The anti-rave decree, possible wiretapping and who risks 6 years in prison: “Are we going to trial in the sports hall?”

The anti-rave decree, possible wiretapping and who risks 6 years in prison: “Are we going to trial in the sports hall?”
The anti-rave decree, possible wiretapping and who risks 6 years in prison: “Are we going to trial in the sports hall?”
CopyAMP code

The new rules of the anti-rave decree make possible wiretapping. Even if the Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni had excluded them. And the new offense it will be possible to contest even to those who just participate in the rallies. Not only. The standard inserted in the Law Decree 31 October 2022no. 162 already published in the Official Gazette allows through the new article 434-bis of Penal Code the extension to meetings of any kind. Like the occupation of a Lyceum or a picket of workers in a factory. With ex officio admissibility: therefore there is no need for a lawsuit. Even if the arbitrary invasion of land already falls within thearticle 633 CP. Finally: a possible trial would also have a disruptive effect on the judicial system. Because in the last case of Modena the participants were over two thousand. Since they are all processable, a sports hall or a stadium may be needed to celebrate the rite.

The new article 434-bis

To explain yesterday that wiretapping is possible was the president of the Criminal Chambers Gian Domenico Caiazzo. And for a very simple reason: it has a six-year sentence. And listening to communications is possible for all crimes that provide for a penalty of more than five. An interpretation also made by Vittorio Manesfull professor of criminal law atUniversity of Bolognain an interview released today at Rest of the Carlino: «The organizers of a rave don’t have a business card. Thus the hunt for organizers could result in listening to even simple participants. Because in the case of an investigation who promotes the event, who supports it or who participates – assuming it is so certain to define the individual roles – we understand only at the end, not at the beginning “.

Manes explains that the new art. 434-bis “Consists in the arbitrary invasion of other people’s lands or buildings, public or private, committed by a number of people greater than fifty, in order to organize a rally,” when it can derive from the same a danger to public order or public safety or public health“. It is a prediction extremely generic and therefore slippery. Because no one escapes that, on the basis of an assumption of danger to public order or public safety or public health, each meeting of more than 50 people on land o public and private buildings of others could fall within the crime envisaged by the decree. Also unauthorized meetings of a political nature, educational or sportyjust to give some examples ».

Freedom to demonstrate and the Constitution

Also the former president of the Constitutional Court Giovanni Maria Flick attacks the norm Melons-Piantedosi. «As far as I remember – he says the former Keeper of Seals Today at Republic – the Constitution speaks of limitations “only for proven reasons of security or public safety” while it does not mention dangers to order or public health. The constitutionality of this extension of limits should be immediately verified ”. Flick finally criticism the approach towards young people: “The idea of ​​fighting their discomfort with criminal instruments and penalties that appear very heavy and with a new crime seems dangerous to me, when those that already exist are more than sufficient”.

The same arguments raise them Gaetano Azzariticonstitutionalist of the Wisdom: «There is a tightening and control over individuals that can be deduced from the possibility of intercepting everyone, even minors. Despite the assurances of government officials, the prosecutors will be able to put them under control the phones of many people, too very young, without having committed any crime. Without even being able to exclude those of politicians or trade unionists who organize rallies considered dangerous ». Professor Manes, on the other hand, points his finger at another decisive point: «A meeting is triggered, the police arrive, identify organizers and participants and report them to the judicial authorities. At that point the law must take its course. In which sports hall or stadium do we do the trial?“.

Piantedosi’s interview

The Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi tries to answer the objections in an interview with Corriere della Sera. In which In which he premises that “the objective of these rules approved by the Council of Ministers is to align ourselves with the legislation of other European countries also in order to discourage the organization of such events that above all they endanger the participants themselves – I remember that in Modena they danced in a crumbling shed e they risked a massacre – and end up keeping entire areas in check, compromising commercial activities and roads. We must ensure, first of all, that young people can have fun without exposing themselves to danger to their safety and then protect entrepreneurs who face competition from whoever acts in contempt of any rule“.


The head of the Interior Ministry, on the other hand, finds it offensive “To attribute to us the will to intervene in other contexts, in which constitutionally guaranteed rights are exercised, to which the law clearly makes no reference. In any case the conversion of the decrees takes place in Parliament, not on social media. At that time, every proposal will be examined by the government ”. Finally, he replies as to why the police did not intervene in Predappio: «It is an event, one antics, which I absolutely deplore. It has been taking place for years, without incidents and under the control of the police. It happened with similar modalities and numbers even in years when there were political figures in the government who now express indignation. I can assure you that the police will report to the judicial authorities all possible behaviors in violation of the provisions in force ».

CopyAMP code

Read on on Open

Read also:

The article is in Italian


Tags: antirave decree wiretapping risks years prison trial sports hall