Italy: Court of Appeal of Brescia, 18 January 2019, No. 96/2019
| Country of Decision: | Italy |
| Country of applicant: | Italy |
| Court name: | Court of Appeal of Brescia |
| Date of decision: | 18-01-2019 |
| Citation: | K-Pax – Società cooperativa sociale – onlus, Associazione Puerto Escondido – L’Altro, A.S.G.I. – Associazione Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione v E.F. [2019], Court of Appeal, No. 96/2019 |
Headnote:
The case deals with a controversy, in which E.F. attributed profit making and trafficking activities to some specific NGOs working in the field of migrant accommodation through a public Facebook post. The Facebook post was regarded as hostile and discriminatory towards the organisations working in the field and towards asylum seekers.
Facts:
E.F., an Italian citizen, posted an article by the newspaper “Bresciaoggi” on Facebook alleging that some specific organisations working in the field of migrant accommodation, among which K-Pax and Puerto Escondido, were involved in profit-making activities and human trafficking. The post also made reference to the “illegal” presence of asylum applicants in Italian territory.
The cooperatives, supported by A.S.G.I., brought an action against E.F., claiming that the post is hostile and disrespectful, as it depicts them as facilitating the unlawful entry of migrants. Furthermore, they claimed that the post is offensive towards asylum seekers, as they are lawfully residing in the national territory according to art. 10 of the Italian Constitution.
The action was granted as the conduct was considered discriminatory and E.F. was sentenced to the compensation of damages.
E.F. decided to appeal the first decision of the Court asking to review it on the basis of the right of freedom of thought and contending that the terms used in the Facebook post were misinterpreted.
Decision & reasoning:
Concerning the discriminatory nature of the Facebook post:
The Court of Appeal based the discriminatory nature of E.F.’s conduct on art. 2. comma 3 of the Legislative Decree 215/2003 on equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, as the conduct has the effect of “violating the dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”. As a matter of fact, attributing the aim of profit-making to the cooperatives in a public platform such as Facebook, creates an intimidating environment towards them and consequently towards asylum seekers.
Concerning the use of terms “illegal immigrants”:
The Court of Appeal found that the use of these terms violates the dignity of the category of asylum seekers referring to them as illegal. According to art. 10 of the Italian Constitution, asylum seekers have the right of entry in the national territory and ask for asylum, therefore, their legal status is regular.
Concerning the compensation of damages:
In the first appeal, E.F. claimed that the order of compensation was illegitimate and that the judge had established a new category of damages. In fact, the Court of Appeal found that the judge had properly applied the law and, subsequently, upheld the first court’s decision to order compensation.
Outcome:
Appeal denied
Observations/comments:
This summary was completed by Sara Korbi, Master’s student on International Sciences at Università degli studi di Torino.