulttmo-_ "Comm-a----ct-·_ello __ :·· s1-:e-sscJ-_a-rtic-o ln-Yi J·------· -~ ---------........ -.... -.--.- ..
--------- --------·--~-''tà.Yë"'tl~Z::ttuùratta·cctr··ta·-popotaZinne-civite-o-:le-·----f---------------------- . . 1
-------- ·-p·erscmel:-:iviti'';-quan:drrsrprovnchi--"la-morte<:rlesioni~- -+-- -------- ·---·--------------- · ------
! . ·-·---··-·-------------·"····'"'·--•---.-•<<·--··~--•-.-.-.--'·'•'•W·•-··-.··•·1~~-··•-•·•·•·····•·.···•·••·•·-
59
f
1
!
j
·-------- ______ .J.
1
gravi all'integdtà fisica o alla sa1ute" (cfr. ruiche art,
------T4Tërena:tvêüi1vëiiïroneClTl:ime\;r:à--élëi:-·l2--agosrü- - _____ J ____ _ . i . -~--1949·, sù~ilfà "PfOteZiODC ·clëlTe·per~iO~neCivtliTll-fCirîp-o· di------:----- "-----------·
!
1
---------------- -----------guerra); ______ - -------- --- ------ --
---:~~---~~~-----r- ___ --__ -- --~---riei1yan16Tt-ü--deffe-ëfëtinîzïoi1i sanclfe1r1- tiTtini()-r;eno-~--1- -- --
- -------Statu fo a"i~Tfâ-- Co rte -- penale .. ·111ten1az~!on ale -(ra tif.
i··
1.
- ____ · ... -----·-!--
reiterata comrn]ssione. di-fsit1âf omiëldfo;realliz:ita" --
1
T--- ----- -- -----popolazioi1Tëiv1li, rn-affuaiion-ë di un disegno polïticO
-~-; ------------ ---- persegwto âalfë--Fô-rze aimiiJe -del Reich",-èo"ilsisleiïtè
:5-;-~------------ ----·-néCcocfiipiêr·ë atti "fàli ëfa terroriz.zare la popolazione
•.•• , • A ---.
---5::-.
----- .c--..:.::'S.( --- -- ---- - --· -ëTviie ___ âeTterritorîo "Occùpato, é persegï..i:ire îh questo 1
alla resistenza
-- -- -- ··· ------Nofi sèi:f113faï~ühidi dt potët condîvidere, alla stregüa so}1rattutto ··
-------·-j---aeneesp!'esse·prevtsfoni, gfà-tîël1i3rtratë;di cui aH'art. 3 della rv Conv.- 1
--------------------1---dell' Aja "deiT&I:'lHoore 1907 e alr-·art.Aôâe! Rego1amento allegato ~C ! . "
--------- -- tl:are-·co!îvën.z:lone, la pili: --a.utorevole opiiï:îorie sëconct·o cui a pp are
·----~J-o:urï5ia!a possîbllîi~nrn:cmdannaJ~eiliio·sraEo per atti tommessi qüa11do- --
--------------. -- -~-
---- -----[---ccîfï1rriesi;e-dürar1Œ-la_s_eëcinda guerTa mondiale:
------.. ___ L ___________________ ------------------------- --------- -
60
__ )
1
8. in detÎ.rÏiti\~a, occorre coi1siderare che non spetta a questa
1 . ···----------- -1-··---·---------·-··--···------·---······-·-··-----·······---···-·--·-··- ··- --···- ·····- ·····-· -- .. ·-····· -···
: Corte di merita esprimersi in termini generali sulla problematica della
i ~---· ·---- ··1 . - . ... . . . - . . . . .. • . . • . .. . . . . .. - .. .
• immuilità degli Stati dalla giurisdizione e definire se perle azioni civiii
, principio di tinfvërsalità della giurisdizion.è (per inciso va al riguardo
os~servatocïl~!:ierqürurto coÏ1cëri:1ë la -g!lir1sd1ilone penale in rrîateri-a
-- -- ---; "d'!àln11rü di gl.\Crra: ïa'leggë itil'Ïiana' non prevede- aùualrrÏente il
princip]o di universalità delfa giÙnsdîzione: l'art. 185 c.p.rn.g. trova ad
esemplo-··a.p-pl1caz1oÏ1e .. softant'o i~;e1'-coi1fronti dd militari -italiani ~
1
.. -- -- ---T--c:lvvero·,'-3lsensl'ifeii'arC13cfeîlo -stess-o-c-cid]ëe, del miTitai~1 nernlci'~- ..
1
--~---che-â1:ib1anèïcmn'messo JI faÜocoiùrô pl:ivati nemid êhè non prei-idono ;,
---- -----Î' parie- alfe.operazioiii miTitai1;- sT!-!t!eiïr;Tn d(Jttrtna !noltre che-_ pe1· - 1 ' -,s-·t--renCferë-effiliivo -ï1elf'ordfrïiu11e11fu ifa1fano Il pnricipio di univêr-salîfa, 1 0--[- stab1litol1eHo--Statu.1o-deTraCortepenale intemazion-a.re·:.: _ _-·non s1a-- --- -.!- .
-~--=-- :9suftlciente -raTegge dirat!ffcail1a sîan-6 nec-essariô--spedficne-riorrrie.
--- ----1----~La quesfü:lnecfie là--Corte-Ea-éofupeteriia·a· decidërè- conceme
------- . -i- so 1ta1-iTo'Ta-vlcenaa··g;T\.id!ziËii~Ta p'er cui è llrcicèsso: in COI1Creto 'si tratta
----------+·-qwndi soiTanto di-sTàD1lil15-se fo- Stato Repubbliêa .. .Fed.ërâ!ë -dT---
-·----t~Germania]jCisÈia essere gnindlcan1ente ~cfilamâto -·a u·spondere,. nef-- .. ' -
~------r processo pena~quaTe-respoiisâ5ile civile-ëd in solido.con l'imputato,
· ... ~) i per !l lï sammento,-·ane partl'civîTl(~osti.tül'te,·ëlei "darini-ëag!onatl, l.n ... --1- -· ! 1
---~--.J__________-----------------------------------.,- ---r-----------..--r- - ---- ----~- ---,-· ,-; ---- -----· .1
1 territorio italiano, da un cmnme d1 guen·a (e cnmTr!e contro l'i.irnamta)
-~------··t-commesso il 29 gmgno 1944~-ad-ôperaailiiïl:Tilllùire app.arterién1e-·allê .
. ----! -- ~-- .. ----~ ------------·-----
61
j Forze arm<ite tedesche che Sl trovava, al momento della commissione
------~------~---· .. /·-aëTëil!11lne·:·iiëTiü"sf:ës'sïilerriTô11<fitatîano·.----·--···-·-············--·-······-····--·····----------------- --·--··-------
·----~--~- 1 -------sm-(:ïimto, în··a.efli):îlfv~··îlr'"Corte-rittene··tn~ii"dëgn:;fH~.i;- · :p':;îr- ·ter~··--·· ··r ·-· · · ··· ..... · · ·
l
-----------------·- rag1onT sap ra 'tnaïcare,aJT'îîiaîfizzoespre~iso·'tlml·a-·co1'f!H11t:asstïtlolte; .... · --- -r---·-· · --.------ l
·-.sezicnrumRfc r-vm, · ikllifsëruëffzïfii:-s-o4-4f200'4~i'fë1 sl5iistY; ~èr d tf'the----.. --- j -- · i
cfwrileVii;-der·rTëOnosciiWën:to--:ôëlfa:ï~MYpëtëliïa·--ae!·· giüdlce· jJ"el'll\Je· --- · -- f .. -·
. i
--------------- ~--ITâ1ïai10,.!lerJ)mc'iflsso-pér criîllint<:itgû1:!l'î~f'ë:·cnfflfnt ·coüt!ij ·1 'llt!'ümi 111··'------r .... ·-- ---- -
!
---------·------ -·comniëssl1rrTên1tt)no·ïmHai!i.:Ça'êfecjijërtnn:icM .. sti!llfï·:e~'PünsiîbiHttr-------·j······---·-
-------. ---------~ -c1viTê"de11o"St'i'Ho.rîë1têTû1'-Fôfzë-rumate~îl.n111llirrë·cotp:·e:\iole·i·';res-riwrt--· ·--·+- - - . 1 . . . . . . 1:' . ;
··--·~·· .. -----~-i---~-~"----~-~ .. --..,.~,-~-..--~--,.~ ....... ~.--~---·······-····~-.- ... -.--·.··~·--..... .......,....... .... -__..., .. .....,. .. --··· --.-.--·-···-·-·-···- ---······ •····· ,., ........ ~---· : SC!V!ZlO. l
~=~ . -_-+= ~- _ -~~~~~tcn·~~r~~ô:~~~-~s~~a~~~~~~~~-,-ga~iti-ta-trê~I-~--;ns t~~:~êi1Té:~ ·:~:--:: .. _
v_ -·f-i--su[ pr111Clp10 c.iJ. delTa lorl excepft011 m:m soi"lo âlfi;'i'i"l.;HiVl, Mme SO'ÇWâ ~ SI ' -----·----~~--T-rret:isa1o;:·rna·ê6nvêrgono~éstii'eoooposslbile·rmdtvlâ1IazlOiTê-dlun;x····---·-i·· ··
'" _ ____, i . 1
______ :_-,.~J--j--·Y:ion'11alnfernâZtônl.lftfct:ïnsüërucltnariifëtœn>peta:nel··~enso·d:ï··e.~clude-re' · ·1·-··-· -- 1
----- · ·-----··[---ra--possîBintfc dî~invotarè;· nël. ptë::Jêfiti:fï'îtoêe·sstq'iënate:;··J'imtimnitrc··---+---· ----~--·- , .· ' . 1
-~·--~--fâëllOSWo;·-illlilmlalo a ·mp<ifll!Of01ltt~ttlF~o!Vl1lçda1la··~--r-···········
------·-----~--- ·--gJuriW'iZîone cw1le. -~---~--~-------_-·------_------_··"········--····-_----~-----··----·:---_-- --·-------------- ·--__ · -1· ·- ~··
~-----· , ---- ~A:t-D!iî'"ât1l-rtconosclitiento;··a~1-iWt:i"ito;··densr·réispo11mibtlità···--·· ··l··· ···--··· ·-
·· ----~------------+--CiVl1ë êl eU o .. Srâtb- 'Rëptlhh1ica--·:rettêffal~---çj:î:·GëlTiilitri'a-;-·ü\· · Stl !rtlo: .. (l:m'f·---· ·+-·· · .. ------· · ---·---·-----------j·-~t'liiîf5U1àTo·Mnâ"EÇv1canëtitfl:iteëisâün:lrtn<:nnr-agh:H--ëivHr-avvennte--!rr · · · ·--~---- -· · · .. , ... · ··
. . . . ~
------------· --rra!ia-n er-r9'4t:r;--·mrranrë.' 'la··rmranr 'ëlë!J{f"tî'üpp~---r(iili~schi:f' ted---'ftr .. ·-----r ......... -.. -.
j . . 1
-. -~------ :"parrtco1arê"1'fr-scrage .. d't Ci.vîtetJa·m-val-dt·c!JtaYJ.a);· futëïn1:r·a:mrare·11mr ·----+---- ···· ---
- ~--për-laâëë1si011e·ifnttvl'tltrâtè"'l1't':>"!îrgt)lroomâWd~fttl-{e -,~ertameme- non· ··· · · .L-- ·--··-· ·---- .
-------~-~peftrifa-a:nlonêfmrrdtfétsiorn:nteH .. ~ttu:aJ~:rim{1ntato};-tmrper·un:· predso·· ..... · -1· ---·--·-· --·-- =- +~:~-~éfib1~al!'~'ô"tb!ti~d::il:::n:c~=:·~":~~~rr·~t·····-~· ·· 1 ' 1
1
f
1
62
---.-.---~
.:-.-,_ ·. ··· ...
definîtiva ngli stessi vertici politico-mi1itari dello Stato gennanico, di 1
·--------- reag1re agrranaccnrdel parugJru1îë511iv61iB~-ndêftâp6po11P'Llôfîë-·c1vite,~-----+~------------~------~-·
·-----------mediante-eccrnr·-ar··nnr·prèïporzîoü1ëlif"së<5raggiarë""·ogl1·t~·utrêi1orë---t--··---w····
----.. ·······---·------îmZîatîvaaa1:la!'ŒiiëHè:fài'zë<iel1aTësfsrënztc:············· .......................... ..,.. .......... :--···-·-----·
---- --·----------
1
------9-:-r:· Devcïfi'ê.i--e-ssëï"e·a.rrigu:~:r·ao·ncordart·gti'--0rôitr!ï:5riurtmrtillrï· -----1-.. · ··------·--·· · ·· · ~----- --
-------------------- --1'ë1ânlarè·~rêia11o .... Kesser!trqr··îucrata"17·-grTtgn<Y"e"·'t"'""llTg1t6-·t94it:· ---· · · --1.----· · ·· · ... · ····---· ·--· · · · · · -·· .. · · · · ·
· · ---------·-------- ~ëll "'rrrî:ne-m;H-rT giugnoî'944- ·~:t--~d'J:s-p:omrl:1ïê ·"•tzr1rJttr.r'i:.'?Jtm"ii--Î ---- .. ---: ....... -------·· -------------- -- -·
-------------· .~Pëïi':ttguim devéësS.f!fë]iOFfiilct'ftliâ1itî"·'ëôfl ôft!Yîilitfi'tirttllf.~p?JSizî'lfirë·1:r··· ..... , · ..... ·: -- ·----- ··· ... ·-~ ......... ·
·-·---~-.---~-t-CaïrèsTréiiW:<eW!l'!J<k-?'flfiilgg•M··;;g,;tcOnnfh<li1>1tifdiifWil'l<n>ltrit'1e-' --- r------'---------.- -- ---- ----.. --
······-----------·· -r···;·i:::•:M''i::---·i11)ilfi.èT!t'ï'ëS-fi'it.fo1Ytlfi-:Jttrsc'iilla·-e··}ielt{{·-âiilifzzcr·.(ttt·Hü':tit''·"--i--···--~-----w··
- -- -~-- -1- "'ffdiifftilïH"éltirlOIIir ëi5Hti'i5 TP7ii'f[jfiàllDif7[ri7!Sflltlii:rrval nempï·e·it' ·+-- ....... ··-. ~----~sC r---1,-eëcliiz:r-7/êrto-·pi(i·--c-riri:t;r --eYtof'ê"·,r&llr.J :scf!lnr·aei · li!etzl- pey--ît-_.:.. ---~-----.......... -- · ~ r 1 . ....____ : l
,-:::.-:~~--ntgg1ftngtfr'iê!rlè>"7li 'üfiahzért!ïloê:~ë:·r"tj')rê---;~i:'f'gli?f7lël!,"1.·;:c:JnjttrtnYëlelllr ~~---~----- ----- ............ .
_J ~- 1
-~----- --·negttgëJTtcr-: It·t·<>-Jt11;llusilJ!'e'd9a\>n-"'th~r -v.g'-'diJVëri.rd&llzt]r!'Y!i.?:iènr"di~ .. ----·1·-- · · ·- · · ·
-'---------------+-·n?m~--te-rrupp-e-svmrthrlftJ·r:o-mttmkrïlt/()ttare··te .mt.sto·e·pü(" s~J:vet-g:-~------~----····----··---- ·······
! j
---~- ----....... ( --6gnt· ·rmn---di--'t;fo1t?I1:Ur-'Co11lrtU!8~!.f'tf?fl'pUi1'i.'gtttf!f"'d~Vi-r~'SS'i:m.rprmira·--- ... r-------------·-·· ............ -....... .
