Almasri case: the Constitutional Court has only partially upheld the Chamber of Deputies’ ruling regarding Giusi Bartolozzi

The Constitutional Court has only partially upheld the appeal in which the Chamber of Deputies sought to extend the protections afforded to ministers to Giusi Bartolozzi, former chief of staff at the Ministry of Justice. Bartolozzi is accused of lying to the magistrates investigating the release of the Libyan general Osama Almasri. The Court did not rule on Bartolozzi’s guilt but, according to the judgement filed today, it was not necessary to seek authorisation from the Chamber of Deputies to proceed with that charge. However, the Court also identified two errors in the magistrates’ conduct.

A brief recap: the case dates back to January 2025. Almasri was arrested in Turin on 19 January and repatriated to Libya two days later, despite an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for war crimes. A state flight was used to return him to Libya. The Court of Ministers – the body responsible for investigating offences committed by ministers and the Prime Minister in the course of their duties – subsequently requested authorisation to bring proceedings against the Minister of Justice, Carlo Nordio, the Minister of the Interior, Matteo Piantedosi, and the Under-Secretary of State, Alfredo Mantovano. In October 2025, the Chamber of Deputies refused to grant authorisation by a majority of more than 250 votes, and the case was dismissed. The case against Bartolozzi, who was not a member of the government, remained open. The Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office accused her of providing false information to the Court of Ministers, before which she had been heard on 31 March 2025. The majority argued that the offence was linked to those attributed to members of the government, and that a parliamentary vote was therefore also required in her case. In April this year, the Chamber of Deputies approved, by a margin of 47 votes, the referral to the Court, raising a conflict of jurisdiction: the mechanism by which one state body challenges another for having encroached upon or compromised its prerogatives. In July, the trial – the first hearing of which was scheduled for 17 September – was suspended pending the decision.

The Court rejected the Chamber’s main argument: the obligation to seek authorisation applies to offences attributed to ministers and does not extend to those committed by other persons merely linked to the former, such as any false statements made to cover up a minister’s liability. As this is a special provision, the judges held that it cannot be interpreted broadly. If the person being questioned needs to protect confidential information, they may invoke state secrecy, provided the conditions are met.

On another point, however, the Chamber was upheld. At the conclusion of the investigations, the Public Prosecutor’s Office had urged the court to consider Bartolozzi as an accomplice in the offences attributed to Nordio or, alternatively, to consider the possibility of false statements. According to the Court, the court should have explained why it had ruled out complicity, which would have made it necessary to seek authorisation for her as well. The Public Prosecutor’s Office should then have communicated that assessment to the Chamber, to enable it to lodge an appeal if necessary.