Look Online - Decisions BROWSE ONLINE
JUDGEMENT NO 236
YEAR 2008
ITALIAN REPUBLIC ON BEHALF OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
composed of:
- President Franco BILE
- Giovanni Maria FLICK Judge
- Francesco AMIRANTE "
- Ugo De Siervo "
- Paul MADDALENA "
- Alfio Finocchiaro"
- Alfonso FORTY "
- France Gall"
- Luigi Mazzella "
- Gaetano SILVESTRI"
- Sabino Cassese "
- Tesauro"
- Paolo Maria NAPOLITANO "
gives the following Judgement
in reviews of the constitutionality of Article. 14, paragraphs 5 and 5-d-ter of Legislative Decree 25 July 1998, No 286 (Consolidated text of provisions governing immigration and the status of the foreigner) - as replaced by art. 1 of Law November 12, 2004, No 271 (Conversion into law, with amendments, decree-law on September 14 2004, No. 241, entitled "Urgent provisions on immigration) - promoted by orders of April 10, 2006 the Court of Agrigento, detached section of Canicattì of 6 May and 5 September 2006 the Court of Agrigento, Licata sub-office of 13 July (Nos. 2 orders) 2007 by the Court of Paola, detached section of Scalea, registered as Nos. respectively. Register of Orders 413 and 578 of 2006 and nn. 540, 781 and 783 of the Register of Orders 2007, published in the Official Gazette nos. 42 and 51, first special series in 2006 and nn. 32 and 47, before special series 2007.
viewed the intervention by the President of the Council of Ministers;
heard in chambers on May 21, 2008 the Judge Rapporteur Gaetano Silvestri.
The facts
1 .- With three orders of similar content, the Court of Agrigento, a sub-office Canicattì (ron 413 of 2006) and Licata (ron 578 of 2006 and No. 540 of 2007), raised , in reference to Arts. 3, 10, 13, 27 and 136 of the Constitution, issues of constitutionality of Article. 14, paragraphs 5 and 5-d-ter of Legislative Decree 25 July 1998, No 286 (Consolidated text of provisions governing immigration and the status of the foreigner) - as replaced by art. 1 of Law November 12, 2004, No 271 (Conversion into law, with amendments, Decree-Law of 14 September 2004, No. 241, entitled "Urgent provisions on immigration) -, in so far as, respectively, constitute the criminal case of amounts detention of foreign nationals into the the State (paragraph 5-b) and stop required of the person responsible for this crime (paragraph 5-d).
The court, called upon to adjudicate on the validation of the arrest of third country nationals inottemperanti order to leave the country, issued by the quaestor under Article. 14, paragraph 5-bis of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998, had provided the release of those arrested with reasons based on the lack of serious evidence of guilt as to the existence of the crime alleged, and later suspended the opinions of validation. The complaints relate to proposed
first prediction of the arrest of the alleged conflict with the mandatory principles enshrined in Articles. 27 and 13 of the Constitution According to the court, the legislature has required the application of "exceptional measure" of provisional restriction of freedom against persons who "is not [no] general material conditions in order to comply voluntarily of expulsion, lack of documents, financial resources and capacity to provide a regular means of transport to return home, and then compared with situations in which compliance with the order of removal may be irrecoverable.
Judges in quibus dwell on that aspect of the phenomenon, noting that in the absence of the transfer of non-EU citizens outside the territory of the State by the authority, and because "the practical impossibility on the part of foreigners to return useful alone in his country "can not" objectively claim that these spontaneously performs a measure affecting him. " The referring courts to add the additional consideration that the compliance order expulsion would expose the non-EU citizen to personal and legal consequences "even more important than those arising from his illegal stay in Italy," whenever the same, unable to reach the country of origin, is forced to enter in another Member with the risk "certainly unreasonable" to undergo further restrictions of freedom.