·.· ··-----------·î·-·tnmre'dttatrmerr~-:-h•up]J?Jrti'J1fiiNnLrfl.f'V6!Kifunrlrrnlettcrgthtellrrcmnrrr·····---i··---------···--···---·· ···----···--·····
t . J
----------- - -Imsrxrepre$'e-:· Dvv::t1't-sortorrüm?Eri-constderevoli--dtw·upptpartigtcmi-;-----~J·---~---- · · · ·-· · ·. · ·-·-~ ...
' l
------.. -----:r-urra-p"(]]"[{5delhrpopvlnzimre·71raschifi1"dt·q:uell'area-:mrà .. crrre:m1fa----e····----~-~-"------···· · ·-- ·-··---
-------------···--------·l--71e!-casu-diLfttidt-vtvlenzfrquesth>tesstuominisarannouc:cfsf:''-----···· · ----------J---------------- .... .. ..... 1 . . ~ l -- ----------------- :---------------el.--stmu-cusrgià-- riievata'·-ùa----questa·--eom:·--(cfr:---:-snnt:---Z4-------- -r ,__ --- --------· · -· ----· · --- -- -- · ·
-., -----~~~nuvembre-'2GiJ5;-bmger)-chC""nell"esta.te-l944irepartt·militardedescbi'······-···~----·--··-------··----·--·---· ·- -----
~--------f-~ch-e:-uccupavam:r-·J,lta!ia:----si--· resero· ·responsahi-li--·· di--··una·-·serie"--~l---~- ·-· ........... " .. · ·"--·--···----.·---
! ~ ~-- -------+' --impressrommre-dh;cddt:-uc-cisroni;-soprushr· caJico--deHa--popoiaz.ione··"·~-f-~----"'----- · · · ·---- -~-
---------- ·civiî'e-:- "fathnti~·si:r -perl:;r-loro·-sistematicità;-sia:·-perdré-'·irnpliciti·-ne! ...... ·--+··· · · -- -
------------------ ---.. , ______________ ._ ..................... -- .......... ------- ...... ---· -- --- .............................. J .. ------ --· ---- .. --- ... -- ---
1 l
63
• • • ", • 0 c.~ • •
i sistema di ordîni e direttive emanate dal Feidmarescial1o KesserlitH':, 1 ~
i --------l---:'.-trateg:lco,-nsptinëïeïüe ai1ll1inà11tà dflotùi. a11iguerng-lfa-part1giâna. Si-
-- -- ---------- -- (Tràtlava-c1oe-ard.1ïn6sŒare che--! înihtaiTtûfësc&î, rio:iù-iCônos-ëe:ndi) 1
i -- - - - -- ----------------~ ---pa1iigia111"--cë)-ï-i1e-Tegiftt1ni--coi-i15aTfeiitl, avrèb oero, -iù-èaso di -attacchi 1
1
-------------------r-cofiii·o--TproprC--rep<ilii,-reig:ifèi--cô!nvoJgel1do- iuïche- la popolazione
- ------~- ~ ~~~~~ ~~~CiViiC:T'U~Ci'iiiiiüC qnetara- ài>ChC âi iii> li biffib i ni, dOiiiJCeQ . ài,ziim i ' -
-----,----·avvë111 và--cfi:!indf-sUl!aoase-cli-tïù-piano- c'(ùisar)ëvoie- e-pieordÎiiato,
------ ------- -seccirii::Jo --i::ill,mffOnneÏiào iJ tetTore fra la popofaifoùe, -si-scuebbe ---- '
-------------- -~-- -(-iastacoJata 'ogru fonna-a1----'sosfegoo_e_ëonseilS(:ïiiJTà- resisknza"coiitrü"i
~--~-----=S-!: ~nerùicTocc-üparifl. ____ - --------------------------
-S--~----------- -------g:z_--Nr::r-caso- (ir·-s·p--ë-cre --è- -p--ares-e -in -,p--al'tië"oHrë-Tass-ëi1üta ____ , -~! 1 ..... __ =-=::, : ' 1
-------~--- t sproporzio1ie ·mi 'lé diriienswn1dell'ecciâîo-ope:fato ii 29-giugno I944
-~---- ---h-c-anT"i1cci:sJOne d1 o Jtre-·auecenro--perso!ie ·c:r -vm;-e T enfila:---aëne--- ----; -- -
-------------- -- ~-prëcedenu aiîüni ···pari.J~ane-(GeiT"Be-zr-gî ugncn 944}, C1Ie-aveva11o
----------~---co risT à era pOl--cne "îT2T-gîügn()-T944 Uii --aftàcèo I1iii'aTo{.;o]itro -là ba sel

-------~---parûgiiir"Ji'ir:îTViTia-Mi5ntaJmiz-o--avevaporfa1o ana-lîherazione di due ·
------ __ L_uTfenorr-T11-'rlî1an Œdesduc1iecranosfatifattl prigwnîerl; ë-c11ë-1(poCh!) ----- __ ; ---- 1
' -
~··=mn~n~:!:::~:~~~~Q~:~=::~::':,i;::;,:;: ::::6;: • ••• •
-----------!--dec:Jsa a treddo e che 1 preëe"denG- hmtrat! -al1acént-palii'giill1i -- -!
-ii costmuvano orma1 poco pïi'i.Cliè--1ln prefesfo per--r-a.uuazîoiïe- ât url ____ l ----------- - plana mvwlenzaîiiâîSëriminata" contro la popolazione: - -- - ------- ,-
------------ TTTTT -------------------- _..:__ --------- - --- --------------~- -~-
64
i
i
1
· • Non è dubbio quindi, nel merito, che la Repub'Qlica Federale di j
----------··--··----/.---Gëlm-a1uaïfêbl5"<.rrispona-er:e,··:c\)rntf1'espëi1fsabllê1civirè~C-nërprocësso·· · ·· ··· j-·· ··· ·· -----~
··----·----1-perïrue1ïliziàT{f.iu ordin:e· aa·--~i1:ionn5eUîcnë'·eofiipfülg-(fii1ltf-pro·prfe·----~~---------~----- , ,
----------- '"rOi'Ze armare,-motteniperanza1mifâîremve a:ervèm-r:r po1itîfô'-m'flitarr;·· ------T- ····· ---- ····
········--------·····ëcl·'în'viô1aziotfeCfë!léTëggt<:ïcfïi$f(ii"giiërriCCiô--èliê. 'pëfa1Œ6- appârï:r·----·-r·-·--------- 1
. . . 1 ------------T-c.ù:rrfomïë; --ôitfe ·· ï~fië --·a1le---·aispiYsJ~Hmr- aêna··-~ cg-ge-·--· mn i~wa;· ···âliâ _____ T · ·· · · · --- --- ----··--~~--~P~'emiot1e~a-.n::rri"'-:'im·ru.i:--J-aên111V--conv'ëiti1o!re·-a.e1l'AJa ··(rèrTs··-·· · · i-··--····----··
·------···--· · · · · · ·j · "olH5bTê7907;-gîarltlli'âî1iatâ~- sœ:om:rotüt"Lâ pàrfe tiel fi'get-ili'itë:·.·:·'sâdi.. -- · ·PJ -- · · ·· ·····
. c 1 ---' ----- -·r-esponsa15î1ë-ctlrutlfgri-anrcorrw:ùëssi~da11l~-persëirfë-·ap{f.àilMWti''âHe··- -.... 1- ···-·: --·
i ------~------- ---p!up-ne-·fcY!Zè--amfâlë',_.(dî'spos!Zicmëënë .. estâm'··pH'àlrro··noaditt·la··---·-i-···-··-
~~~ )~, lë1îîl1îîl'ô<llù1!\fêôltilipi:itilli!il!lal!'lii'<'lfGôîrPfôW"Mif1ni@;lül1lîVO.~" ' ~ ·~ ~. :~ . " ~
--s --r""îEtéltatëfî' g-grrrgno··r97T. èf ï'ë1Ifn-v~.r t~na···Prati.ntmrë-~ë1 J'ë·_vltthne··ëëi _____ ·-i-- · ····--· ···--
:..:::·~-+-·cotrfl!n:l·arrriati!IlŒtnazfo?:ialr·-=--::ule:··canvëîiZiciiif-âi-Gînew;:ci!et········J1 ........... _ .... . 1 • -
-- ~---------·----- ---1'9'49)~-----.--.-----~~---------;.., ..................... ______________ ............ ~~-·-----------.----···-····------·········-··-·--r····-----------
-----~---··i---------g:J:-App'àr'ë oppôffi:iï'iolfrëêisare;·nr :ëîrdiîiê"at!a'q'Uêstiotië. dei ........ ··-r·. ---------- . : . . . . '
------------- i-rrëi'J.i'iJ5sé-i'ï'iYënto--dt·mt::c~ïl~spônsàoîlita .. ëivîlë .. ûetto· srans ··pë·r-·gH· 'ânî -- ---~- · · ----· ·
--... -_~--~.·-·t.omp1nrl-âa·a.pp .. :~l1 •. :ëïi15Tnt"··a·!·l . .è.'-p.to:.pn.·.~c-Farz~:nin.tï:a:rëi1l'.t>'it.u:azh:Hlh:J.i······"~·-:·--~------··· ---- ! ~orrftittcr-betlfc"O";···-ctlt:ftl~pr.nlcîp:f1:niffetmartrdaiJa-·eZîrttn1h5ass-azicrfe:;-·---+-··-·-.-.. ···--- ··· . i
-· ~-Mezrmrr-u!ritî:r·ctvfît;~-~f~n~crrdimït1:ta.--s-gin:gm::r2001;·rc:s-ls7·{s-e-c~-un:do-i--·---·-­
i
--------·-· :cyrt--=-c::o·n-riferirnetlto·--!3:1 Pmone·"èf'Vflîe""it'itentHta-- dai· ·fnmiihrri·-dellë·---· ·· ·+----· · ·<>·-- . ·. . ~ . 1
---------------·-vinînre;----a--'S-egmro--ù"ei-bumbard::ntre:tit<ç ·n-·13'-:aprfl·e-·1 :99;:·delln--se'de· --·--}···---~-......... ·-
------------·· -·ct:elt:rradtotetevis'ione··a-.e-etgrado:~·dn:·p·me-dl~un"lfete:O'·Natt:rdecotlato ........... --·--··--------
·--------:~-da"lunctras-e--ttali·a:rr~r-=-glh:ttd'dt'gn~mrc-lJStlmtstnncn11rurrfesta7ione-dt-········ -----------
--. ~-hn.ià"iîlî"t'ti'ô-trepo!.îr!c~e"""'ris'~. rerrrY"at!.·. •:·nu .. ·.nt.J<I. · msttnrpo·ne·:s-s .. mr .. ·giu:d. ke~na- ·~-1· -~~~··· - ---+-"lp515Œre:c:!lsinêiacatq ci rea ttmcrdô~rrn:ronn-r-rrnztc>n"e"·è'stata esercitara"'---;---· +------· ---~ --------~-~-----------------·---~-----··-~---------1 ---- ..
65
cfr., al riguardo, anche Corte Europea dei Diritti del!'Uomo, 14
--------TdicemS:re-2ûo6,-MarlZovTë),Y, pnnc1pio già- sottoposto -aër1tiêà- in--
-- ----- --- --/ dôffnna:-~aa-·rnenel-_ë __ sil:Përafc1;<:ii1itiito-ine!-ïc"J :nenasïli1a2soilifezza:!3er- -
-----------··r··eneuü--cfelra·---si:lccess!va···-senteriïà ·deTle sez!oi-11 !ïrute-:-c:r-vrrr: -il~ -
-----+--· ----------·---------------------------- ------ --- -·- . . 5044/2004, più volte citata.
___ __l________ ....... --------- -------------- ---------· ···- -------- . -------- ---- ··~- -------- 9.4. Benché sul punto J1on siano statc proposte spec1hche
eccei!o'i=a~!nemarf1Jf-iëfrreCfiei'azîonè' cTvilefn ësainê Iion prescritta,
------ :---înquanto discende dalla comn1lss1one ï:ll un' fatt6 'êonsiderato dalla
. ----- -----:- 'lëgge-con1(;[eatü-pù!1it6 con l'àgisto!êi è quindi non soggetto, seeon'do 1
;
--------- ~ li reggcnfallan:a:a!)rescïiifoné (art.-157; uit. co., c.p. e art. 294 7' co. 3,
- ··;-- c-:G_J.--E1Ciê)eJa I-=-avVisare' lin"essèriziaTeïdemei1to distintivo rispètto ii
---~ ~_j __ qliarito~ec1so-nëllasentènza de1Tiibtù1-ale ôi Ai-ezzo (13 marzo 2007,
-..:._5· ---~ Fei11i1i ·c. R.epubbfîca Federale di Gër:niânia) in cui si diC11iara la
---~· . -.. -!....==)---~---pres-ërTzToii'e--defainf.fo-·arrTsarCfirienféi del dariùo, rllevando cne "i faffi -
· -- · ----:-postlri.base-CfeTI:i' iîchiêstà- non sembra siano j)tmiti con !ii pena
i
. ----- ----~-deiT"ergasfciTo" TS1 aggiungë -aùcfie, ·rn.--motivazione, che "sotta il
1
----- - --~ pri:iDJo-dëfairltfülntemaifor1al{Çnoti-pi:î6 l:ltenersiche: al momento in 1
- : cUi ! fafti sü..'1ï.1 --.:sfafi(;ci1wii1css1; êsisteva· ui:à normà coi1sucfüdinaria
1
------ --~T1·erativa ·-aTI"ïrnprescnffîb1liTa--aeî ·-cr1ï11iùi ··cA~ infemazionali": tale
--~--precJsaz1C'inenon\11tëfëssa'füftàvia nei casi, comë qtiello di specie, di---
- --- -·1 diïiff0Tri1presci1tt!61Ie-secOîfdoTa·lëggë !nferria,. cos\-corrïè- non· ri lèva
. ------r'osserv'az10ne secoi1ao cu11Tl)niiëii'ïîo'êl.î'impfescn1lil5il!fà'ae1 clîrriini
-~-----iintermizw11ab sa.J'eo5e-stafo-rë-èeprtonèll~man1entë)îfaliar1o so1o con
------ 1 ncr'âtîfïca;·Tn:-·aa.ra.-·2a-·Jug1ïa-·EJ9g:<re1To-srar.üfo -della- CortE penalé--- ·
------------r-u1lernazwnaJe; ma non poiTe1JOe·nfëïî1'sÇqüale-prîncîpîo ·m--dirfttô - -
r-
i
!
66
-------------------~--------
{
i
1
1
1.
·-··--·" ·po,;areiiOiïiiiili!Ole,·.urattrco;,iïiiessrpruna<ïew;;;;;;:;;;aJii\{gOrê dêilô ~· · ~·~~ ······· · · ··
--~----------~-- -S1aKltb}:····-··----·-~······-········-·········· .. ·---······--·····-·----------·-----~------·-··'"··········-····----------·-.---~-------.- .... ··-- .: . 1
-~'- •• ·------~~ -'"~,,~.{-" --•·"··~--..--.-- c··-·· -,....---'f'~o---~-~-~-~~---: ·-·~• .. ,.~~· •---·J.~..._ ·~~~· •• • ··• ·-· --.. •• • •·•-••'---~----..---·...--• .-.·, • • •'•• •' '• "'"' '• · · • ··-·,·.•,• { ~.-.._ .. ~.~-· •---~-- i Va aggamto che, trathmdosi dl un dirltto impn~scritühi1e <tl i
l ' . !
