Quaderni per la storia della Massoneria n. 5

                          🌿🌿🌿

Il Manoscritto Regius (1390)in Labore vera voluptasIl Manoscritto Regius (1390)

Introduzione

Il cosiddetto Manoscritto Regius è un poema anonimo, probabilmente opera di un uomo di chiesa. Il

testo contiene vocaboli di derivazione francese e la cosa si spiega con i contatti tra Francia e

Inghilterra nel Basso Medioevo e in particolare durante la guerra dei 100 anni (1337-1453). Il

Manoscritto, chiamato anche Manoscritto Halliwell dal nome del suo primo studioso, è un lungo

poema di 794 versi, destinato a determinare, in modo dettagliato, i doveri e gli obblighi degli

scalpellini e dei muratori nei confronti del Mestiere e della Geometria. È considerato il più antico

dei circa cento libri degli Antichi Doveri conosciuti. Sulla base dell'analisi linguistica del testo gli

studiosi concordano ad attribuirgli una data anteriore a quella che usualmente gli viene riconosciuta.

La tesi più accreditata sostiene che il 1390 sia soltanto l'anno in cui il documento venne trascritto da

un copista, ma che la stesura sia in realtà da collocarsi tra il 1250 e il 1300. Il documento è di

straordinaria importanza per la conoscenza della antica massoneria operativa inglese. Lo riportiamo

integralmente nella splendida traduzione della Rivista Massonica dell'agosto 1973, che gli dedicò

l'intero numero. Traduzione poi ripresa dalla quasi totalità delle versioni che si possono trovare oggi

in rete.

Il Manoscritto è preceduto da larghi estratti dello studio sugli Old Charges, apparso nel numero di

settembre 1923 di The Builder, prestigiosa rivista negli anni Venti del secolo scorso della Libera

Muratoria statunitense, a firma di Harry Le Roy Haywood (1886.1956), uno studioso libero

muratore, molto prolifico i cui lavori, ancora oggi di grande interesse, non ci risultano essere mai

stati tradotti in italiano.

G. A.

Harry Le Roy Haywood

Gli Antichi Doveri e ciò che essi rappresentano per noi

(…) Per Antichi Doveri si intendono quegli antichi documenti giunti fino a noi dal XIV secolo in

poi, nei quali sono incorporati la storia tradizionale, le leggende e le regole e i regolamenti della

Massoneria. Essi sono chiamati variamente "Manoscritti antichi", "Costituzioni antiche", "Leggenda

del Mestiere", "Manoscritti gotici", "Registri antichi", ecc. Nella loro struttura fisica questi

documenti si trovano talvolta sotto forma di carta scritta a mano o di rotoli di pergamena, le cui

unità sono cucite o incollate insieme; di fogli scritti a mano e cuciti insieme in forma di libro, e

nella forma stampata familiare di un libro moderno. A volte si trovano incorporati nel libro dei

verbali di una loggia. La datazione stimata va dal 1390 al primo quarto del XVIII secolo e alcuni di

essi sono esempi di bella scrittura gotica. Il maggior numero di essi è custodito dal British Museum.

(…)

Come si è detto, questi Antichi Doveri (tale è il loro appellativo più usato) costituiscono la base

delle moderne costituzioni massoniche (...). Essi stabiliscono la continuità dell'istituzione massonica

attraverso un periodo di oltre cinque secoli, ma probabilmente molto più lungo; e allo stesso tempo,e per lo stesso significato, provano la grande antichità della Massoneria attraverso documenti scritti,

cosa che nessun altro mestiere1 esistente è in grado di fare. Questi manoscritti hanno una forma

tradizionale e leggendaria e non sono quindi da leggere come una ricostruzione storica, tuttavia uno

studio attento e critico di essi (...) getta più luce sui primi tempi della Massoneria di qualsiasi altra

fonte. Si ritiene che gli Antichi Doveri siano stati utilizzati per la formazione di un massone ai tempi

in cui l'Arte era operativa; che in molti casi siano serviti per la costituzioni di logge e che talvolta

abbiano funzionato come ciò che oggi chiamiamo una patente. (...)

Lo studio sistematico di questi manoscritti è iniziato a metà del secolo scorso, quando si sapeva che

ne esistevano solo alcuni. Nel 1872 William James Hughan ne elencava 32. Grazie soprattutto ai

suoi sforzi ne furono scoperti molti altri, tanto che nel 1889 Gould fu in grado di elencarne 62 e lo

stesso Hughan nel 1895 catalogò 66 copie manoscritte, 9 versioni stampate e 11 versioni mancanti.

Negli ultimi anni questo numero è aumentato a tal punto che nell'"Ars Quatuor Coronatorum",

Volume XXXI, pagina 40 (1918), il Fratello Roderick H. Baxter, ora Maestro Venerabile della

Loggia Quatuor Coronati, ne elencava 98, numero che comprendeva anche le versioni che si sa

andate perdute.

(...)

Per poter confrontare meglio una copia con l'altra, il Dr. W. Begemann classificò tutte le versioni in

quattro "famiglie" generali: la Famiglia Grand Lodge, la Famiglia Sloane, la Famiglia Roberts e la

Famiglia Spencer. Questi gruppi di famiglie sono stati ulteriormente suddivisi in rami, ritenendo che

la Famiglia Spencer fosse una derivazione della Famiglia Grand Lodge e la Famiglia Roberts una

derivazione della Famiglia Sloane. In questo metodo complessivo di raggruppamento, l'erudito

dottore fu seguito da Hughan, Gould e dai loro colleghi, e la sua classificazione è ancora valida in

generale .

(...)