In only one case (order No. 540 of 2007) is also the antithesis of the proposed legislation criticized by art. 10 of the Constitution, for violation of obligations to protect victims of international trafficking in human beings.
censorship rules, according to the judges before the national court, also would be elusive to the delivery of Corte costituzionale con la quale è stata dichiarata l’illegittimità costituzionale del previgente art. 14, comma 5-quinquies, del d.lgs. n. 286 del 1998, che stabiliva «identico congegno normativo». Al solo fine di ripristinare l’arresto obbligatorio, infatti, il legislatore avrebbe «surrettiziamente» trasformato la precedente fattispecie contravvenzionale in una previsione delittuosa, il cui rigore sanzionatorio non troverebbe giustificazione nel bilanciamento tra interesse protetto e inviolabilità della libertà personale.
I rimettenti segnalano quindi il contrasto della normativa censurata con il principio di uguaglianza, rilevando come tale normativa realizzi «una indebita e arbitraria disparità treatment of the offending conduct and other acts for which, however, despite their more serious objective, the arrest is made optional only on the basis of general principles laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure. "
With reference to the relevance of the questions, the judges before the national court will affirm the existence, as would follow from accepting the same beneficial effects in the hands of the suspects.
1.1. - By applications are identical in content, in all the reviews spoke the President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the state, which has concluded the main finding of manifest inadmissibility of issues and, in the alternative, not substance. As for the preliminary
profile, the state representative highlighted the lack of motivation regarding the relevance of the questions, the referring courts established by the generic reference to "a beneficial effect that would result in chief suspect, from accepting the issues."
the substance, the Attorney General notes that the peculiar gravity of the conduct of that person who, expelled from the territory of the state, intentionally continued to reside there, to be a constant discipline on immigration, having been already provided for the mandatory arrest contravention to the original case brought the Law of 30 July 2002, 189 (Modification of the regulations on immigration and asylum).
With the news traveled by Law No 271, 2004, conversion of the decree-law No. 241, 2004, the legislature intervened to restructure the sanctions system, diversifying the possible nature and attributing criminal conduct offensive to the most serious.
The outcome of this restoration work are regulated differently in fact the possibility of illegal entry into the territory of the State (equated the failure to request a residence permit within the prescribed period in the absence of force majeure, and the cases of withdrawal or cancellation of the permit), and the ejection willing to expiration of the permit to stay for more than sixty days if no request for renewal. In the first case, ICTU oculi more severe, the legislature has given the more severe treatment, setting the penalty of imprisonment from one to four years, has confirmed for the second and less serious cases, the nature of contravention and the penalty of arrest from six months to a year.
think, therefore, the state representative that the choices made by the legislature in terms of dosimetry resulting penalty not exceeding the reasonable time.
Finally, as the 'written off' for compliance with the order of expulsion, proposed by the referring courts as a result of the difficulties that non-EU citizen would encounter in returning to the country of origin, the Attorney General merely states that the assumption is not understandable, and that in any case, "proves too much."
2. - With two ordinances are identical in content (order No. 781 and No. 783 of 2007) the Court of Paola, detached section of Scalea, raised, with reference to Arts. 3 and 13 of the Constitution, the question of the constitutionality of Article. 14, paragraph 5-d, of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998, as amended by Law No. 271, 2004, to the extent it provides for the mandatory arrest, rather than merely optional, for the crime in art. 14, paragraph 5-ter of the Decree.
Both judgments concern the validation of the arrest of the main non-EU citizens inottemperanti order to leave the country, issued by the quaestor under Article. 14, paragraph 5-bis of the Consolidated Act on immigration. The court refers the parties concerned - the outcome of the investigation fingerprint - are now without a criminal record and court, and never reported to police.
The court, which suspended the reviews before deciding on validation, complaint, the anticipation of the arrest mandatory for the offense under Article. 14, paragraph 5-ter of Legislative Decree no. No 286 of 1998, highlighting the character in the introduction of twice exceptional cases where the deprivation of liberty is not only outside of the reservation of jurisdiction, but also precluding "any assessment as to whether or in the particular case to deprive ' individual of liberty. " In the matter of protection of personal freedom, in fact, art. 13 of the Constitution allows for the measure of arrest is required only "in exceptional cases of necessity and urgency, such would not be as pertaining to the criminal case in art. 14, paragraph 5-bis of the Consolidated Act on immigration.