· ------------l-rrsaiëti11enfocier··aœiüo;··-i{Ciii .. rîi·-·àtcm1a··~:îrevii1ia··~--àt .. 11nr-·dërfa.:······-·-:-···--··· ··--- . . i
---·-~---~------1·-·aecqrrenzâ" (Jëffermîliifdî}-iresinz1one:sffi6ffit(i"Ctaf!âil."'':2947:~ê61nî:11â~--··- r· ------- ...... . . l
---~--------'·1- ·:t c~cX(latâ~i:liesHùiiëînê·aêrrèafo· o ifiif~{lii.cüi la-·sëiiiêi'i"iii è~divèniira··· ·.- -~ ~ ·· ·---
·--·· --·~···-:.]-··lrrevùëj151ië--::.:·1â-·ifèntèrùùi"dëf :1'Hhùnal e milifàl:ë'ièrrHoriafê-d-i ·Rol11ii. -· .. · .. r ...
1 . :
----·----~------~--rTTïïgHo-r93o:·--rrn:J):·--s:êliî1·üi!z~-ï:etmfva-··aHo .. -~fêssii-fnrtc· ·ar "t·eat~s: -· · +·· ·· 1 . .
1 '
----. · · · ·-------r-·p. ·eraitr. ·.-o_.-iaTe-sen fë. i1za;--ëorl"-8ur_· üù ·llriïJiîla.To-!:1 !verso·· a a(1üëŒ5 · dfèü fiiJ ---------r-- · · · - · ··-
----------~-pr--es-e!itt:--prü"ëesso··cra-·~a$sôrta"·pe:tnoii-·a:ver:·-c:où1me!ii-ô .. Tr·Tâtio;-·e····-····l-·-·-·: ..... . . 1
·-: _ ~ ~---- -comtmqiie--iiuooiif.:!a ~~~-ia:-·s:ss;:un.1ëfê~-(fua1iivôgHa illê"Vàrria''iü'--sêl-ïsi· --·r·---~---·
••••n~ ·~ ilëll'iiiC2947ë,ë.•••"••••••• •••••••••• ., ·~•••u•••• .... U • u •'••••••••••'••••t• ~--­
•••:~·f-·••••----.-.:.~-nLPêi~nfêi"'ëôriëemë"Ia"dëtênniï1aïfô"iië ·dcg1i.-importrâo\rutr·----···· 1·· ··-··· -- ·· ~----> 1 ;
--···-------···-· ··1_ -· ··qi:iàu. è--~p-rovvlsTonâle. ·;.----··-.n.on:··· ·s:ôna_··.··Ysrâfu. ·-_.. ···m.!=m_- __ .. î.üàie .. --. eccè".zionî ______ .iiê'. · · ·--· -:1.:-- ·· .......... · -·
. -···-··--·---~--~aalT'~püTafo në-aatrospl:lnsiilii1ëëivlle: oêVé ·. êssè11tqfiiili-fi c()ruermâtâ"-~~·wf .... ,, . ------
········----+~âilëfie m ta1e pTrtë-ra-Sêfitê1127ii-Cifprfllio b:iTâdo~- L 'Tî!rpùfàlodêvè'Til.olfl·e~- . . l . . ... .. . ----------~---...1 es sere CO nd <H111iifcnir'pag]lîfël%:f àëflëllitënùfi"spesffâr .. gffiâ!ZJ Ci ooa:r--·-·l-------··-
-~--f-·_pagan:ienfa··aelle spêsèpiocëssûhli"s6stènùtè!<Iff!Ië"pài=ti ·cîVitÇ!i{:!na- - - -~ · ·-· -
- -l.msuramoïcatam mspôsilfvô;t1fstlnŒh1enw-per-ôff6rifïêd1i1aêîit-iif~rar--~--l~- • ---- ·
1 ----r--msferta:-përr··a1rei1sorï15ne·îfssistonô· ·:piîr-paffï __ è_ sta~â ïnâîCaucrir· -· ·~1- ·· : i
... _)-. ---r imsura comp1essiva,--·èaTôoiata--··fê!iUlô ___ ëonro··!1ëHâ~ fuâ~giô-raii<fûe·-···· .. t ..
~_:::··=-=j~-~-~~~.~-~~~~lâl1~--~~~~·rru~~-siïi:~P~~:~~:.~~-~~~~~--~s~~~~ê~:::.: .... :~.:.: .. :_~::~-~--~~J_r~~~----.~-~~ . • \.l.~ lVI~ , ·l
--------- ! -·-vrsti-ëcrappl1çatl-gt1;:lrtC11JlT:p--:-rn. p.: TL:--T807In : 597;-59Te-6<J5c:fp:· ··+-·--··-· ··- ·-·- -~-------·~ ~ .............. ·-- -67 ·-··········· ·... .. . ... ·--·-~- .. ... ~ .. L--~·
i
1
----------~---:-o;-:--;.....~~~~~""-----.,--..,.,..,..,-.....,__..,~, ................ __,..-~ '. ····\ .:·
CON FERMA
l'appel!ata senten.zil, ···------·-·· ------------~r···---·--~-------------------~-----~- ·-·--------··--·---------.-.
i
~---~-____ ._._, .. ____ L_ .. w_ ......... ·--------·--------------- -·-CO N.DA .. N .. N.A ..... ,. . .. .. ................ .. . . ....... -. .. : i 1 :
-- -·-- -----· · -~- · -- ·· f···'l\l!TlôcMIDrJosêtâl.J1â'g~llîtëftito"dëH0· ·sp:ëse-·d~t'st~cotrdo g:r·ttdo·d-r 'giutHzi <r--· ·! · · ·
l . ; ---·---·····-----·--···----+-·Tn:YnCl1êarpagar11ërniYl:tëJ1k~'P'0si:f'{:>féêës:smllrîïi·favtwe· dl:iHe-·rrarti·~tviH;· · ~--
··· · · ··-········· ·1· ··che liquî<llCcQfffo·sogci<W. ····· · · ·· •·· ·•···· · ·• · · · · · · · • · · · · · ·· · ·· · - ·· i r ! .
· --------------------T ·-------~)----f{ï;bi~~i~i-- oi6 ____ fiaiü~i~~~ · s~~~~;~i~i · vand~l, .. Ri~ci~Jnf"Ji~i,~j;;{o~--- i
·····.~······•· --··~---· .. ····--·~~---------·~·-""·~·----'-~---~-~---~·-····· ........ -·--·-··-... ····-···-·· •• , ••• - .... ~- -~ ..... --~ < ~-. - ... y,
i Rkciarini Alessandro e Rîcciarini Mctellc --~ comp-les.sivi ~vro
'
l 000,00 pe~; onorari ed .Euro 240,00 per indênnHà di trnsfè>tià;
b) Biancucd Barbara e Bfru1cucci Beatrice ~ comp1essivi Euro ··--~~···~--~-.... ~~----~ --~·· ~· ...... ~ .................. ~~--~~-----~·-···-~·"··~------· --··-- ····- ··---~·-
670,00 per onorari e Euro 240,00 per indennità di trasferta;
. --------·"· ";-~~--c)..MoJe.utacchLSestilio:::-.Euro 560,00 pcr onorari
.......... J .... · · d)" ·Regione·-Tqsea1:m·;· Provincia di·· Arezzo, Comune· di· Bucineo· e-- · f .. ___ ._..._,....
Ct~mune·'di'Civitell~rin V aldi Chiana·:c=complessîvi Etm:r 500))0
· .... per onormio~ ·-· ... · ·· ---
oltf{}, per tutte le parti civi!L IVA e CPA come per legge.
;_ . .D.epnsito . .della.sentenza e_n!m quaran{i.lgiornL. _ ... :~--
............. ·· · -;· · Rt:mnçditJottcr dicembn! duemilasette
,.._ .. ~.~----- ....... L ............................. ---- ......... -· . . .. . ! JI" G1UDICE ESTENSORE
...•.•.. -~.c~~(iit~~ZI)_ ! v r--vt~\
· . .,,.'
l
i
1 68 "i
1
1
Translation
No. 5?/2007 R.G.
Cornposed of:
1. Dr
2. Dr
3. Dr
4. Gen.Div.G.d.F.
[Major GenéraJJ
5. Ten.Col.C.C.
[Lt.Colonel]
Judgment No. 72/07
ITALIAN REPUBLIC
ON BE.HALF OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
TI-ffi MILITARY APPEAL COURT
Giuseppe MONICA
Giuseppe MAZZI
Luigi Maria FLA MINI
Flavio ZANINI
Cannelo FAZZJNI
President
Judge
Judge
Judge
Judge
with the intervention of Dr Domenico GIORDANO, Assistant Military Attorney General, and the
assistance of Dr Renato ROCCA, member of the registry, delivered, at a public hearing, the
following
JUDGMENT*
in the criminal proceerlings against:
1\flLDE Max Josef, born 20 November 1922 at Niedershem1sdorf (Germany), resident in
28203 Bremen at Lübecker S1rasse 9 (Germany), with an address for service, for the purposes of
Article 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at the chambers of Jacopo Memo, counsel for the
defence, in La Spezia at via Sant'Antonio No. 7; sergeant in the military band of the "Hern1mm
Goring" Panzer Parachute Division, at liberty, absent, already sentenced by detàult;
• [Margina! note} Judgment delivered 18 Decernber 2007; Registered January 2008; Drafted by Giuseppe Mazzi.
-2-
fo!lowing the appeal brought by counse1 representing the accused and by counse! representing the
party with civil Jiability, identified as the Federai Republic of Germany, against the judgment
delivered on 10 October 2006 by the Military Tribunal in La Spezia.
l. By order of the court issued on 12 October 2005, Milde Max Josef and Béittcher Siegfried
were summoned to appear before the Military Tribunal in La Spezia to answer the charge of:
"COIYIPLICITY IN PROTRACTED VIOLENCE AGAINST ENEMY PERSONS ANu WILFUL
MURDER WITH AGGRAVATlNG CIRCUMSTANCES" (61(1),(4) and (5) Arts. 81 sections
110-112 para. 1(1) and (3), 575, 577(3) and (4) of the Penal Code; Arts. 13 and t85 of the
Wartime MiJitary Penal Code, Arts. 47(2) and (3) -- 58(1) ofthe Peacetime Military Penal Code):
"on the ground that, during the state of war between Italy and Germany, while serving in the
German armed forces - enemies of the Italian State --- with the ranks and fun etions specified
earlier, in the units of the ''Hermann Goring" Panzer Parachute Division likewise specified above,
some members of military polic.e and military band units and of the "VESUV" and "PAUKE"
rapid response units, al! contributing in accordance w]th their specifie qualities and frmctions to
the actua! commission of the crime and also mutually encouraging one another in the criminal
plan, on 29 June 1944 in the territory ofthe munîcipalities of Civitella, Comia and S. Pancrazio
(Arezzo), unnecessarily and unjustifiably, J:èlr reasons not unconnected with the war, in the
context and for the purposes of a wider combing-out operation, p!anned and conducted against
the partisans and rnembers of the civi!ian population supporting them, caused the death of many
people - approximately 200 (two hundred), including old people, women and chi!dren- who
took no part in the military operations, acting with cruelty and premeditation, raping many
women and final!y mutilating many dead bodies.
With the aggravating circurilstances:
referred to in Art. 47(2) c.p.m.p. [Peacetime Military Penal Code], rank held,
referred to in Art. 47(3) c.p.m.p. [Peacetime Military Penal Code], employing military
equipment to commit the act,
referred to in Art. 58(1) c.p.m.p. [Peacetime Military Penal Code], complicity with lower
ranks,
- 3 -
refened to in Art. 112 para. l(l) c.p. [Penal Code], compiicity with more than four people
in the offence,
referred to in Art.! 12 paras. 2 and 3 c.p. [Penal Code], persuading persans subject to their
authority or un der their supervision to commit the offence,
retètTed to in A1t.6l (1) c.p. [Penal Code], committing the act for base reasons,
referred to in Art.61(4) c.p. [Penal Code], committing the act while on duty and treating
the victims with cruelty,
referred to in Art61(5) c.p. [Penal Code], committing the act whi!e taking advantage of
circumstances oftime, place and persan such asto preventpublic and private defenee,
refened to in Ati.577(3) c.p. [Penal Code], acting with premeditation."
By judgment of 10 October 2006, the Military Tribunal in La Spezia sentenced Mi!de Max Josef
to life imprisonment and ruled that no further action sbould be taken against Büttcher Siegfried,
the offence with which he was charged being extinguished by the death of the oiJender. On the
n'latter ofBottcher's position, ihe ruling at first instance was not contested.
ln the grounds of the judgment, the court, after refèrring to the proceedings at the hearing (with
special reference to the reasons for accepting the request of the parties seeking damages to
summon the pmiy with civil liability, the Federal Republic of Germany), gives a particularly
accurate and comprehensive description of the events for which the present criminal proceedings
were brought, relating to the massacre carried out on 29 June 1944 at Civitella in Val di Chiana,
Comia and S. Pancrazio by German troops of the "Hermann Gorîng" Division, with the killing of
the 203 civilians listed in the indictment Thus, on the basis of the evidence assembled, it transpired
that, after three Gennan servicemen were killed on 18 June 1944 at the recreation centre in
Civitella and another German serving in the military police was killed on 21 June 1944 on the
raad from Monte S. Savino to Bucine, a military operation was p!mmed and executed on 29 June
by members ofmilitary police units (including s01ne members ofthe military band) and members
of the Vesuv and Pauke rapid response units, leading to the indiscriminate killing of civilians
found in the abovementioned places or in the s1.mounding countryside.
In the ruling at first instance, which should be cited in full in this connection (pp. 41-69) since it
is not practicable to provide any summary that would not tend to tone down the tragic nature of
the event, the various acts of violence are depicted with a wealth of detail that provides a vivid
::·:·::•-: ---------
-4-
and impressive picture of wh at happened accord in g to the accounts given by survi vors. Moreover
the fact remains that, wh ile the German troops spared the women and children in some cases, in
others, especially in the vicinity of Comia, aH those who did not manage to flee, including all the
children, women and old people, were killed indiscriminately.