Il primo riferimento in un testo a stampa a questi Antichi Doveri è quello del Dr. Robert Plot nella

sua Natural History of Staffordshire, pubblicata nel 1686.(...) Gli Antichi Doveri sono peculiari

dell'Inghilterra. Non sono mai stati trovati documenti simili in Irlanda. I manoscritti scozzesi sono

noti per essere di origine inglese. Findel e altri scrittori tedeschi sostenevano che le versioni inglesi

derivassero in ultima analisi da fonti tedesche, ma ciò è stato smentito. L'unico punto di somiglianza

noto tra gli Antichi Doveri e documenti tedeschi come le Ordinanze di Torgau e le Costituzioni di

Colonia è la Leggenda dei quattro martiri incoronati, che si trova nelle versioni inglesi solo nel

Manoscritto Regius. Come dice bene Gould, i Manoscritti britannici non hanno "né predecessori né

rivali"; sono le cose più ricche e rare in tutto il campo degli scritti massonici.

Se si confrontano i manoscritti degli Antichi Doveri, si vede subito che nel loro racconto della storia

tradizionale del Mestiere variano in molti particolari, tuttavia essi sembrano tutti derivare da

un'origine comune e, in linea di massima, raccontano la stessa storia (...). L'origine di questa

narrazione tradizionale si deve ad un autore preciso o deriva da una tradizione collettiva, come le

leggende degli antichi popoli? Gli studiosi differiscono molto su questo punto. (…)

[Alcuni studiosi sostengono] che la storia sia nata come una vaga tradizione orale generale, che nel

corso del tempo è stata ridotta in forma scritta. In ogni caso, perché la storia è stata scritta? Con

ogni probabilità una risposta a questa domanda non arriverà mai, ma W. Harry Rylands e altri sono

dell'opinione che le prime versioni scritte siano state realizzate in risposta a un Writ for Return

generale emesso nel 1388. Si possono citare le parole di Rylands: "Non mi sembra affatto

improbabile che gran parte, se non tutta, la storia leggendaria sia stata composta in risposta al Writ

for Returns emanato dalle corporazioni di tutto il Paese, nel dodicesimo anno di Riccardo II, nel

1388 d.C.". (A.Q.C. XVL p. 1)2

Nel 1757 il re Giorgio II cedette al British Museum una collezione di circa 12.000 volumi, il cui

primo nucleo era stato creato dal re Enrico VII e che venne conosciuta come Royal Library. Tra

questi libri c'era un manoscritto di rara bellezza scritto a mano su 64 pagine di pergamena, delledimensioni di circa quattro per cinque pollici, che un catalogatore, David Casley, registrò come n.

17 A-1 con il titolo "Un poema sui doveri morali: qui intitolato Constitutiones Artis Gemetrie

Secundem". Solo quando il signor J.O. Halliwell, F.R.S. (in seguito Halliwell-Phillipps), un non-

massone, fece la scoperta, si seppe che il manoscritto era un documento massonico. Phillipps lesse

una relazione sul manoscritto davanti alla Society of Antiquaries nel 1839 e l'anno successivo

pubblicò un volume intitolato Early History of Freemasonry in England (ampliato e rivisto nel

1844), in cui incorporò una trascrizione del documento e alcune pagine in facsimile. (...) Questo

manoscritto era conosciuto come "The Halliwell", o come "The Halliwell-Phillipps" fino a quando,

circa cinquant'anni dopo, Gould lo ribattezzò, in onore della Biblioteca Reale in cui si trova,

"Regius", e da allora questo è diventato il suo nome più conosciuto.

David Casley, un dotto specialista di manoscritti antichi, ha datato il "Regius" al XIV secolo. E.A.

Bond, un altro esperto, lo ha datato alla metà del XV secolo. Il dottor Kloss, specialista tedesco, lo

colloca tra il 1427 e il 1445. Ma la maggioranza ha concordato sul 1390 come data più probabile.

"È impossibile arrivare a una certezza assoluta su questo punto", dice Hughan (...) "se non che non è

probabile che sia più antico del 1390, ma potrebbe essere di una ventina d'anni successivo". Il Dr.

W. Begemann ha fatto uno studio del documento che non è mai stato eguagliato per completezza, ed

è arrivato a una conclusione che può essere riportata con le sue stesse parole: è stato scritto "verso

la fine del 14° o almeno all'inizio del 15° secolo (non a Gloucester, perché è troppo a sud, ma) nel

nord del Gloucestershire o nel vicino nord dell'Herefordshire, o anche forse nel sud del

Worcestershire". (A.Q.C. VII, pag. 35).

(...)

Il Manoscritto Regius è l'unico di tutte le versioni ad essere scritto in versi, e potrebbe essere stato

composto da un sacerdote (…) anche se il punto è contestato. Il poema consta di circa 800 versi, la

parte strettamente massonica termina alla riga 576, dopo la quale inizia quella che Hughan chiama

una "predica" sui doveri morali, in cui si nota una certa vena cattolica romana con riferimenti ai

"sette peccati", alla "dolce signora" (riferendosi alla Vergine) e all'acqua santa. Non esiste una

mariolatria3 così intensa in nessun'altra versione degli Antichi Doveri, anche se la grande

maggioranza di essi esprime fedeltà alla "Santa Chiesa" e tutti (...) sono specificamente cristiani, per

quanto riguarda la religione.

L'autore fornisce un elenco di quindici "punti" e quindici "articoli", tutte istruzioni piuttosto

specifiche sul comportamento di un Artigiano: questa parte è ritenuta da molti come le istruzioni a

un iniziato in uso all'epoca dell'autore, ed è quindi ritenuta la caratteristica più importante del libro

in quanto ci fornisce un quadro dei regolamenti della Mestiere in quell'epoca remota. (…)

1. Mestiere o arte è la traduzione del termine inglese medievale Craft e si riferisce alle vecchie

corporazioni medievali e a ciò che ne resta nel mondo moderno.

