The Delmastro Case: Parliamentary Immunity and the Functional Link between Official Secrecy and Political Activity

1. The fact

   The case stems from the disclosure of extracts from a Department of Prison Administration (DAP) report concerning conversations between a detainee under the 41-bis regime and organized crime figures.

   According to press reports from ANSA, La Repubblica, and Il Sole 24 Ore, on January 31, 2023, MP Giovanni Donzelli cited these passages during a speech in the Chamber of Deputies. This information had been provided to him by the Undersecretary of Justice Andrea Delmastro Delle Vedove.

   The procedural background includes a mandatory indictment ordered by the GIP, followed by a committal for trial in November 2023. In the first instance, the Court of Rome sentenced Delmastro to eight months in prison for disclosure of official secrets. This conviction was confirmed by the Rome Court of Appeal. As of July 30, 2026, according to Il Politico Web, the case focuses on the request for authorization from the Chamber for the use of the defendant's chats, while the Supreme Court review remains pending.

2. The norms at play

   The regulatory framework revolves around three main pillars. Art. 68, paragraph 1, of the Constitution establishes the immunity of Members of Parliament for opinions expressed in the exercise of their functions.

   Art. 3 of Law 140/2003 specifies that this protection also applies outside Parliament, provided there is a functional link with typical inspection or political criticism activities.

   On the criminal side, Art. 326 of the Criminal Code punishes a public official who discloses official information intended to remain secret with imprisonment from six months to three years; the provision aims to protect the proper functioning of public administration and the confidentiality of information sensitive to public safety.

3. What case law says

   Case law from the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court has clarified that the concept of functional link is not a blank check. It is not enough for an act to be performed by a politician to make it immune. There must be a substantial correspondence of meaning between the challenged act and a specific parliamentary activity.

   Judges have also specified that executive functions are distinct from parliamentary ones: an administrative act, such as managing a confidential document, can hardly be covered by immunity unless it is strictly preparatory to a typical act of the elective mandate.

   Finally, the secrecy of a document can derive not only from formal classification stamps but also from the intrinsic nature of the information contained therein.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it teaches professionals

   1. Carefully distinguish administrative duties from political roles when asserting constitutional guarantees.
   2. Assess the substantive nature of documents: the absence of formal secrecy markings does not preclude criminal liability if the content is intrinsically confidential.
   3. Pay close attention to digital evidence: WhatsApp messages may be acquired without prior authorization if classified as stored electronic data rather than active correspondence.
   4. Exercise caution when transmitting documents: using institutional channels is advisable to substantiate the functional link.

References: Articolo 68 CostituzioneArticolo 326 Codice PenaleLegge 20 giugno 2003 n. 140Legge 3 agosto 2007 n. 124

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 30 July 2026