The court of first instance he!d that it bad been shawn that Mi!de participated in the massacre
(although it was not proved that he had been responsible tèlr the most brutal acts of violence), on
the following evidence:
the deposition, at the hearing, of Carletti Felicina (daughter of the ov·mer of the Villa
Carletti), who recognized the accused after studyîng a photograph ofhim, clearly recalling
his name and the circumstances in which she had met him (in particu!ar, the fact that
Mil de appeared to be infonned of the decisions regarding the prisoners, which implies a
certain degree of co-invo1vement on the part of his superiors, given his ro1e as a noncommissioned
officer);
the fact that the accused, who had been a member of the Division's military band before it
was wound up, had been transferred to the military police who were statioiled in .the Villa
Carletti at the time;
the fact that the members of the military police billeted in the Villa Carletti participated in
the actions on 29 June, especially as those who feU at and around Comia were brought
there;
the deposition of EISINGER Philipp, who was also a member of the military police and
had originally been in the band, confinning that musicians were not exempt from military
operations such as the operations in question;
the statements taken from other members of the band: HUliN Fritz, who recognized the
Comia and So!aia countryside and remembered having seen fifteen or twenty dead bodies
of men, women and children; WOLF Gerhard, who remembered the operation on 29 June
(mentioning that non-commissioned ofilcer MlLDE had a1so participated in it) and
recognized the Villa Carletti; BERNHOLD Hermann;
the statements of the accused himself, who fïrst sa id he had been part of a group bringing
up the rear and that he had turned baek after meeting other troops who indicated that the
action was over, from whom he heard that terrible things had happened to the local population
(asto the note containing his acldress, which he had handed to Carletti Felicina, the
- 5 -
accused said be had boped to see her again one day and he pointed out that, if he had not
had a clear conscience, he would not have given his persona! details: on this point, the
Military Tribunal notes that a simple note, handed to a woman in the uncertainty of war,
was not so significant as to be accorded priority over the many items of evidence against
him). Ultimately, Milde also admHted that: he had seen more than one dead body (he justifiee!
his earlier denials by claiming partial loss of memory of the experience, described
as a tonnent and a horrible action); he had been at the Villa Carletti, fix eight days,
remembering that he had had occasion to fetch water with Carletti Felicina. Milde said he
had no knowledge of the crimes perpetrated in the Villa; however, according to the court
offirst instance "the confinnation of many witnesses asto the cries and screams ofpeople
under torture, coming from the vicinity of the steward's bouse, shows that no-one in the
Villa could have becn unaware of them". And "it is clear from the statements of EIS1N7
GER and BERNHOLD that the accused could not have been unaware of the manifestly
criminal nature ofthe activities of the unit in which he was a non-commissioned offïcer".
The Mi!itary Tribunal, having noted that ali the evidence assembled is admissible for the purposes
of the decision, takes the view that the act of which he is accused can be regarded as the
offence referred to in Art 185 c.p.m.g. [Wattime Military Penal Code] and that it is impossible to
discem any military necessity or justification for committing it.
Mil de must also answer, in addition to what occmTed in the places where the mi!itary police were
dep!oyed, for the acts committed in the other areas also involved in the criminal action; all the
conduct constitutes part of a single action, both because only one order was given, and because of
the close coordination between the forces engaged in the operation, apparent, on the one hand, in
the orchestrated timing of actions in which the same methods were employed and, on the other, in
the proximity of the country areas involved, ideal for a precise search strategy.
In pm1icular, by splitting the mi1itary contingents deployed in the action into small patrols it was
possible to search major built-up areas, round up the in habitants of the area concemed and close
off possible escape routes: each patrol's activity consequent! y aided and abetted the' execution of
the criminal plan. As to the subjective requirements with respect to persona! complicity, the
Tribunal notes th at Mil de was cetiainly aware of the connection between his conduct and that of
the other participants. The accused, as a non-commîssioned officer, was certainly also apprised of
- 6 -
thè main !ines oftbe action, the objectives, the modus operandi, especially in view of the fa.ct that
special meetings had been held beforehand. There is therefore definitive evidence that the noncommissioned
officer knowingly participated in the planning and execution of the manifestly
criminal act ofwhich he is accused.
In view also of the aggravating circumstances of which he is accused, the Military Tribunal
imposes the penalty of !ife împrisonment, with the additiona! penalties of demotion and publication
of the judgment, and also orders the accused (and only in the case of those who requested
that it be summoned, the party with civil liability, the Federal Republie of Germany) to pay
compensation to the parties seeking damages, the amount to be detennined for each of those
listed (inc!uding the Presidency of the Council ofMinisters).
Counsel for the defence immediate! y brought an appea[ against that judgment, requesting that the
accused be acquittedofthe alleged offence on t11e ground that he bad not committed the act. The
party with civil liability also brought an appeal, requesting the Court to review the contested
judgment and to reject the applications for compensation addressed to the party with civil
liability, the Federal Republic of German y.
At the hem·ing held today, counsel representing parties seekîng damages first produced a written
statement requesting that the appea! brought on behalf of the party with eivil liability be
dismissed: the Court reserves its position on this point. In its opinion, the public prosecutor and
counsel representing the parties seeldng damages request that the ruling at first instance be \
upheld; eouncil representing the accused and the party with civil liability refer to their respective
pleas in law set out in the grounds of appeal and request that they be acceptee!.
2. According to the Court - having first noted that the written statement produced by the
parties seeking damages may be !odged pursuant to Arts. 121 and 483 c.p.p. [Code of Crirninal
Procedure]- neither the appeal submitted by the accused nor the appeal submitted by the party
with civil liability can be aeeepted and the judgment at first instance should be upheld.
First, asto the appeal submitted by the accusee!, it consists oftvw separate pleas in law.
- 7 -
2.1. By the first plea, it claims that the evidence of Milde's responsibility is contradictory and
insufficient, tbat the contested judgment is in breach of Art. 192(2) c.p.p. [Code of Criminal
Procedure], that the contestedjudgment is illogical: none ofthe procedural findings prove that the
accused actually participated in the massacre of civilians. Then, with special reference to the
statements of the accused's "comrades in arms'', the Military Tribunal should have detennined
whether, in the light of the criteria laid down in A1t. 192(3) c.p.p. [Code of Criminal Procedure],
they supported the decision that Milde was responsible. According to the appellant, there is
nothing in the evidence contained in the files to support the court's statement that "the modus
operandi of Milde's patroi was similar to that of the other operational squads" and it must be
concluded that "the non-commissioned officer lmowingly participated in the planning and execution
of the manifestly cri mina! act". It therefore appears to be obvious th at "the circumstantial
evidence does not meet the essential requirements in respect of material importance and
accuracy".
22. By the second plea, the appellant contends that evidence assembled in breach of Art 63
c.p.p. [Code of Criminal Procedure] is inadmissible and that the criteria for assessing evidence ln
the fonn of statements were misapplied. As the estàblishment of the indictment tums on the
accounts given by men in a lower rank than the accl!Sed (Wolf: Bemhold and Huhn), ît is pointed
out that such statements must be dec!ared inadmissible (absolutely and fina!Jy, under Art. 63
c.p.p. [Code of Crimina! Procedure]), being made by people who, being ah·eady under indictment,
ought to have been heard from the outset with the guarantees provided for the accused, in
particular recognition of the right to remain silenL In any event, those statements should have
been treated with the precautions required by law in the case of depositions by the co-accused or
the accused in connected proceedings.
According to the appe!lant, "it is true that most of the fellow-servlcemen's statements are largely
confirmed by objective facts, such as the fact that Milde was actual!y in the places where the
massacres occurred at the time, that he really was a member of the band, tbat he served in the
mi litary police, and th at he was in the Villa Carletti"; however, th at is not the point, the on !y
question being whether Milde participated in the atrocitîes that were perpetrated. In that connection,
"there are no faets to support their word apart from the facts arising pm·ely and simply
from the general conrext in which the acts took place". The evidence obtained, in addition to
- 8 -
being absolutely inadmissible in any event, is therefore also seriously insufficient as a basis for a
verdict of guilty.
2.3. As the allegation relating to breach of Art. 63 c.p.p. [Code of Criminal Procedure] must
also be examïned, on account of its prejudicial nature, it should be noted that according to the
Court, the statements of the German servicemen heard as documents ir1 the present proceedings
are perfect!y admissible for the pm·poses of the decision. As this Court has he id in sim il ar cases
(see Military A.ppeal Court, Corte mil. app., 21 November 2006, Sommer and others) the fact that
men serving in the ranks were present at the site of operations is not in itself an indication of
criminal responsibility (unlike men who bave been assigned to a position of some responsibility
in the structure of the unit, who may be held responsible, with due regard to the peculiaritîes of
the military hierarchy). Consequently, as the Court of Cassation stated (Sez. III, 26 April 2005,
No. 21747), it must be held that tbe bar on admitting erga omnes statements taken from a person
who ought to have been investigated at the outset presupposes that there are already indications,
before the relevant deposition is taken, that the subject to be questioned is guilty: this did not in
fact apply in the present case, especially as no indications that the saîd Wolt~ Bernho!d and Hulm
were guilty emerged, even at a later date.
2.4. That being established, it should also be pointed out that the material reconstruction of the
acts on the basis of the evidence obtained appears, even apart from the deposition of the aforementioned
documents, to be essentia!ly uncontroversial: the accused himself, after the initial
denials, finally admitted that he had been in the military police unit posted to the Villa Carlertî
and also that he had participated in the operation on 29 June, as a member of one of the patrols
deployed in the action, while nevertheless specifically claiming that he had not taken part direct! y
in any killing. In this connection, the abovementioned matters of fact are regarded as uncontmversia!:
it therefore appears to be unnecessary to add anything to the exhaustive and convincing
grounds contained, on this point, in the ru!ing at first instance.
The legal question raised by the defence is therefore ultimately this: can Milde be held to be
responsible for the offence ofwhich he is accused, when it has not been proved that he personaHy
killed any of the victims or that he ordered them to be killed?
- 9 -
Also, the question as framed is wide of the marle Mil de is not in fact accused of having directly
caused the death of one or more.ofthe 203 people listed in the indictment but rather of complicity
in the offence of protracted violence and wil±ùl murder. It is therefore decisive to establish that
the requirements with respect to persona! complicity in the offence are met, whicb the court of
first instance fourid to be the case, on grounds with which this Court completely eoncurs and
which are cîted as an integral part of the presentjudgment
In general terms, the most recent case-law has held, as to the establishment of the causal connection
ln cases of personal complicity in the offence, under Art. llO c.p. [Penal Code], that the
structural requirernents with respect ta persona! complicity include the requirement that the
atypical contribution of the complicit patticipant had a real causal effect, that it was a "necessary"
condition for the actual perfi)fmance of the criminal act, in accorclance with a single and undifferentiated
modei, based on the system of the conditio sine qua non, appropriate in open and
causally determined cases. So that the criterion of attributing a cause of the result caused by the
complicit conduct, în accordance with the classic model of conditionality, constitutes an essential
prerequisite for the system ofpersonal complîcity in the offence to be typical and to be the reason
for ascribing responsibility to a particular complicit individual (see Court of Cassation, United
Chambers, Cass. Sez. un., 12 July 2005, Mannino).
It is also hele!, in the case-law on legitimacy (see Court of Cassation, United Chambers, Cass.
Sez. un., lü July 2002, Franzese), that, on the basis of Art. 40 c.p. [Penal Code], that criminally
relevant causes inelude human conduct, whieh represents a necessary condition - conditio sine
qua non- in the chain of antecedents that eontributed to determining the result, without which
the event would not have occurred: the determination of the causality therefore implies recourse
to a "counter-factual judgment", in the sense that human conduct is a necessary condition for the
event if, settîng aside once again wbat really happened,' if the event bad not occurred. Tt must be
added that investigation of the causes of the event hic et nunc, beïng unique and unrepeatable,
may be dictated by experience based on reliable results of exercising common sense, or by
recourse to the general model subsuming the particular event under scientifîc la\VS which expla!n
the phenomenà. Emphasis was again placed on the standardizing effect of the causal connection
and, in particular, on the selective fùnction of the conduct in question in defining the area of
eriminat illegality, in causally determinee! cases.
- 10-
Asto the provisions of Art. 41(2), in the part relating to exclusion,of the causal connection as a
re su lt of the intervention of additional contributory causes sufficient in themselves to determine
the event, it bas been he!d tbat this provision modifies the system of conditîonality but that it may
refer on!y to cases in which the additional cause, one of a number of causes, is exceptiona!,
atypical and unforeseeable, and therefore gives rise to an unforeseeable chain of events beyond
the agent's control (see Court of Cassàtion, Cass. 27 March 1991, Rossini; Cass. 4 December
2001, Taddeo; Cas s. 10 June 1998, Ceran do, according to which the concept of additional causes
sufficient in themselves to exclude the causal connection pursuant to Art. 41(2) c.p. [Penal Code],
even if it does not necessarily imply that the immediate cause is completely independent of the
more remote cause, nevertheless requires that the immediate cause should not depend strictly on
the more remote cause and that it should not be within any foreseeab!e !ine of development of
th at remo te cause).
In short, the legal criteria to which the Court considers that it should adhere :tèlr the purposes of
determining, in the present case, whether there is a causal connection behveen the event referred
to in the indictment and Mîlde's eonduct, are based on the theory of conditionality, applicable
both in cases where the crime was committed by one individual and in cases where it was
committed by more than one individual, with the further requirement to determine whether the
event was also determined by additional contributory causes, which the accused could have
foreseen at the time when the conduct at issue oceun·ed (see, in this connection, Military Appeal
Court, Corte mil. app. 24 November 2005, Langer).
On the basis of those legal criteria, Milde must be held responsible, from an objective point of
view, for the offenee at issue. For the purposes of determining the causal connection, it must be
hele! that the contribution which the accused made to the event took the form (as the evidence
obtained at the hem~ing makes absolutely clear) ofparticipation in the operation on 29 June 1944
as a member, in a hierarchical role conesponding to the rank of non-commissioned offïcer which
he held, of one of the patrols operating in the area of Cornia, an area where, employing methods
couesponding to those adoptee! at Civitella in Val di Chiana and at S. Pancrazio (and with even
more cruelty than elsewhere), men, women and children were indiscriminately killed and many
civilians' bouses were set on fire.
- 11-
The causal connection cannat be excluded on the ground that it has not been proved that Milde
participated directly in at !east one of the murders committed on that day, nor can decisive
importance be attached to the fact that Milde, like the other members of the band, was listed in
the Carletti document as not being part of the nucleus ofparticularly evil members ofthe military
police who engaged in torture in the Villa Car!etti and who were therefore presumably guiity of
the worst atrocities, including rape, committed on 29 June 1944 in the Cornia area.
For the purposes of making a correct legal evaluation, with regard first to whether there was a
causal cotmectlon, it is necessaty to ccmsider the following question: if Milde had refused to
participate in the abovementioned military operation, would it have developed in precisely
identical circurnstances, so that in effect his personal decision to ohey the orders he was given
was completely irrelevant to determining the events?
In this connection, although it appears to be clear that Milde did not in fact have a central role in
the massacre referred to in the notification (according to the evidence obtained), it is also certain
that a decision on his part (a mandatory decision in the 1ight of the national and international
legislation in :force at the time of the acts in question) not to obey the manifestly crimlnal order he
was given would have affected the execution of the criminal plan organized within the ambît of
the Hennann Goring division, at least in the sense of limiting the number of victims of the
massacre"
In fact, the execution of the military operation in question, which bad been carefully p!anned in
advance, required coordination between ali the patrols invo!ved in the engagement, so as not to
leave any escape routes open for the people and to be able to proceed with a massacre the
effectiveness of which, in the sense of providing an example and inspiring i'ear, depended on the
impressive scale of the killing.
In that sense, the absence of any of the non-commissioned officers serving in the units dep!oyed
that day would have made it necessary to change the plan accordingly, so, even if it would certainly
not have prevented the massacre, it would have affected the course it took, allowing sorne
of those who were kil!ed to save their lives. Not to merition that such a decision might have
impelled other men in the unit, especially Iower ranks and men who had been in the band, to
:Ü)llow suit rather than assume tbat it was their inevitable fate to become jointly responsible for
- 12-
such a grave and abominable crime: in tbat sense, a non-commissioned officer's decision to obey
could not help but rein force the cri mina! plan of every other member of the unit.