The legislative choice of mandating the arrest in flagrante delicto in a case such as this, be punished with imprisonment from one to four years, and that is substantiated nell'inottemperanza to an order issued by the administrative authority, is without reason (they are called the Constitutional Court No 394 of 1994, No. 409, 1989, No. 103, 1982 and No. 26 of 1979), as shown by comparison with similar cases provided for under the light of the general criteria set out in Article . 380, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are positive in the specification limits configured by the Constitution for the adoption of exceptional detention order.
The arrest is in fact mandatory provisions of art. 380, paragraph 1, no. proc. pen. for crimes punishable by life imprisonment or imprisonment of not less than twenty years and the smallest in five years, and, in paragraph 2 of that Article. 380, for offenses listed exhaustively, whose sentences are prescribed by law in all cases significantly higher, in total, as for the crime under Article. 14, paragraph 5-ter of Legislative Decree no. 286, 1998.
The unreasonableness of legislative choice, and the consequent unjustified unequal treatment would result from having its own legislature united, for the adoption of mandatory arrest so far, this case is not comparable having regard to the treatment of penalties, both in different social profile of the alarm raised. According to the court, in fact, non-compliance with the order of the superintendent of leaving the country does not produce any direct injury to constitutionally significant interest to the community (this is a "barrier crime") and, second, even it can be assumed that the non-EU citizen is socially dangerous because of their illegal status or because they illegally present in the country.
The court therefore introduces a further comparison of the crime in question and other cases which, he said, not only presentano struttura analoga al primo, ma anche risultano direttamente o potenzialmente lesive di interessi collettivi, e per le quali, invece, l’arresto in flagranza è soltanto facoltativo.
Il riferimento immediato è al reato di evasione, che si sostanzia nella violazione di un provvedimento emesso dall’autorità giudiziaria, e «non di un semplice provvedimento amministrativo», da parte di un soggetto il quale, per il solo fatto di essere detenuto per altra causa, deve presumersi socialmente pericoloso.
Il raffronto prosegue con il richiamo al reato previsto dall’art. 9, comma 2, della legge 27 dicembre 1956, n. 1423 (Misure di prevenzione), che punisce l’inosservanza agli obblighi e alle prescrizioni inerenti alla sorveglianza speciale con la reclusione da uno a cinque anni, e per il quale il comma 3 della stessa disposizione prevede l’arresto soltanto facoltativo. Anche in questa ipotesi, evidenzia il rimettente, come nel reato di evasione, l’inosservanza riguarda un provvedimento dell’autorità giudiziaria e l’agente è soggetto la cui elevata pericolosità sociale è stata già accertata.
Allo stesso modo, l’art. 8, comma 1-bis, della legge 13 dicembre 1989, n. 401 (Interventi nel settore del giuoco e delle scommesse clandestini e tutela della correttezza nello svolgimento delle manifestazioni sportive), prevede l’arresto facoltativo dei soggetti già have become responsible for acts of violence during sports events, and therefore certainly dangerous.
Finally, with regard to the treatment by the legislature to other cases of infringement or violation of regulations issued by the authority (administrative or judicial), the referring calls but not limited to the cases provided for in Articles. 388 and 650 of the Penal Code and Articles. 9, paragraph 1, of Law 1423, 1956 and 51 of Legislative Decree 5 February 1997, No 22 (Implementation of Directive 91/156/EEC on waste, Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste and 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste), to underline how, in these case, the arrest is not expected, even in an optional.
The discussion above make clear, in the opinion of the court, that the legislature has treated same way at all dissimilar situations, violating the principle of equality which, although literally referring to "citizens", shall be deemed extended to foreigners, the rules on the protection of fundamental human rights (it's called the Constitutional Court ruling No. 104 of 1969).
The alleged infringement of the principle enshrined in Article. 13, third paragraph of the Constitution, it is argued After summarizing the findings already carried out, that the legislature may establish temporary restrictions to libertà personale, al di fuori dell’intervento dell’autorità giudiziaria, solo «in casi eccezionali di necessità ed urgenza», laddove l’art. 14, comma 5-ter del d.lgs. n. 286 del 1998, che concerne la mancata osservanza dell’ordine di allontanamento disposto dal questore, configurerebbe un reato la cui struttura «non prevede né la lesione né la messa in pericolo diretta e immediata di un bene costituzionalmente protetto».