2. The Writ for Returns era il privilegio nell'Inghilterra medievale accordato a realtà come le

Corporazioni di applicare le norme reali tramite i propri organismi, escludendo le autorità locali

(gli Sceriffi). Da qui la necessità di creare appositi regolamenti come, nel caso della Libera

Muratoria, gli Antichi Doveri.

3. Mariolatria: termine con cui i protestanti hanno chiamato spesso, con intento polemico, il culto

tributato dai cattolici alla Madonna.

The Builder – September 1923

(Traduzione e note nostre)Poema Regius. Prima paginaIl Poema Regius

Qui cominciano le costituzioni dell’arte

Della geometria secondo Euclide.

Chiunque saprà bene leggere e vedere

Potrà trovarle scritte nell’antico libro

Di grandi signori ed anche di signore

Che ebbero molti figli insieme, con certezza.

E non avevano rendite per mantenerli.

Né in città, né in campagna, né in boschi recinti;

Essi presero insieme una decisione

Di stabilire per la salvezza di questi fanciulli

Come essi potessero meglio sopportare la vita

Senza grandi malattie, affanni e lotte

E, principalmente, per la moltitudine dei figli

Che sarebbe venuta dopo la fine loro.

Essi li mandarono presso grandi maestri

Che insegnassero loro a bene operare.

E preghiamo loro, per amor di nostro Signore

Che sia dato ai nostri figli qualche lavoro

Che permetta loro di vivere

Bene e onestamente, in piena sicurezza.

In quel tempo, mediante buona geometria

Questa onesta arte di buona muratoria

Fu stabilita e fatta in questo modo:

Coll’imitare questi maestri, insieme

Alle preghiere di questi signori essi dimostrarono la geometria.

E dettero il nome di massoneria

All’arte più onesta di tutte.

Questi figli di signori si misero d’impegno

Per imparare da lui [Euclide, n.d.r.] l’arte della geometria

Che egli praticava con zelo.

Per le preghiere dei padri e delle madri

Egli li ammise a questa onesta arte.

Egli era il più grande erudito ed era onesto

E superava lo zelo dei suoi compagni

Poiché in quell’arte egli oltrepassava gli altri

E avrebbe conseguito più prestigio.

Il nome di questo grande saggio fu Euclide,

Il suo nome spande piena e ampia meraviglia.

Inoltre, questo grande maestro ordinava

A chi era più in alto in questa scala

Che insegnasse a chi era meno dotato

A essere perfetto in quella onesta arte.

E così ciascuno insegnava all’altro

E si amavano l’un l’altro come fratello e sorella.

Inoltre egli ordinò cheLo si chiamasse Maestro,

In modo che chi fosse il più degno

Fosse chiamato così.

Ma i muratori non si dovevano chiamare l’un l’altro,

Nell’arte e fra di loro,

Né soggetto, né servo, ma caro fratello.

Anche se uno non era perfetto come l’altro

Doveva ciascuno chiamare l’altro compagno

Perché essi erano di buona nascita.

In questo modo, mediante la buona conoscenza della geometria

Ebbe origine l’arte della massoneria.

Il maestro Euclide in questo modo fondò

Quest’arte di geometria in terra d’Egitto.

In Egitto egli ampiamente insegnò,

E in diverse terre da ogni parte,

Molti anni dopo ho saputo,

Prima che l’arte venisse in questo paese.

Quest’arte venne in Inghilterra, come vi dico,

Al tempo del buon re Atelstano.

Egli fece sia sale che loggiati

E alti templi di grande prestigio

Per compiacersi sia di giorno che di notte

E onorare il suo Dio con tutte le sue forze.

Questo buon signore amò grandemente quest’arte

E si propose di consolidarla da ogni lato

Perché aveva trovato vari difetti in essa.

Egli mandò a dire in tutto il paese,

A tutti i Massoni dell’arte,

Di andare da lui immediatamente

Per correggere tutti questi errori

Col buon consiglio, se poteva essere dato.

Fece fare allora una assemblea

Di vari signori, secondo il loro stato:

Duchi, conti e anche baroni,

Cavalieri, gentiluomini e molti altri

E i maggiori cittadini di quella città;

Essi erano tutti là secondo il loro grado.

Quelli erano là secondo i propri mezzi

Per stabilire la condizione di questi Massoni.

Là essi cercavano col loro intelletto

Come poterli governare.

Quindici articoli essi cercarono

E quindici punti essi elaborarono.

Qui comincia il primo articolo

Il primo articolo di tale geometria:

Il maestro massone deve essere pienamente sicuro

Risoluto, fidato e sincero.

Di questo egli non si pentirà mai.

E paghi i suoi compagni secondo il costo

Del mantenimento, voi lo sapete bene,E paghi loro il giusto secondo coscienza,

Ciò che possono meritare.

E non assuma più uomini

Di quanti possa adoperare

E non si lasci corrompere, né per amore né per paura

Da qualsiasi altra parte,

Da signore o da compagno, chiunque sia:

Da costoro non accettare alcun compenso.

E, come un giudice, sta’ agli impegni

E allora farai il giusto per entrambi.

Fa questo sinceramente dovunque tu vada

E il tuo merito, il tuo profitto sarà migliore.

Secondo articolo

Il secondo articolo di buona massoneria

Deve udirsi specialmente qui:

Che ogni maestro, che sia un massone,

Deve essere alla corporazione generale,

Naturalmente, se è stato informato

Dove sarà tenuta questa assemblea.

A tale assemblea deve andare

Salvo che non abbia una ragionevole giustificazione.

Altrimenti egli vuole offendere la corporazione

0 vuole comportarsi con falsità,

Oppure è gravemente ammalato

Da non poter andare in mezzo a loro.

