The Consulta admits the conflict of the Senate on the whatsapp messages of the Renzi case

The attribution conflict raised by the Senate on the Renzi case and the whatsapp messages seized, in the context of the Open investigation, are admissible, not Matthew Renzibut to the entrepreneur Vincent Manes. The Consulta, in the council chamber, has only given the go-ahead for now. And now, to decide on the merits of the conflict itself, that is, whether it is admissible or not, whether the prosecutors of Florence or, on the contrary, Senator Renzi are right, the Constitutional Court will first hold the public hearing with the parties, and then it will be a new council chamber to decide the question “on the merits”.

But let’s see what it is about, and why the conflict has come about. Who, on February 22, obtained the green light from the Senate with 167 votes in favour, those of the Lega, Forza Italia and Fratelli d’Italia, as well as those of the Democratic Party, and with the vote against from the M5S and the then senator Piero Grasso. At proposing the path of conflict was Fiametta Modena, then senator and member for Forza Italia of the Board of Authorizations. Her thesis was as follows. The whatsapps contained in a mobile phone – in this case that of Manes, and therefore not of Senator Renzi – must be treated like correspondence, for which the seizure, if it belongs to a parliamentarian, requires the authorization of the relevant Chamber. The prosecutors of Florence, involved in the Open case, instead would have used them without prior green light from the Senate.

Piero Grasso’s objections

But here lies the anomalous interpretation of the rules, because the seized cell phone, and which contained exchanges of messages between Manes and Renzi, did not belong to the senator from Rignano, but to the entrepreneur. And therefore there was no need for any authorization to seize it. As the Cassation itself has made clear in its sentences. While Renzi claims that for “his from him” messages exchanged with Manes on his phone – including that of the flight to the US for 130 thousand euros – the green light from the Senate was mandatory. But the rules of the Chambers in this regard are clear, authorization is needed to seize the correspondence of a senator or a deputy. Certainly not those of his friends or all the people he talks to.

In February, Piero Grasso explained the question in the courtroom, from a strictly technical point of view, as a former prosecutor. With these words: “There can be no matter of conflict between powers because the prosecutor cannot have abused a provision that does not exist, just as the Senate cannot demand prior authorization not provided for by law for a third-party seizure nor an analogous application of the regulation of indirect interceptions in a case of seizure of documents from third parties.In fact, the rules which establish immunity and parliamentary prerogatives in derogation from the principle of equal treatment before the jurisdiction, must be interpreted in the most adherent sense to the text. If, on the other hand, you want to reintroduce a new and broader form of immunity, or the old authorization to proceed repealed in 1993, let’s discuss it openly, put your face to it with a bill. I will be against it, but I could be, like it often happens, in the minority.” Grasso added again: “With this rule, if a mafioso speaks to a parliamentarian, his phone can no longer be confiscated”. Words that fell into thin air because the majority instead approved Fiammetta Modena’s proposal on the conflict.