The Court of Cassation Clarifies on the Roman Salute: Judgment No. 19342/2025 and the Crime of Fascist Apology

The Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 19342, filed on May 23, 2025, has provided an important interpretation on the configurability of the crime of fascist apology. The ruling, presided over by Dr. G. R. and reported by Dr. P. M., focuses on the execution of the "Roman salute" and the "roll call" during public demonstrations, reaffirming the protection of constitutional values against the evocation of totalitarian ideologies. A crucial decision for understanding the limits of freedom of expression and the safeguarding of dignity and equality.

The Regulatory Context: Article 2, Paragraph 1, Decree-Law 122/1993

The judgment falls within the application of Article 2, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law of April 26, 1993, no. 122, converted into Law of June 25, 1993, no. 205. This provision combats demonstrations that, by referencing the dissolved fascist party, promote discriminatory, racist, and anti-democratic ideas. The Italian legal system, founded on democracy and equality, aims to prevent the resurgence of ideologies that have historically undermined fundamental rights. The Court of Cassation strengthens the protection of the democratic order and the inviolable rights of the individual.

The Maxim and the Crime of Presumed Danger

The core of the decision is contained in the following maxim:

Commits the crime referred to in Article 2, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law of April 26, 1993, no. 122, converted, with modifications, into Law of June 25, 1993, no. 205, anyone who, participating in a public demonstration under the insignia of an organized group that explicitly refers to the fascist party and advocates its discriminatory, racist, and anti-democratic ideas, displays banners praising B. M. and responds with the "Roman salute" to the "roll call." (In its reasoning, the Court clarified that the offense in question is a crime of presumed danger, established to protect the constitutionally guaranteed assets of the dignity and equality of all persons, and of political, economic, and social solidarity).

The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal of the defendant C. P.M., confirming the conviction by the Court of Appeal of Milan. The crime is classified as one of "presumed danger." Proof of a concrete danger of the fascist party's reconstitution or an actual incitement to violence is not required. Simple participation in a demonstration with symbols and gestures evoking fascism (such as the "Roman salute" and the "roll call"), within the context of an organized group advocating discriminatory ideas, is sufficient. The law presumes such conduct to be intrinsically dangerous to dignity, equality, and solidarity, fundamental values of our democracy. This interpretation aligns with important precedents, such as Joint Divisions no. 16153 of 2024.

Freedom of Expression and Democratic Values

The judgment delineates the boundaries between freedom of thought (Article 21 of the Constitution) and the protection of the democratic order. The "Roman salute" and the "roll call," when placed in a context of fascist evocation and propaganda of discriminatory ideas, are not mere expressions but acts capable of conveying an ideology contrary to democratic principles and human rights. Jurisprudence balances these rights, establishing that freedom of expression cannot translate into incitement to hatred, discrimination, or violence, as also provided for by Article 604-bis of the Italian Criminal Code. This balance is essential for the preservation of the Republic.

• Relevant Context: The meaning of the gesture depends on the context.
• Presumed Danger: The harmfulness is intrinsic to the conduct.
• Protected Values: Dignity, equality, solidarity.
• Reference Norms: Decree-Law 122/1993, Article 2, Paragraph 1; Article 604-bis of the Italian Criminal Code; Constitution.

Conclusions: The Protection of Constitutional Foundations

Judgment no. 19342 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation strengthens jurisprudence on fascist apology. By reiterating the nature of a crime of presumed danger for conduct that recalls fascist ideology, the Supreme Court reaffirms the State's commitment to protecting democratic and constitutional values. This decision does not limit freedom of expression but defines its boundaries where it offends human dignity and the principles of equality and solidarity. A clear warning against any evocation of totalitarian ideologies, safeguarding our Republic.