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

1. The fact

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

   According to 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 stage saw 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 8 months in prison for disclosure of office secrets. This conviction was confirmed by the Rome Court of Appeal in the second instance. 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's review is pending.

2. 

   The norms at play

   The regulatory framework revolves around three 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 critical activities.

   On the criminal side, Art. 326 of the Criminal Code punishes a public official who discloses office information intended to remain secret, with imprisonment from six months to three years; the norm 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 Government functions are distinct from parliamentary ones: an administrative act, such as managing a confidential document, can hardly be absorbed into 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 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. Always distinguish between the administrative role and the political one for guarantees.
   2. Assess the document's nature: the lack of formal secrecy does not exclude the offense if the content is sensitive.
   3. Pay attention to digital evidence: WhatsApp chats can be acquired without authorization if considered data external to correspondence.
   4. Caution in transmitting documents: it is preferable to use institutional channels to secure 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 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction