Repubblica Futura has asked the Congress of State to clarify the choices made in the Casali and Simoncini cases before the European Court of Human Rights, ranging from requests to recuse judge Gilberto Felici to meetings between government representatives and the Court’s leadership.
The parliamentary question, which requires a written response, also addresses the defamation proceedings brought against Ingrid Casali’s defence lawyer — later dropped — and the resignation of the Third Instance judge who had pronounced the applicant’s acquittal.
The council group starts from the Casali ruling of 22 October 2026. According to the parliamentary question, the Court’s Fifth Section unanimously found a violation of the right to a tribunal established by law and of freedom of expression, ordering San Marino to pay 24,000 euros in damages.
At the heart of the matter is the decision of 5 October 2024, in which the judge for Extraordinary Remedies upheld the civil party’s querela nullitatis, quashing without referral the acquittal handed down at Third Instance and reinstating the conviction.
RF highlights the passage in which the Court found that this judge “was not a tribunal established by law, given both the lack of any legal basis for such action and the absence of any jurisdiction to rule on it.”
The party stresses that the querela nullitatis cited in the decision applies exclusively to civil proceedings.
The councillors are therefore asking which magistrate issued that ruling and whether any disciplinary proceedings have since been initiated against them.
Another point concerns the government’s conduct before the European Court. The parliamentary question recalls that the Executive had sought the recusal of the judge appointed to represent San Marino and had raised an objection of abuse of the right of appeal, also referring to the political affiliation of the applicant and her lawyer with Repubblica Futura.
RF cites the Court’s response, according to which the government’s submissions “are not only entirely irrelevant to the argument of abuse of the right of application, but also reveal a strong degree of domestic political tension” and that “the Court is not a forum for the expression of such hostilities.”
The parliamentary question also recalls the concern expressed by the European judges over the government’s reference to the non-contentious phase of the proceedings.
For Repubblica Futura, the recusal and the reference to political affiliation “constitute initiatives of particular institutional gravity, the origin and responsibility for which those asking the question have a right to know.”
The question asks whether the recusal requests against Gilberto Felici were decided collectively by the Congress of State or requested by an individual Secretary of State, and in the latter case asks for the name to be disclosed.
The query also covers the Simoncini case, which, according to RF’s reconstruction, concluded with a ruling on 19 February 2026, ordering a payment of 160,000 euros and finding violations of Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. In that case too, the group notes, a recusal request and an objection of abuse of the right of appeal had both been rejected.
The party is also asking for a full account of the meetings with representatives of the European Court. The parliamentary question refers to a mission by Secretaries of State Luca Beccari and Stefano Canti, which took place after the Simoncini ruling was published, the purpose of which, RF states, was never made public.
The councillors want to know the number and dates of these meetings, who took part, whether any Sammarinese magistrates were present, what topics were discussed and through what channels the meetings were arranged.
They are also asking whether pending or already-decided proceedings concerning the Republic were discussed.
“Any contacts between members of the government and the European Court of Human Rights, while appeals against the Republic are pending, require the utmost transparency in order to safeguard the Court’s independence and impartiality and the Republic’s standing,” RF argues.
The parliamentary question also addresses the defamation proceedings brought against Ingrid Casali’s defence lawyer, launched following a report filed by the Court’s senior registrar while the Third Instance judgment was still pending.
According to the reconstruction provided, the file was closed on 30 October 2024 for lack of criminal intent.
RF is asking who filed the report and which magistrates initiated and conducted the proceedings.
As for the Third Instance judge who issued the acquittal that was later overturned, the group recalls a letter dated 22 October 2024 addressed to the Republic’s top institutions and to representatives of the Council of Europe, in which concerns were raised about judicial independence.
The letter, RF reports, was criticised by the Judicial Council in a resolution passed on 6 November of that year.
The magistrate subsequently resigned: the councillors are asking when the resignation was submitted, to which body, on what grounds, and what action followed.
Finally, the government is being asked whether it intends to request referral of the Casali case to the Grand Chamber, on the basis of what assessments and at what estimated cost.
RF is requesting that the response be accompanied by the documents filed in the European proceedings, the recusal requests, the magistrate’s letters, the Judicial Council’s resolution, and the correspondence exchanged between the Court’s senior registrar, the Secretariats of State and the State Advocacy Office regarding the two cases.