Secondo il rimettente, la ratio della previsione risiederebbe, infatti, «unicamente nella scelta del legislatore di assicurare, mediante la minaccia di sanzioni penali, l’ottemperanza ad un provvedimento amministrativo, e quindi di garantire l’effettività mechanisms of expulsion of aliens "undesirable". "
The court focuses more on the subjective profile of the absence of a specific dangerous condition of the agent, further highlighting how, in front of people never convicted or tried for other crimes, it is not possible to make an assessment of social dangerousness (I refer to the judgments of the Constitutional Court No 64 of 1977 and No 126 of 1972). The illegal stay of foreigners in Italy is not in itself a crime - instead of being subject to lawful expulsion - or the absence of a formal title legitimizing the entry into the territory of the State may be considered on its own specific hazard index of the subject. The referring
then examines the consequences of automatically censored by observing that in many cases, the police are forced to make the arrest of persons who do not present a profile of social danger, and are sometimes even included in the local context of reference. In these cases, the referring court observes, the adoption of the measure precautelare Apart from its usefulness (or not welcomed by the police at runtime, or by the court in the validation), found no justification in the objective gravity of the fact that in danger of the subject agent.
would be excluded, then, according to the court, any instrumentality of the mandatory arrest and the need to ensure compliance with a removal: the effect of deterrence, by which the legislature intends to ensure 'effectiveness of the procedure of expulsion, is entitled to be represented by the penalty imposed by the judicial outcome of a fair trial, not even a precautelare extent to which the Constitution and criminal law assign other functions (it's called the ruling of the Constitutional Court No. 223 of 2004).
on the significance of the question, the referring points to the greater extent of control on the police that the court is called upon to perform the validation in cases of arrest optional, as is constantly asserted by the Court of legitimacy, that the judicial review extends to the evaluation of substantive requirements of the measure restricting freedom (severity of the act, hazardous agent), in consideration of the facts known or knowable at the time of the incident.
Therefore, in case of acceptance of the question, would be returned to the court validated the possibility of reviewing the proposed measure precautelare in all respects on indicati e, in definitiva, di non convalidare l’arresto in ipotesi di carenza di detti presupposti.
Ancora a proposito della rilevanza della questione, il giudice a quo ribadisce l’autonomia del giudizio di convalida rispetto al successivo giudizio direttissimo (obbligatorio nei casi di specie), e richiama la sentenza della Corte costituzionale n. 54 del 1993, nella quale si è affermato che nel giudizio di convalida «la rilevanza della questione permane, trattandosi di stabilire se la liberazione dell’arrestato debba considerarsi conseguente all’applicazione dell’art. 391, settimo comma, ovvero più radicalmente, alla caducazione con effetto retroattivo della disposizione in base alla quale gli arresti were carried out. "
2.1. - In proceedings brought by the order of 2007 783 Ron spoke the President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the state, which asked that the question be declared unfounded.
In the act of intervention, the state representative repeats arguments already raised in the proceedings regarding the level counterparts introduced by the orders made by the Court of Agrigento, already summarized in section 1.1.
legal considerations
1. - In three separate orders for similar content (order No. 413 and No. 578 of 2006, No. 540 of 2007), the Court of Agrigento, sub-offices Canicattì and Licata, raised, with reference to Arts. 3, 10, 13, 27 and 136 of the Constitution, issues of constitutionality of Article. 14, paragraphs 5 and 5-d-ter of Legislative Decree 25 July 1998, No 286 (Consolidated text of provisions governing immigration and the status of foreigners), as replaced by art. 1 of Law November 12, 2004, No 271 (Conversion into law, with amendments, Decree-Law of 14 September 2004, No. 241, entitled "Urgent provisions on immigration), in which, respectively, constitute the criminal case of amounts detention of foreign nationals into the territory of State (paragraph 5-b) and stop required of the person responsible for this crime (paragraph 5-d).
