Territorial Jurisdiction in Online Defamation: Analysis of Supreme Court Ruling No. 14204/2025

With decision No. 14204 of March 7, 2025 (filed April 10, 2025), the Fifth Criminal Section of the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the appeal of V. S., confirming the declaration of incompetence issued by the Court of Appeal of Caltanissetta. At the center of the proceedings was a case of defamation via the Internet, a typical scenario where the place of commission of the crime can be difficult to identify. The ruling provides an opportunity to review the criteria for territorial jurisdiction established by the procedural code and their practical application in the digital world.

The Procedural Case

The facts concern the publication on a website of expressions deemed injurious to the honor of third parties. In the first instance, the court had established jurisdiction in the place of residence of the accused. The Court of Appeal, however, emphasized the impossibility of determining where the offense was perceived (place of commission) and referred the matter to the supplementary criteria of Article 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.), citing precedents such as Cass. 31677/2015 and 2739/2011. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging a violation of Articles 8 and 9 of the c.p.p.; the Supreme Court rejected it.

The Legal Principle

In cases of defamation committed via the Internet, where it is impossible to determine the place of commission of the crime, territorial jurisdiction shall be determined by applying the supplementary criteria provided for in Article 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The maxim, which reproduces the core reasoning of the decision, reiterates a now consolidated trend. Pursuant to Article 8 of the c.p.p., the general rule is that jurisdiction belongs to the judge of the place where the crime was committed. However, the ubiquity of the internet often makes it impossible to identify the "first perception" of the offense: the user can access the content from anywhere in the world. In such cases, Article 9 of the c.p.p. applies, according to which jurisdiction is attributed, in order, to the judge of the place where the defendant has their residence, domicile, or abode. The Court clarifies that these are closing criteria, activated only when the main route of Article 8 is impracticable.

Practical Implications for Web Operators

• Clarity on competent forums: those who initiate legal proceedings for online defamation must consider not only the place of perception of the message but also the author's place of residence.
• Reduction of forum shopping: the use of supplementary criteria avoids the proliferation of parallel proceedings throughout the national territory.
• Centrality of digital evidence: server logs, timestamps, and geolocation can help prove – if possible – the place of commission, preventing the automatic application of Article 9.

Interaction with European Law

Although criminal jurisdiction remains a national matter, the Court takes into account Article 10 of the ECHR (freedom of expression) and the principle of proportionality recalled by the ECtHR in the cases of Delfi AS v. Estonia and Magyar Jeti v. Hungary. The balance between the protection of honor and freedom of information requires an interpretation of procedural rules that does not unduly burden the exercise of the defendant's right to defense or the victim's right to action.

Conclusions

Ruling 14204/2025 confirms that, in the face of the "diffuse" nature of the internet, the Code of Criminal Procedure already provides adequate tools to resolve jurisdictional conflicts. The reference to Article 9 of the c.p.p. constitutes a rational corrective that upholds the principle of the legally predetermined natural judge. Lawyers and industry operators must therefore consider from the outset the possibility that the competent forum may be identified based on supplementary criteria, preparing an adequate defense and evidentiary strategy.