In the present case, there is therefore no reason to suppose that there were additional contributory
causes which determined the outcome: the action of the other servicemen who were alleged to
have taken part, in particular those who committed the various murders, does not in fact give rise
to an unforeseeable chain of events that were beyond the control of the accused. On the contrary,
that conduct was planned from the outset as being essential to the success of the criminal military
actîon, which was deliberately designed to kill the civitians found in the places in question.
2.5. Nor can tbere be any doubt asto the subjective aspect of the offence, witb specifie regard
to knowledge of the nature of the criminal action and willingness to partîcipate in executing it
with an the other servicemen who were also involved. In fact, even apart frorn participation in the
special meeting held on the evening before the massacre (which Milde presumably attended,
although this has not been definitely established), it appears to be certain that:
the officers and non-commissioned officers at least were specifically informed by headquarters
of the essential details of the action be~1re it stmted, so that they could direct
their own men in the various areas assigned to them and do what they were ordered to do
in those areas;
the orders undoubtedly included orders to go ahead with the indîscriminate killing of
civi!ians and the destruction of bouses (it is impossible to imagine that severa! highly disciplined
military units, ali employing the same modus operandi, could have performed
independently ac.ts that were contrary to all known laws and to their own military code of
honour, unless they had been given specifie orders in advance);
the fact that the crime of 29 June was not the first crime against civi1ians committed by
units of the Hennann Goring division (because there had already been equally cruel and
terrible episodes at Stia, Valluc.ciola, Partina and Moscaio, again in the province of
Arezzo, in April1944) makes it absolutely certain that Milde, when he decided on the
moming of 29 June 1944 to talee part in the planned operation, was undoubtedly apprised
of the essential details and that he therefore assumee! a legal responsibi!ity which,
regarclless of the passage of time, is his persona} responsibility.
- 13 -
2.6. The court of first instance gave extensive reasons why the conduct of the accused cou!d
not be justified, with particu!ar reference to the extenuating circurnstances that he was doing his
duty and that there was astate of emergency: moreover, the appeal does not contain any specifie
complaints with regard to that aspect.
It is therefore suffîcient to point out, in this connection, in accordance with an established body of
case-law that (wh ile the tàct that an individual is part of a body organized on strictly hierarchical
lines may tend to relieve him ofresponsibility for actions perfonned on orders from superiors) on
the subject of crimes against bumanity and war crimes, obeying orders that are manifestly and
incontrovertib1y criminal can never be an excuse. In particular, offîcers and non-commissioned
officers in the armed forces are required to set an example for their men and, in making their own
decisions, they assume a responsibility that extends beyond their own actions and includes the
influence that the conduct of a superior has over those in lower ranks.
2.7. At the hearing held today, counsel representing the accused also requested that general
attenuating circumstanc.es apply and, consequently, that the sentence of life imprisonment, the
mandatory sentence for the offence, be excluded. Actording to the Court, it does not appear to be
admissible, with reference to the criteria laid dov.m in ATL 133 c.p. [Penal Code], to make allowances
for the accused on the grounds of "general" extenuating circumstances pursuant to Art 62a
c.p. [Penal Code], a provision which allows the court to take account of circumstances other than
those expressly mentioned in the preceding A ti. 62, "if it considers them to be such as to justify a
reduced sentence" (th us, to call for a specifie assessment of the act, "to ensure that the sentence is
appropriate and that it complies with the principle of reasonableness and the airn of rehabilitation":
Court of Cassation, Cass. 18 July 1995, Faletto).
In the present case, allowance cannot be made for the abovementionec! extenuating circumstances,
in view of the intrinsic gravity of the act constituting the offence, in respect of the
number and nature of the victims, unam1ed civilians including children, women and old people
(the gravity of an offence, in assessing which on!y marginal weigbt attaches to the considerations
conceming the actual role played by J'viilde who, as a non-commissioned officer, was cettainly
not arnong the members of the forces who ordered and planned the massacre) and the absence of
facts, in respect of a capacity for crirninal activity, even after the eonduct in question, that weigh
decisive!y in favour of the accused.
- 14-
In particular, it is not a decisive point in his favour that Milde had previously been a member of
the division's band and that, in Carletti's presence, as she mentioned, he gave way to a moment of
distress when reflecting on the horrors of war: ïndeed, the estab!ished tàct that the accuscd was
cultured, for such a young man, and cievoted to artistic activities, certain!y meant that he was
more aware than others of the manifestly cri mina! and, even more, the "uncivilized" nature of the
actions in which he had taken part. Hovvever, unlike other fellow-servicemen, who tried as far as
they could to limit the effects at !east of their superior officers' decisions, he confined himself to
one outburst, which did not however !ead him to assume any position as a result.
As. to his subsequent conduct, although it does not appear that Milde committed any tùrther
crimes in the decades following 29 June 1944, nor is there anything in later records to support a
positive assessment: on the contrary, it seems highly significant, asproofthat a negative appraisal
is inevitable in his case, that he has not so far shown any recognition'that what he did was wrong
or any interest in the fate ofthose who were killed or their tàmi!ies (on the point tbat the passage
of ti me witbout the commission of subsequent ofJènces and the extremely advanced ag~ of the
accused appear to be marginal and negligible factors when compared with the unprecedented
gravity of the act at issue, see Military Appeal Court, Corte militare appelle, 7 March 1998,
:Hass).
3. By its appea!, the party with civil liability contests the ruling at ürst instance, in the part
conceming the decision on civil matters.
It states first that the particular importance assumee! in the grounds of that judgment by the
opposition on the sections relating to compensation is determined by the fact that the party with
civilliability, guilty of default at first instance, inc!uded in the appeal questions that had never so
tàr been addressed by that Court, or considered previously, according to the statement of counsel
representing the civil party, in other cri mina! proceedings. The complexity and delicac.y of the
problem consequently ca!ls for particularly careful examination, even though it is clear that the
decision on civil matters is necessarîly subsidiary to the decision on the criminal aspects.
That being said, the appeal submitted by the party with civit !iability consists of two separate
pleas.
- 15-
3. 1. By the first, it is contended that the civil action is inadmissible and cannat be brought on
the basis of the international obligations assumed by Italy or on the basis of the content of
established national law.
In particular, under Art. 77(4) of the Peace Treaty of l 0 February 1947 (Legislative Decree,
d.legs. 28.11.194 7 No. 1430) "Ital y waives on its own behalf and on beha!f of Italian nationals all
cJaims against Germany and German nationa!s outstanding on 8 May 1945". The Court of
Cassation, United Chambers (Corte di cassazione, sez. un. No. 28511953) explained in this connection
that the abovementioned '\vaiver" was not confined to claims brought in court that were
outstanding on 8 May 1945 but applied to al! claims arising from relations since 10 September
1939, as confirmed by the term "all claims" emp!oyed in the English version oftheTreaty.
Also, in the 11Agreement for the seulement of certain capital, economie and financial questions"
between the Federal Repub!ic of Gennany and Ital y signed at Bonn on 2 June J 961 (Decree of
the President of the Republic, d.P.R. 14 April 1962, No. 1263) it was further established that:
"1. The ltalian Government declares that al! claims and demandç; of the Italian Republic or of
Jtalian natural or legal persans still outstanding against the Federal Republic of Germany or
against German natural or legal persons and arisingfrom rights or issues datingfrom the period
1 September 1939 to 8 ,"A,/fay 1945 are resolved
2. The ]talion Government will hold the Federal Republic of Germany and German natural and
legal persans immune from any future action or other legal application on the part of Italian
natural or legal persans with respect to the aforesaid claims and demands".
According to the party with civil liability, the Military Tribunal in La Spezia tàiled to apply the
abovementioned Bonn Convention, the wording of whieh "definitively prec1uded the possibility
that the tem1 'outstanding' referred only to claims based on legal actions brought between 39 and
45". As specifie implementing legislation (Decree of the President of the Republic, d.P.R.
6 October 1963, No. 2043) was enacted in Italy in connection with the abovementioned Bonn
Convention, it is also al!eged that the court of first instance mistakenly failed to app!y State
legislation. It is claimed that this aspect was not taken into account in the Court of Cassation
judgment, Corte di cassazione, Sez. un. civ. No. 5044/04: the right to compensation for civil loss
- 16-
or damage may be the subject of waiver or negotiation by a State acting on behalf of its mvn
nationa!s and the Treaties in question did not appear to be inconsîstent with imperative rules at
the time when they were concluded. Also, as to the point made by the court of first instance that
Parliament did not enact any law, in accordance with A1t. 80 of the Constitution, authorizing the
ratification (in respect of the Agreement in question) required in the case of international treaties
of a political nature or which provide for judicial arbitration or settlement, the appellant points
out that the comt could not in any case bave failed to apply State legislation but could if
necessary have raised a question of the constitutionality of the decree, d.P.R. 6 October 1963,
No. 2043, which issued the arder to implement the Agreement.
3.2. According to the Court, the abovementioned pieas raised by the appellant cannot be
accepted. As to the Peace Treaty of lO February 1947, it is noted first that that Treaty is not
binding on Italy and the Federal Republic of Gennany in their reciprocal relations (since the
Federal Republic of Germany is not a party to the Treaty) and in any case it refers (see also
Legislative Decree of the provîsional Council of State, d.lgs. C.p.S. 28 November 1947,
No. 1430, ratified by Law, legge 25 November 1952, No. 3054) to claîms already outstanding on
8 May 1945 (see also to that effectthe Military Tribunal, La Spezia, Tribunale mil. della Spezia,
3 N ovember 2006, Nordhom. Moreover the view expressed by the court of first instance and contested
by tbe appellant, to the effect that the abovementioned Ati. 77 refers exclusiveiy to claims
conceming property rights, appears to be well founded. The second part of the abovementioned
Art. 77 para. 4 specifies that "this waiver will be deemed to apply to debts, to all inter-state issues
relating to agreements conc!uded in the course of the war and all claims for compensation for loss
or damage incurred during the war": the expression "Joss or dàmage incurred during the war"
appears to refer exclusively to material damage and not to damages, covering loss or damage
otber than damage to property, to be awarded to the familiesofvictims ofwar crimes).
The view ta ken in judgment No. 285/1953 of the Court of Cassation, which is favourable to the
appeHant, is cl earl y overridden on the strength of the subsequent Agreement of 2 June 1961:
indeed, if every question relating to possible claims th at the Italian State or Italian nation ais could
have brought against Germany or German nationals had been settled by the 1947 Peace Treaty,
there wou[d have been no reason to sign the subsequent Agreement of 1961.
- 17-
Moreover, that Agi·eement (even apart from the prob1em tbat authorization was not given for its
ratification) is extremely clear in referring only to claims and demands that are "still" outstanding,
or only to claims with respect to which legal proceedings, as yet undetermined, had
already been instituted, and not to any possible claim that might be brought in the future (see
again Trib. Mil. La Spezia, 3 November 2006, cited above). It is easy to point out, in this connection
that it does not foUow that the present parties seeking damages, who requested that the
party with civil liability be summoned, had !ega! proceedings pending on 2 June 1961 against
Germany or German nationals for compensation for Joss or damage: however, the onus of
proving that such proceedings were "pending", or had ever been brought, rested with the accusee!,
or the party with civil liability,
The J'act that the Agreement refers only to claims for compensation already brought on 2 June
1961 (in respect of rights dating from the period 1 September 1939 to 8 May 1945) is confirmed
not only, implicitly, by the same Comt of Cassation judgment, Corte di Cassazione, No. 5044 of
2004, but by the many judgments de!ivered in recent years, sentencing Nazi troops tèll' war crimes
committed during the Second World War and awarding compensation for loss or damage to the .
parties sceking damages in such cases.
If the opinion that the 1961 Agreement refers to any claim relating to rights dating from the
period in question (and not only to claims that were "still outstanding" and had therefore already
been the subject of legal proceedings) were correct, it would follmv that any possibility of
bringing a civil action, not on ly against the German State but also against German nationals,
would be precluded in view of the express wording of the abovementioned Agreement (see proceedings
in the Mi!itary Tribunal, Rome, Trib. Mil. Roma, 22 July 1997, Hass and Priebke,
according to which there can be no doubt that the requisite conditions are met to ordering the
accused to pa y compensation in the light of the Agreement signed on 2 June 1962, inasmuch as
that normative act cannot produce effects in the case of iwo accused who, on the date on wbich
the relevant presidential decree entered into force, had no outstanding "claims and demands"
against them, by the present parties seekîng damages in respect of the acts at issue. It is also
pointed out, in the above-mentioned judgment, that in the course of the preliminary hem·ing in the
case against Priebke, the question was raised of the constitutionallegality of A1t. 270(1) c.p.m.p.
[Peacetime Military Penal Code], in the part where it prohibited bringing a civil action before a
military court, a question which the Constitutional Comt settîed by ruling that the above-
- 18 -
mentioned provision was unconstitutional: this would have been impossible in the referring court,
on grounds of Jack of bearing, inasmuch as the abovementioned decree, d.P.R. [263/62, V•/Ould
have bad the effect of precluding the possibility of civil obligations arising against the accused).
The above conclusions are also supported by the daim (in the judgment of the Tribunal in
Arezzo, Trib. Arezzo, 13 l\!Iarch 2007, Ferrini v Federal Republic of Germany) that it is clear
that, fo!lm.ving the addition of the Agreements of 2 June 1961, it is no longer possible to assert
that it was impossible to proceed with claims, as the Court of Cassation, United Chambers, had
proposed to do by judgment No. 285/1953: by the abovementioned judgment, the plea of inadmissibility
and/or impossibility of proceeding with clairns was accordingly rejected (see
pp. 16-18, where it is also hele! that the validity of the obligation assumed by the Italian State
und er the 1961 agreements, to secure the German State in connecti on with any civil actions
brought against it, must be recognized).
On the basis of the foregoing conclusions, the question (see pp. 12-13 of the appeal) of the
admissibility of an intemational agreement in which States unde1take to negotiate on the civil
aspects of the right to compensation for loss or damage resulting [Tom war crimes, and also to do
so on behalf of their nationals, becomes in·elevant. What is contested with respect to the
argument ofthe party with civil iîability is not the claim that the 1961 Agreement is ineffective
but the claim that it is not applicable to the proeeedings under examination.
4. By a second p!ea in law, the party with civil 1iability points out that the legal principle
stated in judgment No. 5044/04 de!ivered by the United Chambers of the Court of Cassation on
J 1 Mm·ch 2004 (according to which the principle of State immunity from jurisdiction cannat be
invoked in cases of grave vïolation of human rights) does not con-espond to the present state of
international law, in the light of the recent case-law offour States of the European Union, and of
the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States.