Questa è una giustificazione valida

Per quella assemblea, senza frottole.

Terzo articolo

Il terzo articolo dice in verità

Che il maestro non assume apprendista

Senza aver l’assicurazione che si fermi

Sette anni con lui, così vi dico,

Per insegnargli la sua arte, quello che serve.

In minor tempo quegli non potrà imparare

A beneficio del suo signore né suo proprio,

Come potete sapere a buona ragione.

Quarto articolo

Il quarto articolo deve essere quello

Che il maestro deve tenere per sé.

Che egli non deve tener schiavo l’apprendista

Né trattarlo con avarizia

Poiché il signore al quale è legato

Può cercare l’apprendista dovunque egli vada.

Se è stato preso nella loggia,

Egli può farvi molto danno

E in tal caso può accadereChe faccia danno a qualcuno o a tutti.

Perciò tutti i Massoni che sono là

Stiano insieme in piena fratellanza.

Se una tale persona fosse nell’arte

Possono capitare vari inconvenienti;

Per miglior agio quindi, onestamente,

Assumi un apprendista di condizione elevata.

Dai tempi antichi si trova scritto

Che l’apprendista deve essere di nobile stato;

E così talvolta il sangue di grandi signori

Apprese tale geometria, il che è molto bene.

Quinto articolo

Il quinto articolo è molto giusto.

Posto che l’apprendista sia di nascita legittima,

Il maestro non accoglierà a nessun prezzo

Un apprendista che sia deforme:

Ciò significa, come puoi udire,

Che avrà le sue membra tutte intere;

Per l’arte sarebbe grande scorno

Prendere uno zoppo e uno storpio.

Perciò un uomo imperfetto, di tale razza,

Porterebbe poco di buono all’arte.

Così ciascuno di voi deve sapere

Che l’arte vuole avere un uomo forte;

Un uomo mutilato non ha forza,

Dovete saperlo fin d’ora.

Sesto articolo

Il sesto articolo non va tralasciato:

Che il maestro non rechi pregiudizio al signore,

Nel prendere da questi, per il suo apprendista,

Anche quanto è in ogni caso dovuto ai compagni.

A quelli che sono nell’arte già perfetti

Questo non deve essere, anche se parrebbe di sì.

Anche se vi fossero buone ragioni

Che percepisse il salario come i suoi compagni,

Questo stesso articolo, in tal caso,

Giudica che l’apprendista

Prenda meno dei compagni che sono perfetti.

In vari casi può occorrere

Che il maestro possa istruire l’apprendista

Onde il suo salario possa aumentare presto

E, prima che il termine giunga a compiersi,

Il suo salario possa venire migliorato.

Settimo articolo

Il settimo articolo che è qui ora

Dirà chiaramente a voi tuttiChe nessun maestro, per favore o per timore,

Può rubare ad alcuno abito o cibo.

Né dare rifugio ad alcun ladro

Né a chi abbia ucciso un uomo,

Né a chi abbia cattiva fama,

Per timore di esporre l’arte al biasimo.

Ottavo articolo

Vi mostra così l’ottavo articolo

Che il maestro può far bene così:

Se ha qualche operaio

Che non sia perfetto come bisogna,

Egli può cambiarlo sollecitamente

E prendere al suo posto un uomo migliore.

Un tale uomo, per negligenza,

Potrebbe nuocere alla riputazione dell’arte.

Nono articolo

Il nono articolo mostra appieno

Che il maestro dev’essere saggio e forte.

Che non può intraprendere alcun lavoro

Se non è in grado di farlo e condurlo a termine.

E che esso sia anche utile ai signori

E alla sua arte, dovunque vada,

E che le fondamenta siano ben preparate

Perché non si fenda e non crolli.

Decimo articolo

Bisogna conoscere il decimo articolo,

Nell’arte, in alto e in basso.

Che non ci sia maestro che soppianti l’altro

Ma stiano insieme come fratello e sorella.

In questa zelante arte, tutti e ciascuno,

Chi vuole essere un maestro massone

Non soppianti nessun altro.

Che avendogli sottratto un lavoro,

Il suo dolore è così forte

Che non pesa meno di dieci libbre,

Se non è trovato colpevole

Di aver con mano per primo toccato il lavoro.

Per nessuno in massoneria

Si soppianterà, di certo, un altro.

Ma se il lavoro è fatto in modo

Che possa a sua volta rovinare,

Allora un massone può chiedere tale lavoro

Ai signori, per tutelare il loro interesse.

A meno che non capiti un tale caso,

Nessun Massone vi si deve immischiare.

Veramente colui che comincia le fondamenta,Se è un massone buono e integro,

Ha di certo nella sua mente

Come portare a buon fine il lavoro.

Undicesimo articolo

L’articolo undicesimo, io ti dico

Che è insieme leale e franco

Poiché insegna, con la sua forza,

Che nessun massone deve lavorare di notte

Se non sia a conoscenza

Che ciò sia a vantaggio del lavoro.

Dodicesimo articolo

Il dodicesimo articolo è di alta probità:

Ogni massone, dovunque sia,

Non deve corrompere i suoi compagni di lavoro.

Se vuol salvare la propria onestà

Li comanderà con parole oneste,

Con l’ingegno che Dio gli ha dato.

Invece devi migliorarlo come puoi

Fra voi insieme senza contesa.

Tredicesimo articolo

Il tredicesimo articolo, così Dio mi salvi,

È che se il maestro ha un apprendista

Cui egli ha insegnato tutto

E gli ha spiegato gradualmente i vari punti

Così che questo sia capace di conoscere l’arte,

Dovunque possa andare sotto il sole.

Quattordicesimo articolo

Il quattordicesimo articolo, a buona ragione

Mostra al maestro quel che deve fare:

Egli non deve accogliere un apprendista

Se non prendendo varie cautele

Che quegli possa, nel suo termine,

Apprendere da lui le diverse parti.

