Disclosure of Official Secrets: Commentary on Judgment No. 16474 of 2024

The recent judgment No. 16474 of March 20, 2024, by the Court of Cassation offers an important reflection on the notion of "official information" and the limits of disclosure of secrets by public officials. In particular, the Court declared inadmissible an appeal concerning the disclosure of information related to wiretaps, learned through an anonymous letter. This case represents an opportunity to explore the legal implications of such a decision and its impact on public administration.

The Notion of "Official Information"

According to the judgment, the warning contained in the anonymous letter cannot be considered "official information." But what does this term really mean? The Court defines "official information" as specific information concerning acts and facts connected to institutional activity. Consequently, generic information, even if alarming, does not meet the requirements to be classified as such. This clarification is fundamental to understanding which information can actually be disclosed without incurring penalties.

Official information that must remain secret - Notion - Factual circumstances. In the context of the disclosure of official secrets, a warning, contained in an anonymous letter and expressed in entirely generic terms, about the risk arising from ongoing wiretaps does not constitute "official information." This latter is instead understood, within the broader scope of the notion and regardless of the material support that may incorporate it, as specific information concerning acts and facts functionally connected to institutional activity. (In application of the principle, the Court held that the disclosure to third parties of the conduct of wiretapping activities, learned by the public official informally, through the receipt of an anonymous letter, did not constitute the crime referred to in Article 326 of the Criminal Code).

Implications for Public Officials

Judgment No. 16474 of 2024 has important implications for public officials, who must pay particular attention to the information they receive and its classification. In particular:

• Generic information cannot be disclosed without adequate verification of its relevance.
• Public officials must be aware of the sources from which they learn potentially sensitive information.
• Compliance with the law must prevail even in the presence of external pressure or requests for disclosure.

This decision underscores the importance of confidentiality and the protection of official secrets, which are fundamental elements for maintaining the integrity of institutions and the trust of citizens.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 16474 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation serves as a warning to public officials regarding the management of sensitive information. The distinction between official information and generic information is crucial to avoid violations of the law. This case highlights the importance of correct interpretation of current regulations, such as Article 326 of the Criminal Code, which governs the disclosure of official secrets, contributing to ensuring transparency and accountability in public administration.