4.1. According to the appellant, the following judicial decisions shou Id also be taken into
account:
the Greek Special Supreme Court, in the judgment of 6-17 September 2002 revising the
principle prevfously expressed by the Greek Supreme Comt on 4 May 2000 (the ruling
cited by the United Chambers in judgment No. 5044/04), held that "at the present stage în
- 19-
the deve!opment of international law, no generaUy valid rule bas been estabiished that
would allow a State to be lawfully summoned, in derogation from the principle of State
immunity, to appear before the court of another State in connectîon with compensation for
Joss or damage caused by unlawful action of any kind, which took place in the forum
State and in which the am1ed forces of the defendant State took part in some way ...
unless it is clear that such actions were in breach of a peremptory nonn of ius co gens and
unless it is clear whether or not the anned forces were involved in an engagement with
other armedunits";
the German Federal Supreme Comt, in the judgment of 26 June 2003, ruled that "in
accordance with the intemational principle of (limited) State immunity, a State may
demand- even during the judicial enquiry ---exemption from the jurisdiction of a foreign
State in so far as it entails assessment of its sovereign conduct 'acta iure imperii')", also
with reference to a case of violation of peremptory norms of international law; the view
that the principle ofrestricted immunity is currently in force was also expressed by
the German Constitutional Court, in the judgment of 15 February 2006;
the French Court of Cassation, in a judgment of 16 December 2003, recognized that the
acts at issue, mobilization of people to serve as forced labour, carried out by the
occupying power are not such as to black the principle of immunity from jurisdiction;
the United Kingdom House of Lords, in a judgment of 14 June 2006, "again confirmed
that the rule of immunity from civiljurisdiction applies even in cases of grave violation of
human rights", and held thatthe United Chambers judgrnent No. 5044/04 was "in unicum
in consistent with the present state of international law".
According to the appe!lant, the princip le of restricted immunity fr9m civil jurisdiction must therefore
be fully applicable, even in relation to the subject-matter of the present proceedings, since
the intemationa! community at judicial Jevel has consistently supportee! the application of
immunity: in this connection, attention is also drawn t.o three decisions of the European Court of
Hurnan Rights (albeit critica! of judgment No. 5044/04) which rejected the applicability of the
. rule ofimmunity even in the event of violation ofperemptory norms of ius co gens.
It is c!aimed, on the contrary, that the decisions of the US Comts based on the amendment of the
1996 Sovereign Immunities Act, which establishes derogation from immunity from jurisdiction
in the case of civil actions against certain States, specifically named as sponsors of terrorism, are
-20-
irrelevant in this connection: in that case "derogation from immunity is not based on the identifïeation
of a nucleus of peremptory nonns of ius cogens" but simp!y on the determination of the
United States legislature to secure compensatory protection for its own nationa!s solely against
the States Iisted for the purpose.
As to certain decisions of Canadian and English Courts recognizing immunity, although ît is
undoubtedly the case that both Courts have noted the absence of the element ofjorum commissi
delicti in the cases referred to them, it appears equally undeniab!e that "that criterion is in any
event in·elevant where it is beld that breach of a peremptory norm of ius cogens impiies the
application ofthe principle ofuniversaljurisdiction".
The party with civil liability also notes that the Committee appointed to produœ observations on
the draft convention on S.tate immunity, expressly asked to state its views on the possibility of
including an article on exemption from State immunity in cases of violation of human rights,
"stated its considered opinion that, on the basis of the State case-law examined, even in those
cases the principle of immunity should be held to be in force and to take precedenee". On the
conclusion of the ad hoc group's \Vork, the Convention on Immunities of States was approved on
9 November 2004, a convention "in which it was decidee! not to inciude any derogation from
immunity even in cases of violation of human rights (wartime actions were expressly excluded,
as they had a[ready been under the 1976 European Convention on State Immunity)".
Finally, according to the appellant, the voluminous and extremely recent case-law, as weil as tbe
specifie developments in conventions, point to the conclusion that at present "the principle of
access to civil jurisdiction for the victims of grave violations ofhuman rights does not take precedence
over the rule ofState immunity from civil jurisdiction": this is also because civil actions in
connection with compensation for loss or damage suffered by the victims, unlike criminal
actions, do not come within the am bit protected by peremptory nonns of ius co gens, nor are they
confined exclusively to cases of grave violations ofhuman rights.
5. In the opinion of the Court, the arguments advanced by the party with civil liability
deserve to be given close consideration.
- 21 -
There appears to be some substance in the concern expressed by the appellant as to the possibilïty
that certain civil questions, which might give rise to a dispute between States, cou!d be settled
unilaterally by the judicial bodies of one of the States concemed and that this might not ensure
the necessary conditions of impartiality (in the same way as someone observed, hypothetically,
that the judicial bodies of the defendant State might not ensure the necessary impartiality).
This is particular!y relevant, if it is considered that the relations between States should be conducted
so as to ensure both certainty in legal relations and the peaceful settlement of disputes:
unilateral decision on a civil action by the judicial authorities of one State might not represent the
most approprlate instrument for achieving a satisfactory agreed settlement and might thus, in
certain cases, have a destabilizing effect on diplomatie relations (sec the preamble to the New
York Convention of 2 December 2004 in the part where it re fers to the objective of strengthening
the princip les of the rule of law and legal certainty).
The general principle of State immunity from jurisdiction îs therefore firmly established but the
scope ofthe principle must nevertheless be detem1inec! in the light of the continuing development
of international law.
5. J. Th at being established, it must first be observed that many of the arguments advanced by
the appellant were a!ready taken into account in judgment No. 5044/04 of the Court of Cassation,
United Civil Chambers, in which the question under examination was the subject of a thorough
and exhaustive analysis: a judgn1ent on which the court of tlrst instance based the decision to
accept the request of parties seeking damages to summon the Federal Republic of Gennany, as
the pmty \vith civilliability.
To summarize, the judgTnent of the Court of Cassation states first that "in accordance with the
princip le of compliance enshrined in Article 1 0(1) of the Italian Constitution, the 'generally recognized'
princip les of intemational law, which protect the freedom and dignity of the individual
as fundamenta! values and which hold conducr which seriously impairs the integrity of those
values to be 'international crimes', are now 'autornatically' an integral part of our legal order and
are therefore entirely appropriate parameters for the purpose of detennining the injustice of loss
or dmnage caused by malicious or culpable 'act' of others".
-22-
The Courtthen refers to the ruling that international crimes "threaten the whole ofhumanity and
undermine the foundations of international co-existence", in the case of an offence which takes
the form of a particularly grave violation, in respect of the intensity or the systematic nature of
the violation, of fhndamental human rights,protected under unbreakab1e rules which are at the
summit of the intemationa11egal order, taking precedence over al! other rules established by convention
or custom" and therefore also over the ru les on immunity: the princip les of indefeasibility
and universal jurisdiction have therefore been established in the case ofthose crimes.
Consequently, "recognition of immunity from jurisdiction for States which have been responsible
for such misdeeds is cleariy contrary to the abovementioned rules, because such recognition, tàr
from encouraging, actually prevents the protection of values which, 1ike those rules and principles,
must on the contrary be regarded as essen ti al to the wh ole international cornmunity .. ,
And there can be no doubt that the conflict of princip le should be resolved by giving precedence
to the higher rule", precluding the possibility, in such cases, of the State enjoying imrnunity from
foreign jurisdiction.
The United Chambers again affirm that "respect for the inviolable rights of the individual has
indeed now assumed the value of a fundamental principle of the intemational legal order ... And
the emergence ofthat principle must inevitab!y be ref1ected in the scope of the other principles by
which that legal order bas traditionally been inspired and, in particular, the principle of the
'sovereign equality' of States, wlth which recognition of State immunity from foreign jurisdiction
is connected".
5.2. It should be noted that the principles expressed in the abovementioned judgment were
confinned, in the context of Ita!ian case-law, in the grounds of a subsequent judgment of the
Court of Cassation, United Civil Chambers (judgment of 21 April 2005, Boni), in which, after
affirming that the Italian legal order had accepted, in aecordance with Art. l 0 of the Constitution,
the princip le of restricted or relative immunity, on the basis of which exemption of foreign States
from civil jurisdiction is limited to acts iure imperii and does not extend to acts iure gestionis,
refers to "the further limitation (recent1y shown by the fact that the obligation to respect the
inviolable rights of the individual is accepted as a fundamental princip le of the international legal
order) by virtue of which it is agreed that even the exercise of sovereignty is not covered by
immunity when it cornes to conduct by the foreign State which is damaging to precisely those
- 23-
universal values of respect for the dignity of the individual that transcend the interests of
individual State communities".
As regards the substantive case-lmv, attention may be drawn to the judgment of the Court of
Appeal in Florence, which rejected the appeal brought by the Federal Republic of Germany
agaïnst an earlier decision on the right to enforce the judgment delivered by the Greek Court of
Cassation on 13 April - 4 May 2000 concerning the c!aim for compensation brought by the heirs
of the vîctims of a massacre of civilians by the Gennan army in Greece during the Second World
War: in that decision, ît was confirmed that the argument that States are exempt from civil jurisdictlon
cannot be accepted in connection with the matter at issue in that case. The judgment of
the Florence Appea1 Court refers to the enforcement phase, which is specifically covered in the
New York Convention in Art. 18 et seq,, in which it is established, generally, that no measures of
constraint, such as attachment or arrest, against property of a State may be talœn in connection
with a proceeding before a court of another State.
In this connection, it is considered that the problem of the right to enforce civil judgments against
a foreign State, in particular if it is a matter of recognizing the right to enforce judgments
delivered by foreign courts, also presents highly peculiar features, since it also entails consideration
ofthe possible relevance of the Brussels Convention of27 September 1968 and Regulation
(EC) No, 44/2001 (see, in this c01mection, the Cami of Justice of the European Communities
judgment of 15 February 2007, Lechouritou; see also the Constitutional Court, Corte cost., 2 July
1992, No. 329, whïch held that Article 1 ofthe Royal Decree Law, r.d.L 30 August 25, No. 1261,
converted into Law, L 15 July 1926, No. 1263, was unconstitutional ''in the part where the
authorization of the Ministry of Grace and Favour and Justice is required for acts of attachment
or enforcement against prope1iy belonging to a foreign State other than property which, in
accordance with the generally recognized ru les of international law, may not be the subject of
measures of constraint").
On the other band, the Arezzo Tribunal judgment of 13 March 2007, Ferrini v Federal Republic
of German y, cited above, is of marginal relevance to the problem und er examination, si nee it was
stated in the grounds that "with regard to the claîm that the court in which the case has been
brought bas no jurisdiction because, it is ai1eged, the principle of immunity under public international
law now applies to the subject-matter de qua, it must be noted that, on this point, this
-24-
court has no altemative but to confonn to the legal principle handed dmvn by the Supreme
Court".
6. That being the present state of Italian case-l!lW on the subject, it is now necessary to
examine the appellant's arguments on the tv.;o main aspects which they address: a) the reference
to numerous decisions of foreign comts which have reached different conelusions from those
reached by the Italian Court of Cassation; b) the rel evan ce of the New York Convention on State
immunîty from jurisdiction.
6.1.1. On the appe1lant's plea regarding the number of judicial bodies, in various States, which
have uphe!d princip les contrary to tho se of the United Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation,
it is noted first that many of the decisions cited in the appeal are explicitly considered in
judgment No, 5044/2004, cited above, and the Court of Cassation expressed its own reasoned
opinion to the effect that the existence of a prior line of case-law conflicting with its own position
did not prevent it from stating the principle that a State's right to immunity from civil jurisdiction
cannat be recognized in the case of grave violations ofhuman rights.
It therefore seems necessary to take into account only the judgments cited in the appeal that were
delivered after March 2004, the date on which the judgment of the United Chambers was
registered. In particu !ar, in addition to the German Constitutional Court judgment of 15 February
2006, the party with eivil liability cites the grounds of the English House of Lords judgment of
14 June 2006, in which judgment No. 5044/2004 of the Italian Court of Cassation was he!d to be
in unicum inconsistent with the present state of intemational law. At the hem·ing held today, the
party with civil Jiabi!ity also cited a recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights,
delivered on 4 September 2007, which confirmed its own earlier position.
In this connection, it is appropriate first to note that the United Chambers judgment (although it
affirms, in general tenns, that in the case of "international crimes, jurisdiction must in any case be ·
determined in accord ance with the princip les of universal jurisdiction" and that "the principle of
universal jurisdiction undoubted!y also applies to civil proceedings arising from such crimes")
emphasizes that "the acts on which the claim is based also occurred in Italy".
- 25-
Moreover, with reference to the decisions according to which States may claim immunity from
jurisdiction even în the case of claims for compensation for !oss or damage arising from the
commission of international crîmes, judgment No. 5044/2004 states that these are "decisions on
cases in which the unlawful act was committed in a State other than the forum State" (as in the
famous Al-Adsani case, for example) "and which therefore are not absolute!y identical with the
situation which is being considered in the present case which is marked, as already pointed out,
by the fact that the criminal action was undertaken în the country in which the court was
established and took the tànn, even in that territorial context, of an international crime".
Likewise, With regard to the decisions delivered recently (with particu!ar reference to the Ertglish
House of Lords decision, which concerned a civil action brought in the United Kingdom by a
British national against Saudi Arabi a for ill-treatment and torture suffered in the territory of th at
State), it should be noted that the circumstances in that case are completely different from those
in the case examined by the United Chambers of the Court of Cassation, since the proceedings
concemed acts that occurred outside the territory of the forum State.
It therefore appears reasonable to suppose that the House of Lords assessment that the precedent
established by the Italian Court of Cassation appears to be a completely isolated instance, refers
on! y to the princip le of uni versa! jurisdiction affînned in general tem1s by the United Chambers: ·
according to the House of Lords, tbere is in fact no evidence that States recognized the obligation
to exercise uni versa! jurisdiction in actions arising from alleged violations of binding ru les.
The problem of violations of human rights committed in the terri tory of the forum State therefore
remains unresolved, even in the light of the abovementioned decisions of the Englîsh court
especially in view of the fact that section 5 of the British State Immunity Act of i 978 precludes
opposition to immunity in respect of Joss or damage "caused by an act or omission in the United
Kingdom".
The same point can be made with regard to the European Court of Human Rights decision of
4 September 2007, cited at the hearing by counsel for the pmty with civil liability, eonceming a
German court ruling on acts committed outside the tenitory of the tàrum State.
- 26-
6. 1.2. Conversely, it seems impossible to share the appellant's assetiion that the question of the
forum commissi delicti "is in any event irrelevant where it is hele! that breach of a peremptory
nonn of ius cogens implies the application of the princip1e of universal jurîsdiction". The argument
was better developed in the context ofthe hearing, where it was literally observed that ''one
may or may not agree with judgment No. 5044/2004 (we do not agree with it), but it states a
logical principle which is the end result of coherent reasoning", which leads to the affinnation of
universal jurisdiction in cases of breach of peremptory nom1s of ius cogens: so that, either
"unîversa[ jurisdiction is recognized" or it is decided otherwise, in which case it no longer matters
"whether or not an act occun·ed in the country where the court sits" (see transcript dated
18 December 2007, pp. 30-31).
Essentia!Iy, according to the appellant, if excluding the possibility of pleading immunity in cases
of grave violations ofhuman rights means according precedence to imperative rules basee! on the
protection of the fundamenta[ rights of the individual, in that context the limitation on immunity
must apply irrespectîve of territorial boundaries. The introduction of the question of the forum
commissi delicti, as an integral or subordinate crîterion, therefore appears to be an inconsistency
that may compromize the logical consequences of the statements of prlnciple made by the Court
of Cassation.