The Court of Paola, detached section of Scalea, with the remaining orders, identical (ro numbers 781 and 783 of 2007), raised, with reference to Arts. 3:13 Constitution, the question of the constitutionality of Article. 14, paragraph 5-d, of Legislative Decree no. 286, 1998, to the extent it provides for the mandatory arrest, rather than merely optional, for the crime under Article. 14, paragraph 5-b of the same Legislative Decree no. 286, 1998.
2. - The opinions can be gathered and decided by a single sentence for the partial coincidence of the object the individual issues and the parameters mentioned.
3. - Must be declared inadmissible preliminary questions of constitutionality raised by the ordinances ron 413 of 2006 of the Court of Agrigento, detached section of Canicattì, and orders numbers ro 578 of 2006 and 540 in 2007 the same Court of Agrigento, sub-office of Licata.
by the aforementioned introductory show that the referring courts have ordered the immediate release of those arrested for failure to act on the assumption of serious indications of guilt regarding the consummation of the crime alleged against them. Since the judges in the main proceedings have already ruled out the possibility to validate arrests performed, the outcome of these proceedings incidental to the constitutionality can not explain any effect in the main proceedings. It follows the manifest inadmissibility of the issues raised, for lack of relevance.
3.1. - The question of constitutionality raised by the ordinances ro numbers 781 and 783 of 2007 of the Court of Paola, detached section of Scalea, is unfounded.
3.2. - The legislative provision mandatory arrest in flagrante delicto obeys the legislature to limit the discretion of the police in all cases in which it argues is that there can not be postponed to the protection of community. The plant's current code of criminal procedure is governed, in the area in question, two criteria set out separately from the Law of 16 February 1987, n. 81 (legislative delegation to the Government of the Republic to issue a new Code of Criminal Procedure). The first quantitative and is based on the seriousness of the offense, as evidenced by penalties prescribed by law, the minimum and maximum provided for. The second qualitative in nature and is based on "special protection needs of the community."
the first criterion, we inform the art. 380, paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for the mandatory arrest in flagrante delicto for crime punishable by imprisonment for not less than the minimum five anni e nel massimo a venti anni. Al secondo criterio si informa il comma 2 dello stesso articolo, che contempla, accanto ai reati consumati, anche quelli tentati, per i quali, ai sensi dell’art. 56 del codice penale, la pena è diminuita da un terzo a due terzi. Tale diminuzione di pena porta il minimo e il massimo applicabile ai suddetti reati a valori molto vicini a quelli previsti dall’art. 14, comma 5-ter, del d.lgs. n. 286 del 1998.
3.3. − Dal dato sopra esposto si desume che rilevano, per questa seconda fascia di reati, non i valori della pena in sé e per sé considerati, ma le particolari esigenze di tutela della collettività, che vengono apprezzate dal legislatore in rapporto ad una serie molteplice elements, historically changing and the result of policy choices reprehensible criminal not in control of the constitutionality of laws, unless it is manifestly unreasonable options.
The manifest unreasonableness can be detected or because of confrontation with tertia comparationis homogeneous, or in response to the finding of an inherent contradiction of the contested provision.
In this case the subject of these proceedings are not satisfied neither the first nor the second hypothesis.
3.4. - Not the first, since, as already mentioned, the sort of weather knows mandatory arrest for crimes in flagrante delicto, or attempted, whose penis minimum and maximum are set by the legislature on values \u200b\u200bsimilar to those of the crime of unjustified detention of foreigners in the State.
By way of example, in addition to what is said above about the offense attempted, we can cite the art. 624-a cod. pen., which provides for the burglary and theft by ripping, imprisonment from one to six years. This case was included in Article. 10, paragraph 2 of Law March 26, 2001, No 128 (Legislative measures for the protection of public safety), including mandatory arrest in cases of flagrante delicto covered by art. 380, paragraph 2, no. proc. pen .. As with the issue in this case, it is criminal acts which resulted in time after the entry into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an increased public concern, which the legislature has decided to respond, among other things, providing for the arrest mandatory.
As for the complaint concerning the relationship between the arrest and the tenuous nature of the mandatory penalty prescribed by law, this Court has stated, for a similar case, that "it is a policy choice of social prevention of crime attributable to the legislator, who decided it should matter, in its discretionary determinations by the entity's objective of crime and punishment prescribed by law "(Case No 588 of 1989, according to Sentence No. 211 of 1975, the same principle expresses the sentence no 305, 1996).