Quindicesimo articolo

Il quindicesimo articolo pone un termine

Ed è un amico per il maestro

Per insegnargli che con nessuno

Egli si può condurre scorrettamente,

Né mantenere i suoi compagni nel loro peccato,

Per alcun interesse che gli potesse venire.

Non accetterà di fare falso giuramento

Per tema della salvezza della sua anima.Se no, esporrebbe l’arte alla vergogna

E se stesso al biasimo.

Altre Costituzioni

A questa assemblea furono stabiliti dei punti,

Dai grandi signori ed anche dai maestri,

Che chiunque volesse apprendere quest’arte e appartenervi

Doveva amare Dio e la santa chiesa

Ed anche il maestro col quale sta,

Dovunque egli vada, in campagna o nel bosco.

E devi amare anche i tuoi compagni

Poiché questo la tua arte desidera da te.

Punto secondo

Il secondo punto è, come vi dico,

Che il massone lavori durante la sua giornata

Veramente, per quanto sa e può

In modo da meritare il suo riposo per la festa

Ed operi seriamente nel suo lavoro

Onde meriti la sua mercede.

Punto terzo

Il terzo punto deve essere ben conosciuto

Fra gli apprendisti rispettivamente:

Che il consiglio del maestro deve accettare e tenere,

E quello dei compagni, con buon proposito.

Non dirà a nessuno i segreti della camera,

Né qualsiasi cosa essi facciano nella loggia.

Qualunque cosa tu ascolti o veda fare

Non devi dirla a nessuno, dovunque andrai.

Il consiglio del vestibolo e quello del loggiato

Vi renderà, per questo, grande onore.

Il contrario vi porterebbe al biasimo

Ed arrecherebbe grande vergogna all’arte.

Punto quarto

Il quarto punto ci insegna anche

Che nessuno deve essere falso verso la sua arte.

Non deve perseverare nell’errore

Contro l’arte, ma evitarlo.

Non farà egli pregiudizio

Al suo maestro né ai suoi compagni.

E sebbene l’apprendista sia posto al di sotto

Anch’egli deve ave e a stessa legge.

Punto quinto

Il quinto punto, innegabilmente èChe quando il massone prende la paga

Stabilita dal suo maestro,

Egli deve prenderla docilmente.

Tuttavia il maestro può, per fondata ragione,

Avvertirlo formalmente prima di mezzogiorno

Se non intende occuparlo più oltre

Come ha fatto fin qui.

Contro tale ordine non può contendere

Se (il maestro) pensa di avere migliore successo.

Punto sesto

Il sesto punto deve essere fatto conoscere

Sia in alto che in basso.

Nel caso dovessero accadere

Fra i massoni, alcuni o tutti,

Per invidia od odio implacabile,

Che nascano spesso grandi contese,

Allora il massone è obbligato, se possibile,

A, destinare un certo giorno per la composizione.

Ma essi non procederanno a tale rito

Finché la giornata lavorativa non sarà trascorsa.

Durante un giorno festivo potrete facilmente

Trovare il tempo per la composizione.

Se fosse fatto durante la giornata di lavoro

Il lavoro sarebbe dilazionato per tale questione.

Assegna loro, quindi, un tale termine

Cosicché vivano bene nella legge di Dio,

Punto settimo

Il settimo punto può bene significare

Che Dio ci ricompenserà per una vita buona.

A questo scopo descrive chiaramente

Che non dovrai giacere con la moglie del tuo maestro

Né con quella del tuo compagno, in nessun modo,

Altrimenti l’arte ti disprezzerà;

Né con la concubina del tuo compagno,

Come tu non vorresti che egli facesse con la tua.

La pena per questo sia severa:

Che rimanga apprendista per sette anni interi,

Se incorre in un caso di questi.

Quegli allora deve essere punito;

Molti guai potrebbero avere principio

Da un tal peccato mortale.

Punto ottavo

Il punto ottavo, si può essere certi,

Se hai preso ogni cura

Di essere sincero verso il tuo maestro

Per questo punto non sarai dispiaciuto.Devi essere un sincero mediatore

Fra il tuo maestro e i tuoi compagni liberi;

Fa lealmente tutto ciò che puoi

Ad ambo le parti e ciò è molto bene.

Punto nono

Il nono punto ci chiama

Ad essere attendenti del nostro alloggio.

Se vi trovate in camera insieme,

Ciascuno deve servire l’altro con cortesia.

Rende i compagni cortesi, come voi dovete sapere

Fare tutti l’attendente [‘steward’] a turno,

Settimana dopo settimana. Senza dubbio,

L’attendente conviene farlo a turno;

Amabilmente servirsi l’un l’altro

Come si pensa per fratello e sorella.

Nessuno dovrà lasciare l’onere a un altro

Per rendersi libero senza corrispettivo

Ma ognuno sarà ugualmente libero.

Di tale corrispettivo, così deve essere,

Fai attenzione di pagare sempre bene ogni uomo

Dal quale tu abbia comprato dei viveri:

Che nessuna accusa sia possibile fare a te

Né ai tuoi compagni di ogni grado

Ogni uomo o donna, chiunque sia,

Pagalo bene e giusto, per quello che offre.

Di questo ricevi per il tuo compagno valida ricevuta

Per il pagamento che gli hai fatto,

Per timore che ciò provochi rimprovero dei compagni,

E a te stesso parti di grande biasimo.

Quanto a lui, deve fare buoni rendiconti,

Delle merci che egli ha preso.

Di quello dei tuoi compagni che hai consumato

Dove, come e a qual fine.

Tali conti devi venirli a fare

Ogni volta che i tuoi compagni lo richiedano.