That argument is not convincing inasmuch as, wh en it is necessary to seek a judicial solution in a
situation where conilicting rules apply, ît is not always possible to establish the complete precedence
of eitl1er rule: the aim of striking a balance between opposing interests can often be
achieved only by adopting criteria which allow the partial limitation of the conflicting ml es (see,
solely by way of example, the Const!tutional Court judgn1ent, Corte cost., sent. 393/2006,
according to which "the Jevel of importance of the interest protected by the princip!e of the
retroactivity of lex mitior- derivee! from the level ofprotection provided by national law, as well
as by international conventionai law and Communîty law- necessarily implies that the value
protected by tbat principle can be sacrificed by an ordinary law only in favour of an equally
impmiant interest", with the consequence that scrutin y of constitutionality must take precedence
over a positive and dose examination ofrationality.
There wou1d therefore be no discernible inconsistency if, in the same eontext authoritatively
indicated by the lJnited Chambers of the Court of Cassation, it were to be concluded th at, in the
- 27-
conf1ict between the mandatory intemational rules on the protection of human rights and the
intemational rules providing for State îmmunity from civil jurisdiction, it should be considered
that international practice has achîeved a balancee! comprornize by admitting that the limitation
on immunity may apply (at the present stage of development of international law), in the event of
grave violations ofhuman rights, in the case of acts committed in the forum State.
In this connection, the objection that it is not admissible in international law, as it is in national
law, t.o emp!oy the criterion of striking a balance between the înterests protected by different
rules in order to arrive at a correct interpretation of the law, is not decisive; this is pmiicularly
true when the ru les to be compared occupy diiierent positions in the hierarchy of sources (in that
sense, the o~jection thar, if peremptory norms of ius cogens are held to have precedence over
other rules of customary or treaty-based intemational law, that precedence must apply in every
case, irrespective of any further requirements, is weil founded).
State practice, often based on application of the cri teri on of locus commissi delicti for the purpose
of ensuring balancee! protection of the confticting interests at issue (even by identifying a limited
derogation from State immunity from jurisdiction), appears on the contrary to be decisive.
In this connection, the limitation on immunity from jurisdiction operates not only, or not so
mu ch, as a "special eftect" of a peremptory nonn of ius co gens, but through the positive existence
of a rule of customary intemational law: the criterion of the balance of interests is therefore not a
criterion of interpretation for the purpose of resolving a conflict of princip le between given rules
(as a result ofwhich one oftbe rules, the imperative rule, precludes the application ofthe otber),
but rather a criterion for reconstructing the precise content and !imits of the rule on State
immunity from jurisdiction, in fi)fce in the international community (see also, point 6.2.4. below).
6.1.3. It should also be added that the decisions of the judicial authorities are only one of the
sources from which a general rule of intemational law may be deduced and in any case it is
ccrtainly not a question of establishing the number of judgments supporting the respective
conflicting views, since what matters above ali is whether the legal arguments are correct and
consistent.
- 28-
This is not intended to impiy that the Italian case-law may continue to support its own view (held
to be legitimate in the context of a systematic and developing interpretation of international mles)
in complete isolation and when it is clear that a different legal solution is held to be prevalent in
al! other countries.
It seems however that, while it is not established that the judicial authorities of other States consistently
follow the line taken in the Italian case-law, it is true to say that at present the question is
still open and subject to futUre developments, as recognized in that part of the ltalian legal
literature which calls for the exercise of caution but emphasizes that in any case the Court of
Cassation decision represents a contribution to the protection of individual victims of grave
violations of their fundamental rights, a contribution capable of having a positive effect on
strengthening and developing the trend towards gradua! erosion of the principle of immunity
already under way in the international community.
6.2.1. As to the approval of the New York Convention on 2 December 2004, it is truc that the
Convention did not introduce any derogation from immunity in the case of violation of human
rights, but that does not in tàct have the determinative significance that the party witb civil
liabi!ity seeks to attribute to it. Moreover, it must be said at once that the Convention does not
contain an express exclusion in the case ofwartime actions, as the appellant v.,rrongly states: only
the European Convention signed at Basle in 1976 contains an express exclusion, in Ati. 31, as
regards any immunitîes or privileges enjoyed by a Contracting State in respect of anytbing done
or omitted to be donc by, or in relation to, its am1ed forces when on the territory of another
Contracting State, but the abovementioned Basle Convention is unanimous!y held to be of
minimal re!evance to the issue under examination, principally because it was ratified by very few
States and they did not include Italy.
The New York Convention, on the other hand, is silent on the subject of military and wartime
activities and although, according to the Chainnan of the Ad Hoc Committee on Immunities, that
is to be interpreted as meaning that they do not fait within the scope of the Convention, it may
simply mean that the rules of customary intemational law still apply to those activities, both with
respect to the provision on the principle of immunity from jurisdiction and with respect to the
identification of limits în the case of grave violations of human rights: in that case, in other
- 29-
wotds, the "new act" represented by the approval of the New York Convention is completely
irrelevant to the solution of the problem in question.
It should be noted, in this connection, that the New York Convention represents the end of a long
and painf1tl process in which international law has gradually moved on from the principle of
absolute immunity, originally accepted by most States and subsequently limited as an everincreasing
number of States (starting with Belgium and Ital y) adopted the princip le of restricted
immunity. In this respect, the importance of the Convention lies not so much in the general princip
le laid down in Art. 5 (under which aState enjoys immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts
of another State) as in the explicit provisions (Art. 10 et seq.) on proeeedings in vvhich State
immunity cannot be invoked.
62.2. In this connection, Art. 12 appears to be particularly relevant, as it sets out the so-called
criterion of tort exception according to which a State cannot invoke immunity from jurisdiction
before a comi of another State which is otherwise competent in a proceeding which relates to
pecuniary compensation for death or injury to the person, or damage to or Joss of tangible
property caused by an act or omission which is allegee! to be atn·ibutable to the State, if the act or
omission occurred in wh ole or in part in the terri tory of that State and if the author of the act or
omission was present in that ten·itory at the time of the act or omission.
It should be noted in this cormection that the Draft Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of
States was taken into account in United Chambers judgment No. 5044/2004, with particular reference
to the abovementioned Art. 12 and to the opinion tbat "derogation from the principle of
immunity, established by the rule in question, includes 'intentional' Joss or damage and loss or
damage resulting from crime, not exc!uding wilful. murder and political assassination'' and "the
distinction betvveen acts committed iure imperii and acts performed iure gestionis is irrelevant
with respect to claims for compensation arising from 'injury to the person' or from Joss of or
damage to 'tangible' prope1iy".
6.2.3. The fact tbat Art 12 may refer inter alia to human rights violations, including human
rights violations which may have occurred in the course of military activities, is confirmed
(despite the opposite and authoritative opinion expressed by the Chairman of the Ad Hoc
Committee responsible for drafting the text of the Convention) first by the actual wording of the
- 30-
rule, which does not provide for limitations on its scope other than those explicitly mentioned:
thus it was poinîed out that, under Art. 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,
recourse may be had to the preparatory work on!y when the interpretation according to Ait. 31 of
that Convention leaves the meaning arnbiguous or obscure or leads to a result which is manifestly
absurd or unreasonable (consequent!y, if the authors of the Convention had wanted to exclude
situations of armed conflict from the scope of Art. 12, they should have expressly said so). These
conclusions appear to be supported by the following considerations:
the Explanatory report on the United Nations Convention of 2 December 2004 on Jurisdictiona!
lmmunities of States produced (wi!h a view to approval by the Federal Chambers)
by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs on 17 January 2007 (posted on
the lntemet) states, on the subject of "State immunity and human rights", that "in order to
lift the immunity of a foreign State in a civil action brought for injury to the person or Joss
of or damage to property, the present Convention requires that two territorial connections
be established: the criminal act (or omission) must have occurred in the territory of the
forum State and the author of the act must have been present in that territory at the time of
the act or omission (Art. 1 2). To require a specifie connection with the territory Df the
forum State in order to establish jurisdiction, is consistent with State practice in the matter
of immunity: it is primarily a question of avoiding 'forum shopping', which involves proceedings
before authorities which are of doubtful standing and which are also too far from
the place where the act in question occun·ed to be able to settle a dispute in full knowledge
of the facts. Iris however reasonable to ask whether such a requirement may not be
disproportionate in the case of disputes conceming grave violations of human rights. That
question was examined by the ILC working group to detennine whether it was appropriate
to malœ specifie provision for denying State immunity in the case of civil actions
resulting from grave violations of human rights perpetrated outside the forum State.
The working group did not make any specifie recommendation to that effect". The
problem therefore does not arise in connection with cases in which ail the requirements
mentioned in Art. 12 are met (as, it is emphasized, they are in the present proceedings
relating to acts \Vhich occuned in Italy and which were carried out by individuals who
were in Italy at the time when the acts were ccimmitted) but in connection with human
rights violations perpetrated outside the forum State: however that question is not one for
this Court to decide.
················-----------
- 31 -
Norway, when it ratified the New York Convention, produced a "declaration", stating its
understanding that the Convention docs not apply to military activities, including the
activlties of armed forces during an armed conflict as those terms are understood under
international humanitarian law and activities undertaken by arrned forces of a State in the
exercise of their official duties, n: in orcier to exclude military activities from the scope of
the Convention, it is consideree! necessary (or in any case appropriate) to enter a specifie
reservation, that conf'ilms a contrario that the view is weH founded aceording to whîch
Art. 12 is to be understood rn general tenns as meaning that activities undertaken by
mmed forces fall within in its scope.
6.2.4. Doubts have been raised as to the possibility of recognizing retroactive effects of the
abovementionedArt. 12, as an imperative rule which also applies to legal situations which arase
before the entry into force of the Conventiort (a Convention whîch, as expressly provided in
Art. 4, does not have retroactive effect).
The explicit provision on retroactivity may however relate only to the new provisions of the
Convention and not to the provisions which simply codify a pre-existing principle of customary
international law. In this connection (and even without invoking the preamble to the New York
Convention, according to which the rules of customary international law continue to govem
matters not regulated by the provisions of th at Convention), it should be notee! th at the princip le
of the forum commissi delicti, even before it was enshrined in Art. 12 of the Convention in
question, was established both in the legislation of a number of States and in judicial decisions:
consequently, it does not in fact seem unreasonable to take the vlew that that prindple shou!d be
deemed to be in force both before and after the New York Convention (except for victirns ofroad
accidents and in cases of political assassination) in the generally much more serious cases of
death or injury caused by acts or omissions constituting grave violations of the rules on the
humanitarian law ofwar or the protection ofhuman rights.
Moreover, under Art. 5 c.p.c. (Code of Criminal Procedure), jurisdiction must be determined with
reference to the time when the clairn was.made (as the Court of Cassation also held in judgment
No. 5044/2004): in the present case, the parties seeking damages, who bad an interest in summoning
the party with civil liability, entered a11 appearance at the preliminary hearing stage, at
the hearing held on 15 June 2005.
- 32-
To confirm the importance of the criterion of connection based on the locus commissi delicti, it
may be pointed out, for example, that (prior to the formulation of a principle of universality,
notably pursuant to the Statute of the International Criminal Court) under Art. 5 of the Declaration
adopted by the United Nations General Assembly by Resolution No. 3074 of 3 December
1973, "persons against whom there is evidence that they have committed war crimes and crimes
against humanity shall be subject to trial and, if fou nd guilty, to punishment, as a general rule in
the countries in which they committed those crimes. In this connection, States shaH cooperate
on questions of extraditing such persans".
On the subject of cooperation in the matter of extradition, Art 88(2) of Additional Protocol I to
the Geneva Conventions stipulates that the High Contracting Parties sha!l give due consideration
to the request of the State in wh ose terri tory the alleged offence bas occurred".
On the other hand, in the cases where explicit provision is made for derogation from the princip le
of immm~ity from jurisdiction, in Art 10 et seq. of the Nev.r York Convention, it is general! y
claimed that there is a connection between the exclusion of immunity and the fact that the subject
of the 'dispute is connected with the tenitory of the forum ,State (see, for example Art. 11, on
proceedings which relate to a contract of employment between the State and an individual, for
work performed orto be performed, in who le or in part, in the territory of the other State; Art. 13,
on proceedings arising out ofimmovable property situated in the State ofthe forum).
The rules codified in the New York Convention therefore confirm, contrary to the view held by
the appellant party with civil liability, that the decision of the court of fîrst instance was correct
on this point. Also, with reference to the rules referred to in Art. 12, which accepts the existence
of a limitation on the plea of immunity, even in the case of grave violations of human rights,
provided that the action is brought before the judicial bodies of the State in which the violation
occurred, the affirmation that "the regime established by the United Nations Convention on
Jurisdictional lmmunities of States and their Property strikes a satisfaetory balance between the
requirement to protect individual plaintiffs and the prerogatives of public power which are vested
in the State and which must be free from any interference by foreign courts" may be considered
to be weil founded.(see also the report of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affàirs, cited
above).
····----------... -.~~~~~~--------
- 33-
7. L The appe!lant also maintains that the right to compensation for Joss or damage can never
be regarded as being imposed by peremptory nonns of ius co gens.
It is considered, in this connection, that the obligation incumbent on persons who committed a
crime to compensate the victims (or their dependants, in the case of death) for any Joss or damage
caused whîch gives rise to civil liability, undoubtedly presents certain peculiarities: first, under
Art. 185 c.p. [Penal Code], compensation must co ver both Joss of or damage to property, and Joss
or damage other th an loss of or damage to property; also, the regime of limitations is based on the
regime prescribed for the offence (under Art. 29(3) of the Civil Code, according to which "in any
event, if the actis held in law to be an otTence and a longer limitation period is established for the
offence, that limitation period also applies to civil actions": in the present case, as the offence in
question is not subject to any limitation period, civil action cannot be time-barred under Ita!ian
law).
Jt is also poînted out that compensation for the loss or damage caused by crime is undoubtedly
punitive and has certain implications for public law (see, on this point, Arts. 62(6) and 165 c.p.
[Penal Code]): this is firmly est:'1blished in the provision (Art. 35 of Legislative Decree, d.lgs.
28 August 2000, No. 274), according to which, in the case of offences within the jurisdiction of
the local magistrate, the offence may be held to be purged "when the accused shows that he has
taken steps, before attending the hearing, to repair the loss or damage caused by the offence, by
restitution or compensation, and that he bas eliminated the damaging or dangerous consequences
of the offence"" Fina1ly, according to the ru les in force; as the cri minai penalty is not inherent}y
concemed with reparation, protection for the victims of crime is also provided in law by a system
of ru les on civil liability which differ in important respects from the ordinary civil regulations on
liability for unlawful aets.
So mucb for national law. As to international law, it is noted first that, un der A tt. 3 of the 1907
Hague Convention (IV), "A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations
sball, if the case demands, be li able topa y compensation. It sball be responsibie for all acts
committed by persans forming part of its armed forces". It does not appear to be decisive ln this
connection, having regard to the objective content of the provision, to note that the responsibilîty
referred to at the time must have been a responsibility that could be asserted at international leve!.
- 34-
Art 75 of the Statute of.the lnternatïonal Criminal Court subsequently provided that the Comt
sball establish principles relating to reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution,
compensation and rehabilitation; the Court may make an order directly against a convicted person
specifying appropriate to, or in respect of, victims. In this connection, there is no reason to
suppose that the victims' right to compensation is subject to further limitations, with respect to
time for example, other than those relating to the criminal action concerning the act n:om which
the liability arose (see also the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment- ratified by Italy by Law, !. 3 November 1988, No. 489,
Art. 13, under whlch each State Party shall ensure that an individual vvho alleges that he has been
subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to its
competent authorities; Art. 14, under which each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that
the victim of an act of torture obt:ains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate
compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death
of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependants shaH be entitled to compensation).
