Chiara Nava Another chapter in the long legal case surrounding Silvio Berlusconi and the sale of Mediaset television rights has come to a close . The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), based in Strasbourg, has rejected the appeal against Italy filed by the former Prime Minister's defense team , which alleged violations of procedural guarantees and fundamental rights.
The legal initiative, launched in 2014 when Berlusconi was still alive , was carried forward by his family after his death in 2023.
At the heart of the proceedings was the final conviction handed down by the Supreme Court of Cassation in 2013 for tax fraud, in the Mediaset television rights trial. The sentence was set at four years in prison, three of which were covered by the 2006 pardon.
The European Court examined the defence's claims, which included twelve alleged violations of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Berlusconi: The appeal to the European Court and the disputes surrounding the trial
The appeal, registered under number 8683/14 and filed on 8 April 2014, concerned various aspects of the Italian proceedings.
Among the points raised by the defense were the right to an independent and impartial judge, the opportunity to effectively participate in the trial, the right to defense, and the equality of the parties in the collection of evidence . The principle of legality of punishment was also invoked, along with the ne bis in idem principle , which protects against the risk of being tried or punished twice for the same act in the cases provided for by law.
The lawyers also challenged the assignment of the appeal to the summer division of the Court of Cassation in the summer of 2013 , arguing that the decision was influenced by a warning that the crime was about to expire, which they deemed incorrect. Another objection concerned the decision to hold the trial in Milan rather than Brescia. According to the defense, 62 magistrates from the Milan district were Mediaset shareholders at the time of the events, a circumstance that could have raised questions about impartiality.
Particular attention had also been paid to the president of the Supreme Court's summer session panel, Antonio Esposito . The defense had questioned his impartiality, citing an interview he gave to the newspaper Il Mattino after the ruling was read and before the reasoning was filed. The lawyers had also been informed of several alleged private statements hostile to Berlusconi, attributed to the magistrate by people who knew him.
Witnesses, impediments, and liability in tax fraud
Other complaints submitted to the ECHR included the exclusion of several witnesses indicated by the defense and the failure to recognize five requests for legitimate impediment filed by Berlusconi . The then Prime Minister had cited institutional commitments, including Council of Ministers meetings and meetings with foreign heads of state, as well as health reasons related to bilateral uveitis. The defense argued that these decisions had limited the defendant's ability to fully participate in the trial.
The lawyers also challenged the attribution of responsibility to Berlusconi as the mastermind behind the tax fraud scheme , despite him not formally being a member of Mediaset's corporate bodies and not having signed the tax returns, which were signed by a company executive. They also requested mitigating circumstances, citing his lack of criminal record.
A further argument concerned the Mediatrade proceedings , held in Milan and Rome for different years, which concluded with irrevocable decisions dismissing the case. The defense argued that those cases were similar to the pattern contested in the Mediaset trial.
During the Strasbourg proceedings, Italian judge Raffaele Sabato abstained, as did Enzo Cannizzaro, appointed as the ad hoc judge for Italy. Alain Chablais , a Swiss jurist from Liechtenstein, was then appointed to complete the panel. The appeal had been handled over the years by lawyers Niccolò Ghedini, who passed away in 2022, and professors Bruno Nascimbene and Andrea Saccucci.
By rejecting the challenges, the ECHR did not uphold the defense's objections regarding the guarantees of the Convention. The final conviction handed down in Italy in 2013 therefore stands, closing another chapter in a judicial affair that has long marked Italian political history.