Punto decimo

Il decimo punto presenta la buona vita

Il vivere senza affanno e contesa.

Perciò se il massone vive in modo ingiusto

Ed è falso nel lavoro, certamente

Per tali false abitudini

Può diffamare ingiustamente i propri compagni.

Mediante frequenti false accuse

Può far sì che l’arte ne abbia biasimo.

Se egli farà tale villania all’arte

Certamente non gioverà poi a se stesso

Né lo si manterrà nella sua vita malvagia

Temendo che si metta a diffamare e contrastare.Pertanto, non dovete ritardare,

Ma dovete costringerlo

A presentarsi dove crederete.

Dove tu desideri, forte o piano.

Lo richiamerai alla prossima assemblea

A presentarsi davanti ai suoi compagni

E se non vorrà comparire davanti a loro

Deve giurare di rinunziare all’arte,

Poi sarà punito secondo la legge

Che fu fondata in giorni lontani.

Punto undicesimo

L’undicesimo punto è della buona discrezione

Come potete sapere con buona ragione.

Un massone che conosce bene quest’arte

E veda il suo compagno alzare una pietra

E posarla in pericolo di rovinare

Dovrà correggerlo, se può,

E poi insegnargli a fissarla

In modo che l’opera commissionata non rovini.

Devi però insegnargli gentilmente a perfezionarsi,

Con parole buone, che Dio ci ha dato;

Per il suo amore che sta in alto

Il tuo amore lo nutra con dolci parole.

Punto dodicesimo

Il dodicesimo punto è di grande sovranità:

Laddove sarà tenuta l’assemblea,

Là si troveranno i maestri ed anche i compagni

E molti altri grandi signori.

Vi sarà lo sceriffo di quel paese

Ed anche il sindaco del posto;

Ci saranno cavalieri e gentiluomini

Ed altri notabili, come potrai vedere.

I decreti che essi faranno

Li manterranno tutti insieme

Verso ciascun uomo, chiunque egli sia,

Che appartenga all’arte buona e libera.

Se egli entrerà in contrasto con essa

Sarà preso in loro custodia.

Punto tredicesimo

Il tredicesimo punto ci è molto caro.

Egli farà giuramento di non essere ladro

Né di aiutare alcuno nelle sue male arti.

Per qualsiasi cosa che egli abbia rubata

E tu ne abbia notizia o colpa,

Né per la sua roba né per la sua famiglia.Punto quattordicesimo

Il quattordicesimo punto contiene una buona legge

Per chi sia in soggezione.

Egli deve prestare un sincero giuramento

Al suo maestro e ai suoi compagni che sono lì.

Egli deve essere risoluto ed anche sincero

A tutte queste ordinanze, dovunque egli vada;

E al suo sovrano signore il re,

Di essere sincero verso di lui soprattutto.

E a tutti questi punti detti prima

È obbligato a prestare giuramento.

E tutti devono pronunciare lo stesso obbligo

Dei massoni, piaccia loro o meno,

A tutti questi punti detti prima

Che sono stati ordinati da un buon maestro.

Ed essi indagheranno, ciascuno

Dalla propria parte, meglio che potranno.

Se qualcuno può essere trovato colpevole

In qualche punto particolare.

E, se lo è, sia cercato

E sia portato davanti all’assemblea.

Punto quindicesimo

Il quindicesimo punto è di ottima istruzione

Per coloro che là hanno giurato.

Tale decreto fu posto all’assemblea

Dai citati grandi signori e maestri,

Per quelli che sono disobbedienti, con certezza,

Contro il decreto esistente

Di questi articoli che furono fatti là

Dai grandi signori e massoni insieme.

E se sarà pubblicamente provato

Davanti all’assemblea, all’istante,

E non faranno ammenda della loro colpa,

Allora dovranno abbandonare l’arte

E così la corporazione dei massoni li rifiuterà

E promette solennemente di non assumerli più.

A meno che essi non facciano ammenda,

Non potranno più essere ammessi all’arte.

E se non faranno così

Lo sceriffo verrà da loro

E porterà i loro corpi in buie prigioni,

Per le violazioni che essi hanno compiuto.

E porrà i loro beni e la loro vita

Nelle mani del re, dovunque,

E li lasceranno stare là

Fin che piaccia al sovrano nostro re di liberarli.

Altro decreto dell’arte della geometria

Essi ordinarono che si tenesse un’assemblea

Ogni anno, laddove essi volevano,Per correggere i difetti che capitasse di scoprire

Nella corporazione del paese.

Veniva tenuta ogni uno o tre anni

Sempre nel punto che preferivano;

Tempo e luogo doveva essere indicato

Perché avesse luogo il raduno.

Tutti gli uomini dell’arte dovevano trovarsi là

Con altri grandi signori, come dovete vedere,

Per correggere gli errori di cui si doveva parlare,

Se qualcuno di loro era stato scorretto.

Là, tutti dovevano prestare giuramento,

Tutti gli appartenenti a quest’arte,

Di accettare ciascuno questi statuti

Che furono ordinati dal re Atelstano.

Questi statuti che ho qui fondato

Voglio che siano mantenuti in tutto il mio paese

In nome della mia regalità

Che ho per mia dignità.

Comando anche che ad ogni assemblea che terrete

Veniate al vostro coraggioso, sovrano re,

Supplicandolo della sua alta grazia

Di stare con voi in ogni luogo

Per confermare gli statuti di re Atelstano

Che ha ordinato quest’arte per buona ragione.

Arte dei Quattro Coronati

Preghiamo ora l’altissimo Iddio

E sua madre, la lucente Maria

Affinché possiamo apprendere bene questi articoli

E questi punti, tutti insieme

Come fecero questi quattro santi martiri

Che dettero grande onore a quest’arte,

Che furono così buoni massoni come non ce ne saranno sulla terra.