Also, the United Nations General Assembly, by resolution of 27 March 2006 ("Basic Princip/es
and Guide/ines on the Right ta a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of
International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law"),
recently called on States to provide for an effective remedy for victims of grave violations of
human rights, inviting them in particular to recognize the victims' right to have access to a court.
7.2. Also, in the present case there appears to be no doubt that the character of a peremptory
. nonn of ius co gens (as defined in Art 53 of the 1969 Vien na Convention on the Law of Treaties)
must be recognized as applying to rules which define acts such as those at issue as crimes and,
consequently, to the associated rules which impose an obligation, in those cases, to compensate
victims for loss of and damage to property, and for other loss and damage caused.
Attention îs drawn in this connection to the many ru les (of national and intemational law) which
were already in force in 1944 or which in any case recognized a general principle of international
law already existing prior to that time:
first, Art. 185 of the 1941 Wartime Military Penal Code (mentioned in the indictment)
classifies the act of killing civilians in territory occupied by the military forces of a hostile
- 35-
State as a criminal oŒmce under Libro III, Titolo IV c.p.m.g. [Wmiime Military Penal
Code, Section III, Title IV] "Offences against the laws and customs ofwar" (in the Report
on the preliminary Draft of that code, it was noted that the Committee considered it
appropriate "to in elude a special section on violations of the laws and customs of war in
the draft war code, in order to establish. an organic system of international mi!itary criminal
law in that delicate and important area, fuu·monized with the general p:rinciples of
international law", sin ce there is no doubt that "the very establishment of international
criminal law encourages the search for means of ensuring observance of the sacree! natural
laws ofhumanity and civilization").
Art. 46 in Section III C'Military authority over the territory of the hostile State") of the
Regulations ("respecting 1aws and customs of war on land") in the Annex to the 1907
Hague Convention (IV), provides that "Fami!y honour and rights, the lives of persons,
and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected". It
should also be noted in this cmmection that, in its judgment of 30 September 1946, the
Nuremberg Tribunal declared that the rules embodied in the 1907 Hague Convention
"were recognized by al1 civilized nations and were regarded as being declaratory of the
laws and customs of war" before the conflict began and had therefore assumed the force
and value of norms of customary international law (see Court of Cassation judgment,
Corte di cassazione, Sez. un. civ. No. 5044/04, cited above, para. 7.2).
A1t. 28 of the Italian "Law of war", approved by Royal Decree, r.d. 8 July 1938,
No. 1415, provides that ''Unless otherwise provided by law, private persons who do not
commit acts of hostility, even if they are attachee! to the armed forces ... must be
protected with respect to personal safety, inviolability of property, and enjoyment and
exercise of aH their other rights";
the Charier of the "International military tribunal for the prosecution of the major war
criminals of the European Axis", attached to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945
(the principles of which were confim1ed by the United Nations General Assembly by
resolution No. 94 of 11 December 1946) provides that murder of civîlian population of or
in occupiecl territory is classifiee! as a war crime, and murder or extermination committecl
against any civilian population as a crime against humaniry;
Art 85 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions describes "making the civilian
population or individual civilians the object of attack'' causing "deat11 or serious injury to
body or health" as a grave breach (consequentiy regarded as a "war crime" in accordance
- 36-
with the definition contained în the last paragrapb of that article) (see also Art. 147 of
Convention (IV) relative to "the !Protection of Civilian Persans in time of War", Geneva,
12 August 1949);
in the context of the definitions recently enshrined in the Statute ofthe International Criminal
Court (ratified by Italy by Law, 1. 12 July 1999, No. 232) the act that is the subject of
these proceedings appears to be correctly classifîable as a crime against humanity, inasmuch
as it consisted of repeated acts of murder committed as part of a widespread and
systematic attack directed against civilian populations, împlementing a policy pursued by
the anned J'orees of the Reich which consisted of committing acts su ch as to terrorize the
civilïan population of or in occupied territory and thus achleving an objective contrary to
thepartisan resistance.
It does not seem possible theretore, especially in the light of the express provisions, already cited,
contained in Art 3 of the 1907 Hague Convention (IV) and in Art. 46 of the Regulations in the
Annex to that Convention, to concur with the authoritative opinion that there appears to be some
doubt as to the possibility of convicting a State in respect of acts committed when State responsibility
for grave violations of human rights was not internationa!ly recognized, for example in
respect of atrocitîes committed during the Second World War.
8. Finally, it must be said that, essentia!ly, it is not for this Court to lake a position in genèral
tem1s on the problems of State immunity from jurisdiction and to detennine whether or not a
princip le of universal jurisdiction applies in civil actions arising from grave violations of human
rights (it is noted incidentally, in this connection, that as regards criminal jurisdiction in the
matter ofwar crimes, Italian law does not at present apply the principle ofuniversa! jurisdiction:
for examp!e, Art 185 c,p.m.g. [Wartime Mi!itary Penal Code] applies only to Italian troops- or,
under Art. J3 of that Code, to enemy troops --who have commirted the act against private enemy
persans who are not taking part in military operations; it is also maintained in legal literature that
-for the princip!e ofuniversality established in the Statute of the International Criminal Court to
apply in the Italian legal arder- the law ratifying the Statute is not sufficient and that specifie
national imp!ementing legislation is required.
The question that the Court has jurisdiction to decide relates on! y to the judicial process by which
it is detennined: in fact, therefore, it is only a matter of establishing whether the State, the Federal
- 37-
Republic of German y, can be legally summoned to respond, in criminal proceedings, as the party
with civil liability jointly with the accused, to a claim from the parties seeking damages, who
entered an appearance, for compensation in respect of loss or damage caused, in Italian tetTitory,
by a war crime (and crime against humanity) committed on 29 June 1944, at the hands of amember
of the Genmm annee! forces who was in Italian territory at the time when the crime was
committed.
Onthis point, finally, the Court proposes, for the reasons given above, to conform with the line
taken by the Court of Cassation, United Civil Chambers, in judgment No. 5044/2004, in the sense
of recognizing, for present purposes, the jurisdiction of the ltalian criminal court, in proceedings
for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Italian territory, to determine the civil
liability of the State in whose armed Forces the accused was serving.
To that end, the criteria based on the impossibility of derogating from a peremptory norm of ius
cogens and on the so-called principle of tort exception are not alternatives, as stated above, but
convergent, since it is possible to identify a rule of customary international law that has the effect
of excluding the possibility of invoking, in the present criminal proceedings, the immunity of the
State summoned as the party with eivilliability by the coürt with civil jurisdiction to respond to
the daim.
9. For the purpose of recognizing, in substance, the civil liability of the State, the Federal
Republic of Germany, jointly with the accused Mil de, it is also pointed out that the massacres of
civilians that took place in Italy in 1944 durlng the retreat of the German troops (and in particular
the massacre at Civitella in Val di Chiana) were not ea1Tied out as a result of a particular decision
by individual commanders (and certainly not as a result of an independent decision by the
aecused in the present case) but as a result of a specifie plan, attributable to the Gem1an Military
High Command in Ita!y and ultimately to the highest political and military authorities in the
German State, to react to the attacks of the partisans by involving the civilian population,
conducting massacres on a scale that would discourage any further initiatives on the part of the
resistance forces.
9.1. The orders issued by Field Marsha! Kesselring on 17 June and 1 July.1944 should a[so be
recalled in this connection. The order issued on 17 June 1944 included the following statement:
- 38-
"The fight against the partisans must be carried on with all the means at our disposa! and ·with
the utmost severity. 1 will protect any commander who exceeds our usual restraint in the choice
and severity of the methods he adopts 1vhile fighting the partisans. In this connection the old
principle holds good, that a mistake in the choice o.fthe means to achieve an objective is a/ways
be tt er than failure ta act or neglect". The order issued on 1 Ju ly stated inter a lia th at: "ft is the
duty o.f al! troops and police in my command to adopt the severes! measures. Every act of
violence committed by partisans must be punished immediate/y. Reports submitted must also give
details o.f counter-measures taken Where the re are considerable numhers of partisan groups, a
proportion of the male population in the area will be arrested and in the event of an act of
violence being committed, these men will be shot."
Thus, this Court has already noted (see judgment of 24 November 2005, Langer) that in the
summer of 1944 German troops occupying lta1y were responsible for an impressive number of
massacres, killings and bu!lyîng tactics against the civilian population. Such acts, both in respect
of their systematic nature and because they were implicit in the system of orders and directives
issued by Field J'vJ:arsha1 Kesselring, must be attributed not so much, or not solely, to any
pariicular iH-will on the part of the persans who committed them, asto a specifie strategie plan to
combat the partisan guerrilla tactics. In other words, it was a matter of showing that the German
troops, not recognizîng the partisans as legitimate combatants, reacted to attacks on their own
units by involving the civilian population. Thus, the merciless killing of so many chi!dren,
women and old people was also based on a deliberate and prearranged plan to prevent any fonn
of support or consensus in tàvour of resistance against the occupying enemy forces, by spreading
tetTor among the population.
9.2. In the present case, it is clear inter alia that the scale of the massacre carried out on
29 June 1944 (with the killing of more than two hundred eivilians) bore absolutely no relation to
the preceding partisan operations (on 18 and 21 June 1944) in which altogether four German
servicemen were ki!led. \Vhen it is considered that two other Gennan servicemen who had been
captured by the partisans were liberated on 23 June 1944 in a spectacular attack on the partisan
base in the Villa Montaltuzzo, and that the (few) partisans still in the area in the days following
the attack did not take any further action, it appears to be clear that the appalling massacre on
29 June 1944 was decided in cold blood and that, at this point, the preceding limited partisan
- 39-
attacks mere!y served as a pretext for executing a plan of indiscriminate violence against the
population.
There is therefore no doubt that, in substance, the Federal Republic of Gennany must respond, as
the party with civil liability, in the criminal proccedings bronght in connection with wartime
actions carried out by its own armed forces, in accordance with the directives of the highest
political and military authorities, and in breacb of the laws and customs of war. Moreover, this
appears to be consistent not only with the provisions of Italian law, but also with the provision
contained in Art. 3 of the 1907 Hague Convention (IV), already cited, according to which "A
bel!igerent party ". shall be responsible for all acts corùmitted by persons fonning part of its
armed forces" (a provision that was confim1ed in exactly the same terms in Art. 91 of Additionai
Protocol I - adopted on 8 June 1977 and relating to the "Protection of Victims of Intemational
Armed ConfJicts'' - to the 1949 Geneva Conventions).
9.3, On the question of recognition of a State's civil liability in respect of acts committed by
members of its anned U)rces in situations of armed conf1ict, it appears appropriate to state that the
princip le affirmed by the Court of Cassation, United Civil Chambers, in order No. 8157 of 5 June
2002 (according to which- with reference to the civil action brougbt by members of the victims'
families, following the bombing of the radio-television station in Belgrade on 23 April 1999 by
NATO aircraft which took off from an Ita!ian base- acts of war are manifestations of a political
function and "with respect to acts of this type, no court bas the power to review the way in which
the function was exercised"; see also, in this connection, European Court of Human Rights,
14 December 2006, Markovic), a principle which has already been the subject of criticism in the
legal literature, must be regarded as ovetTidden, at ]east in respect of its absolute ascendency, by
the effect of the subsequent United Civil Chambers judgment, No. 5044/2004, cited on severa!
occasions.
9.4. Although no speciilc objections have been raised in this cormection, it is worth confirming
that the civil action at issue is not barred by the statute of limitations, inasmuch as it
arises from the commission of an act regarded in law as an offence punisbable by li fe imprisonment
and is therefore not subject to statutory limitation under Italian law (Ali. 157, in fine, c.p.
[Penal Code] and Art. 2947(3) c.e. [Civil Code]). This represents an essential point of divergence
from the judgment delivered by the Tribunal in Arezzo (13 March 2007, Ferrini v. Federal
-40-
Republic of Germany) in which it was held tbat the right to compensation for loss or damage was
subject to limitation on the ground that "the acts on which the claim is based do not appear to be
punishable by a sentence of life imprisonment" (adding, in the grounds of the judgment, that
"from the point ofview ofintemat]onallaw, it cannat be held that, at the time when the açts were
comrniited, there was any rule of customary law to the effect that so-called international crimes
could not be subject to limitation": however, that finding is not of înterest in cases, such as the
present case, of an imprescriptible right under national law, so there is no point in the observation
that the principle tbat international crimes are not subject to limitation was incorporated in the
Itaiian legal order only with the ratification of the Statute of the International Crimïnal Court on
26 Ju!y 1999, and that it cannot apply, as a principle of substantive criminal law, to acts
committed before the Statute entered imo force).
It is added, on the question of an imprescriptible right to compensation for loss or damage, that
-for the purposes of the length of the period oflimitation established by Art. 2947(3) c.e. [Civil
Code]: the date of extinction of the offence or the date on which the judgment becomes t1nalthe
judgment of the Territorial Military Tribunal in Rome, 12 July 1950, imp. Schmalz, relating
to the same criminal act, is in-elevant. Moreover, that judgment, by which a defendant other than
the defendant in the present case was absolved on the ground that he had not committed the act, is
in any case unlikely to be of any rel evan ce for the purposes of Art. 294 7 c.e. [Civil Code}.
1 O. As regards the question of detennining the amounts due in seitlement, no pleas have been
raised by the accused or by the party with civi1liability: the judgment of the court offîrst instance
must tberefore be upheld in that part also. The accused must also be ordered to pay the further
costs incurred by the court and to pay the costs of the proccedings incurred by the parties seeking
damages, to the amount indicated in the operative pmt of the judgment, apart from fees and
expenses: in the case of defence counsel acting for a number of parties, a total amount is given
which takes into account the supplement laid dovvn in the scale of rates payable for the number of
parties represented.
ON THOSE GROUNDS
Pursuant to Arts. 261 c.p.m.p. [Peaœtime Military Penal Code]; 3. L. [Law] 180/81; 592, 597 and
605 c.p.p. [Code of Criminal Procedure]
- 41 -
CONFIRMS
the contested judgment,
ORDERS
Mil de Max Josef to pay the costs of the court of second instance and to pa y the costs incurred in
the proceedings to the parties seeking damages, payable as follows:
a) Ricciarini Gio Battista, Buracchi Vanda, Ricciarini Fabrizio, Ricciarini Alessandto and
Ricciarini Metello- a total amount of Euro 1000.00 in respect of fees and Euro 240.00 in
respect of expenses;
b) Biancucci Barbara and Biancucci Beatrice- a total amount of Euro 670.00 in respect of
fees and Euro 240.00 in respect of expenses;
c) Molentacchî Sestilio ·-Euro 560.00 in respect of fees;
d) Region of Tuscany, Province of Arezzo, Municipality of Bucine and Municipality of
Civitella in Val di Chiana- a total arnount ofEuro 500.00 in respect of fees;
e) Presidency of the Council of Ministers --Euro 560.00 in respect of fees, together
with the statutory V AT and CP A in the case of ali the parties seeking damages.
Judgment registered within forty days.
Rome, eighteen December two thousand and seven
DRAFTING JlJDGE
[signed] (Giuseppe MAZZI)
PRESIDENT
[signed] (Giuseppe MONICA)

Document file FR
Document
Document Long Title

Annexes - volume I

Links