The Decision
Italy's Constitutional Court has accepted a jurisdictional challenge filed by the Italian Senate against the Milan Prosecutor's Office, effectively halting the fraud prosecution of former Tourism Minister Daniela Santanchè. The ruling, issued today, centers on whether investigators violated parliamentary immunity protections when they added email correspondence and covert audio recordings to the case file without seeking prior authorization from the legislative chamber.
Why This Matters for Residents
The criminal trial for alleged INPS fraud is now suspended indefinitely. INPS—the National Social Security Institute—is the agency that manages social security contributions for every employee and employer in Italy. This case involves allegations that Santanchè's company improperly claimed pandemic wage supplements (the COVID-era income support many Italian workers received) totaling €126,000 for employees of the Visibilia media group between 2020 and 2022.
For residents, this case demonstrates how constitutional protections designed to shield parliamentarians from politically motivated prosecution can also delay accountability and prolong legal uncertainty. The statute of limitations is now paused, meaning time does not run out on the charges while the court deliberates.
A separate false accounting trial continues, with a verdict expected by October 2026. Santanchè still faces multiple overlapping legal battles related to financial mismanagement at her media company.
The case marks another institutional clash between Italy's judiciary and legislative branch, joining similar conflicts involving senators Matteo Renzi and Armando Siri over how prosecutors gather evidence involving parliamentarians.
The Constitutional Question
At the heart of the dispute lies a procedural disagreement. Prosecutors in Milan compiled evidence against Santanchè, including private email exchanges and secretly recorded conversations, without first obtaining authorization from the Senate.
The Constitutional Court will now review whether this collection method violated Article 68, paragraph 3 of the Italian Constitution. This article protects parliamentarians by requiring Senate approval before prosecutors can conduct "interceptions in any form" or seize a lawmaker's correspondence. Following a 2022 ruling in the Renzi-Open case, the Court clarified that digital messages—emails, chat logs, recordings—qualify as protected correspondence, requiring the same procedural safeguards as physical letters.
The Court will schedule a hearing to examine the substantive constitutional question in coming months. Until that decision arrives, the criminal fraud case remains frozen.
What Santanchè Is Accused Of
The stalled trial centers on allegations that Santanchè and two co-defendants—her partner Dimitri Kunz D'Asburgo and human resources consultant Paolo Concordia—defrauded INPS of €126,000 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prosecutors claim the group improperly claimed zero-hours furlough benefits for 13 employees of the Visibilia media group between 2020 and 2022, even as some workers continued operating in remote roles.
Santanchè's legal team maintains that any amount owed has been repaid in full, including an additional sum for "service disruption." However, as recently as October 2024, INPS legal counsel stated that Visibilia Editore still owed approximately €26,000–€27,000, while its sister company Visibilia Concessionaria had cleared its balance.
The former minister also faces charges of aggravated fraud related to the same INPS matter. The suspension of this proceeding means the statute of limitations stops running—an advantage for the prosecution, which otherwise risked losing the case to time.
The Parallel Accounting Trial
While the fraud case sits in limbo, a second criminal trial for false accounting remains active. Santanchè and 15 other defendants stand accused of inflating asset values and manipulating balance sheets for Visibilia Editore across fiscal years 2016 through 2022.
The Milan Tribunal's Second Criminal Section has scheduled 14 hearings through June, with backup dates extending to October 29, 2026. Both prosecution and defense have had their evidence requests approved, including a provision for Santanchè to testify directly.
Testimony has already presented damaging claims. Gianfranco Vitulo, former auditor for Visibilia Editore, told the court he faced retaliation for questioning the company's financial statements, arguing that budget forecasts did not justify the goodwill values on the books and that the firm was operating at a loss. Giuseppe Zeno, a former business partner, accused Santanchè of systematically falsifying balance sheets from 2019 onward, allegedly causing his investment group losses between €450,000 and €500,000 through inflated goodwill and receivables.
Institutional Tensions Over Evidence
The Santanchè case joins a growing roster of precedents forcing the Constitutional Court to referee between the judiciary and legislature over how prosecutors gather evidence involving parliamentarians.
In the Renzi case, the Senate challenged the Florence Prosecutor's Office for acquiring emails, instant messages, and personal bank records without authorization. In the Siri case, the Court ruled that the Senate exceeded its authority by blocking the use of indirect wiretaps. In the Calderoli case, the Bergamo Tribunal contested the Senate's invocation of immunity for statements the lawmaker claimed fell within his parliamentary duties.
These recurring disputes reflect a fundamental tension in Italy's constitutional architecture: the judiciary insists it must be free to investigate crimes without political interference, while the legislature argues that parliamentary prerogatives exist precisely to prevent selective or politically motivated prosecutions.
Santanchè's defense team has leaned heavily on the Renzi-Open precedent, which established that even communications held by third parties require parliamentary clearance when they involve a sitting lawmaker. Some members of the Senate Immunities Committee, including Senator Ilaria Cucchi, argued that recordings voluntarily handed over by private citizens should not trigger immunity protections. The committee's approval of the conflict motion passed by a narrow majority, underscoring the political and legal divisions at play.
What Happens Next
Italy's highest legal authority now holds the key to whether the INPS fraud prosecution can move forward or collapses on procedural grounds. The upcoming hearing will test the boundaries of parliamentary immunity in the digital age, where emails, chat logs, and audio files have become the primary currency of communication.
For Santanchè, the admissibility ruling represents a temporary reprieve in the fraud case but continued exposure in the accounting trial. For Italy's constitutional order, it is another chapter in the ongoing negotiation between judicial independence and legislative prerogative—a balance that remains contentious throughout the Republic's history.