Essi furono anche incisori e scultori di immagini

Perché erano artigiani dei migliori.

L’imperatore aveva grande predilezione per loro;

Egli desiderò che gli facessero una effigie

Che fosse venerata per amor suo.

Tali idoli dovevano in quel tempo

Distogliere il popolo dalla legge di Cristo.

Ma essi furono fermi nella legge di Cristo

E a quest’arte, senza dubbio.

Amavano Dio e tutti i suoi precetti

E volevano sempre più servirlo.

Uomini veri erano in quel tempo

E vivevano felici nella legge di Dio,

Essi non potevano concepire di fare degli idoli,

Per qualsiasi ricompensa potessero ricevere,

0 credere negli idoli invece che in Dio.

Non avrebbero fatto questo, anche se egli si infuriava

Perché non avrebbero abbandonato la vera fedeE creduto alla sua falsa legge.

Allora l’imperatore li fece prendere

E mettere in una profonda prigione.

La cosa più triste fu l’essere puniti in quel posto

La cosa più gioiosa fu l’essere in grazia di Cristo.

Allorché non vide altra via

Li condannò a morte.

Dal libro si può conoscere

Nella leggenda dei santi

Il nome dei quattro coronati.

La loro festa, senza dubbio, sarà

L’ottavo giorno dopo Ognissanti.

Potete udire così come io ho letto

Che molti anni dopo, per un grande dubbio

Quando il diluvio di Noè fu completamente cessato

Ebbe inizio la torre di Babilonia,

Secondo un piano di lavoro di calce e pietra,

Come ognuno poteva vederla allora

Cosi lunga e larga era stata cominciata:

Per sette miglia di altezza oscurava il sole.

L’aveva fatta il re Nabucodonosor,

Di grande solidità per amore degli uomini.

In modo che se ancora fosse venuto un altro diluvio

Non avrebbe sommerso l’opera;

Per un così forte orgoglio, per tale vanteria,

Tutta quell’opera fu cosi perduta.

Un angelo colpì con la diversità delle favelle,

Cosi l’uno non comprendeva ciò che diceva l’altro.

Molti anni dopo, il grande dotto Euclide

Insegnò l’arte della geometria, molto profondo e chiaro.

Fece altrettanto con altri (soggetti) nello stesso tempo

Di molte altre diverse arti.

Per la suprema grazia di Cristo in cielo

Cominciò con le sette scienze:

La Grammatica è indubbiamente la prima scienza.

La Dialettica la seconda, mi piace dirlo.

La Retorica la terza, non si può negarlo.

La Musica è la quarta, come vi dico.

L’Astronomia è la quinta, a mio fiuto,

L’Aritmetica la sesta, senza alcun dubbio.

La Geometria, la settima, chiude l’elenco.

Per la sua umiltà e cortesia

La Grammatica in verità è la radice

Per cui chiunque potrà apprendere dai libri.

Ma l’arte la supera di grado

Come sempre il frutto proviene dalla radice dell’albero.

La Retorica misura con espressione ornata il ritmo

E la Musica è un dolce canto,

L’Astronomia enumera, mio caro fratello,

L’Aritmetica fa vedere che una cosa è un’altra.

La Geometria è la settima scienza

Che può separare con certezza il falso dal vero.Queste sono le sette scienze.

Chiunque le adoperi bene può avere il cielo.

Ora, cari figli, con la vostra conoscenza

Lasciate da parte la superbia e la cupidigia

E curate la buona discrezione

E la buona educazione, dovunque andiate.

Ora, vi prego di badare bene

A quanto sembrate abbisognare di più

Ma dovreste conoscere molto di più

Di quello che trovate scritto qui.

Se la vostra conoscenza è insufficiente,

Pregate Dio di farvela avere

Poiché Cristo stesso ci insegna

Che la Santa Chiesa è la casa di Dio

Che non è fatta per nessun altro scopo

Se non per pregarvi, come dice il Libro.

Là dentro la gente si riunirà

Per pregare e piangere i propri peccati.

Bada di non venire tardi in chiesa

A causa di scherzi lungo la via.

Quando poi vai in chiesa

Abbi in mente sempre di più

Di onorare di e notte il signore Dio tuo,

Con tutto il tuo intelletto e anche col tuo cuore.

Quando vieni alla porta della Chiesa

Prendi dell’acqua santa.

Per ogni goccia che tu prenderai

Estinguerai un peccato veniale, siine certo.

Ma prima devi tirar giù il tuo cappuccio

Per l’amore di Lui che è morto in croce.

Quando entri in chiesa

Offri il tuo cuore, subito, a Cristo.

Quindi guarda la croce lassù.

Poi piegati del tutto sulle ginocchia

Quindi pregalo di poter operare

Secondo la legge della santa chiesa,

Per seguire i dieci comandamenti

Che Dio ha dato a tutti gli uomini.

E pregalo sottovoce

Di tenerti lontano dai sette peccati

Per cui tu possa, durante la vita,

Preservarti dalle angosce e dalle lotte.

Inoltre, Egli ti assicuri la grazia

Di avere un posto nella beatitudine celeste.

Nella santa chiesa non usare parole sciocche

Proprie degli ignoranti, e parole sconce,

E respingi ogni vanità

Ma recita il pater noster e l’ave Maria.

Guarda anche di non fare alcun rumore

Ma rimani sempre in preghiera;

Se non vuoi pregare,

In nessun modo non impedirlo agli altri.Non sederti né stai in piedi in quel posto

Ma inginocchiati per terra

E, quando si leggerà il Vangelo,

Alzati completamente lontano dalla parete

E benedici tu stesso se lo sai fare,

Quando comincerà il gloria tibi.

