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

With decision No. 14204 of March 7, 2025 (filed April 10, 2025), the Fifth Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal of V. S., confirming the declaration of incompetence issued by the Court of Appeal of Caltanissetta. At the heart 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 damaging to the honour of third parties. In the first instance, the court had identified jurisdiction in the place of residence of the accused. The Court of Appeal, however, emphasized the impossibility of establishing 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, citing precedents such as Cass. 31677/2015 and 2739/2011. The defendant appealed to the Court of Cassation, alleging a violation of Articles 8 and 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; the Supreme Court rejected it.

The Legal Principle

In cases of defamation committed via the Internet, where it is impossible to establish 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 an established trend. Pursuant to Article 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the general rule is that jurisdiction lies with the judge of the place where the crime was committed. However, the ubiquity of the network 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 Code of Criminal Procedure applies, according to which jurisdiction is attributed, in order, to the judge of the place where the defendant has residence, domicile, or dwelling. The Court specifies that these are closing criteria, applicable 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 honour and freedom of information requires an interpretation of procedural rules that does not unduly burden the exercise of the defendant's right to defence or the victim's right to take legal action.

Conclusions

Ruling 14204/2025 confirms that, in the face of the "diffuse" nature of the network, the Code of Criminal Procedure already provides adequate tools to resolve jurisdictional conflicts. The reference to Article 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 defence and evidentiary strategy.