More generally, this Court has emphasized the insufficiency of the grounds of constitutionality based on "a comparison between the rules relating to precautionary measures, carried out on one floor dell'offensività rather than on the broader context of overall needs can be ensured using the measures in question "(Case No. 22 of 2007). The choice
mandatory arrest in flagrante delicto for the crime at issue is the subject of reviews related to a policy response that Parliament has decided to implement, in this as in other cases, in the face of social perception of the dangerousness of a phenomenon (in this case, the breach to the order of removal following a deportation order), subject to the guarantee of judicial review on the existence of conditions for the application of the measure. This Court has indeed drawn attention to the importance that "the art. 385 cod. proc. pen. generally excludes the arrest when, under the circumstances, the fact is made in the fulfillment of a duty or exercising a legitimate right, or in the presence of a ground for non-punishment: and the same rule can not apply a fortiori, in the case, as in this case, di elemento negativo interno allo stesso fatto tipico» (sentenza n. 5 del 2004).
Non spetta a questa Corte esprimere valutazioni sull’efficacia della risposta repressiva penale rispetto a comportamenti antigiuridici che si manifestino nell’ambito del fenomeno imponente dei flussi migratori dell’epoca presente, che pone gravi problemi di natura sociale, umanitaria e di sicurezza. Al giudice delle leggi appartiene il compito di verificare che il legislatore non abbia introdotto ingiustificate disparità di trattamento all’interno di un quadro normativo storicamente dato.
Per i motivi esposti, si deve ritenere che la previsione dell’arresto obbligatorio si collochi sulla stessa linea che ha indotto il legislature to similar predictions in other cases.
3.5. - It is not found even in the contested provision, an inherent contradiction, which proves the manifest unreasonableness. Not valid in regard to the judgment No 223, 2004 of this Court, since such a ruling of unconstitutionality was based on the obvious contradiction inherent in precautelare a measure that could never be an outlet of the case, given the nature of contravention of the offense under the law then in force, and the related inapplicability precautionary measures by the court, thus remaining "end in itself." After the legislative change that has transformed the situation of "undue detention" da contravvenzione in delitto, punito con la pena della reclusione da uno a quattro anni (e dunque suscettibile dell’applicazione di una misura cautelare personale), la contraddizione riscontrata dalla Corte nella citata pronuncia è venuta meno, fermi restando i rilievi sugli squilibri, le sproporzioni e le disarmonie del complessivo sistema sanzionatorio già segnalati dalla sentenza n. 22 del 2007, rimediabili solo da un intervento organico del legislatore.
per questi motivi
LA CORTE COSTITUZIONALE
riuniti i giudizi,
dichiara non fondata la questione di legittimità costituzionale dell’art. 14, comma 5-quinquies, del decreto legislativo 25 luglio 1998, n. 286 (Testo unico delle disposizioni concernenti la disciplina dell’immigrazione e norme sulla condizione dello straniero), come sostituito dall’art. 1 della legge 12 novembre 2004, n. 271 (Conversione in legge, con modificazioni, del decreto-legge 14 settembre 2004, n. 241, recante disposizioni urgenti in materia di immigrazione), sollevata in riferimento agli artt. 3 e 13 della Costituzione, dal Tribunale di Paola, sezione distaccata di Scalea, con le ordinanze indicate in epigrafe;
dichiara inammissibili le questioni di legittimità costituzionale dell’art. 14, commi 5-ter e 5-quinquies, del d.lgs. n. 286 del 1998, sollevate, in riferimento agli artt. 3, 10, 13, 27 e 136 Cost., dal Tribunale di Agrigento, sezioni distaccate Canicattì and Licata, with the order mentioned in the inscription.
Decided in Rome, the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, June 23, 2008.
F.to:
Franco BILE, Chairman
Gaetano SILVESTRI, Editor
Maria Rosaria Fruscella, Chancellor
Filed in Chancery 27 June 2008.
0 comments:
Post a Comment