E quando il Vangelo è compiuto

Tu potrai inginocchiarti ancora,

Giù su entrambi i ginocchi,

Per il suo amore che ci fa tutti inchinare.

E quando senti suonare le campane

A quel santo sacramento

Tu devi inginocchiarti, giovane o vecchio che tu sia

E alza completamente entrambe le mani

E quindi parla in questo modo

Piamente e sommessamente, senza rumore:

«Signore Gesù, sii tu benvenuto

Come io ti vedo, in forma di pane.

Ora, Gesù, nel tuo santo nome

Difendimi dal peccato e dalla vergogna

Concedimi l’assoluzione e la santa eucaristia

Prima che esca di qui,

E tanto pentimento dei miei peccati

Che mai più, signore, io vi ricada.

E, come tu sei nato dalla Vergine,

Non permettere che io mi perda più

Ma, quando andrò via di qui,

Concedimi la infinita beatitudine.

Amen! Amen! Così sia!

Ora, dolce signora, prega per me».

Simili parole potrai dire, od altre cose,

Quando ti inginocchi al sacramento

Desiderando il bene. Non risparmiare niente

Per onorare colui che tutto ha operato.

Un uomo può essere felice per il giorno

Che almeno una volta può vedere Lui.

È di così grande valore, senza dubbio,

Che nessuno potrà dire la virtù di ciò.

Ma quella vista dà tali frutti,

Come dice giustamente S. Agostino,

Che il giorno che vedrai il corpo di Dio

Due o tre volte, senza dubbio

Dovrai prestare obbedienza a quel signore.

Fallo col tuo ginocchio destro

In tal modo porterai rispetto a te stesso

Così, togliti berretto o cappuccio

Finché ti si dica di rimetterlo.

Tutte le volte che parli con lui

Amabilmente e con rispetto tieni alto il mento.

Cosi, secondo il senso del libro,

Potrai guardarlo bene in viso.

Tieni tranquilli i piedi e le mani:Trattienti dal grattarti e dallo strascicare.

Guardati pure dallo sputare e dal pulirti il naso.

Per queste occorrenze personali

Sii saggio e discreto.

Devi aver gran cura di dominare le emozioni.

Quando entri nel vestibolo

In mezzo alla distinzione, la benevolenza e le cortesie,

Non presumerti troppo in alto per alcun motivo,

Né per la tua nascita, né per la tua abilità.

Non sederti né appoggiarti.

Questo è il modo saggio e pulito di condurti.

E se non si allenterà il tuo sostegno

Veramente la buona educazione preserverà la tua dignità,

Se il padre e la madre si condurranno bene

Il figlio non potrà che crescere bene.

Nel vestibolo, in camera, dovunque si vada

Le buone maniere fanno l’uomo.

Guarda attentamente il prossimo grado

Per trattare con riguardo ciascuno singolarmente.

Non salutarli quando sono in gruppo,

A meno che tu non li conosca.

Quando ti siedi a mangiare,

Fallo in modo piacevole e simpatico:

Prima guarda che le tue mani siano pulite

E che il tuo coltello sia affilato e aguzzo

E taglia il tuo pane e il tuo cibo

Nel modo conveniente in quel posto.

Se siedi vicino a un uomo

Più importante di te,

Lascialo prendere la carne

Prima di prenderla tu.

Non prendere il boccone migliore

Anche se lo vorresti;

Tieni le mani composte ed evita

Di pulirle insudiciando la tovaglia.

Non pulirti il naso con quella

Né stuzzicare i denti a tavola.

Non chinar troppo il viso nella coppa

Quando desideri di bere.

Se gli occhi fossero troppo vicini all’acqua

Questo non sarebbe cortese.

Bada di non avere cibi in bocca,

Quando stai per bere o per parlare.

Quando vedi che qualcuno sta bevendo,

Fai attenzione al discorso:

Smetti subito di parlare

Se egli beve vino o birra.

Guarda pure di non disprezzare nessuno

In qualsiasi grado lo veda salire.

Non devi disprezzare nessuno

Se vuoi rispettata la tua dignità:

Per tali parole può risultareDi essere triste nel sentirti colpevole:

Stringi la tua mano a pugno

E fa di non dover dire «l’avessi saputo!».

In sala, fra signore brillanti,

Frena la lingua e impiega lo sguardo.

Non ridere a crepapelle,

Non scherzare con licenziosità,

Non giocare se non con i tuoi pari,

Non dire tutto ciò che ascolti,

Non parlare dei fatti tuoi,

Né per gusto né per interesse.

Parlando bene puoi ottenere quello che vuoi,

Come puoi distruggerti.

Quando incontri un uomo rispettabile

Togliti il cappello o il cappuccio,

In chiesa, al mercato o in strada.

Onoralo secondo il suo stato.

Se cammini con uno più importante

Di quanto lo sii tu,

Tienti un po’ dietro di lui,

Per non mancargli di riguardo.

Quando egli parla, taci,

Quando avrà finito parlerai tu.

Sii efficace nei tuoi discorsi

E considera bene ciò che dici.

Ma non togliergli la parola

Né al vino né alla birra.

Allora Cristo nella sua grazia

Ti darà spirito e spazio

Per conoscere e leggere questo buon libro

Onde guadagnarvi il cielo.

Amen! Amen! Così sia!

Diciamo così tutti con carità.Quaderni per la storia della Massoneria

1. Reprint della rivista “Garibaldi” edita dalla Massoneria savonese nel 1907

2. Arturo Reghini, La Tragedia del Tempio (1914)

3. Il Programma del Grande Oriente d'Italia (1861)

4. La Massoneria di colore negli Stati Uniti

5. Il Manoscritto Regius (1390)Cedoc-Savona

Novembre 2022

Gran Loggia 2025. L’assemblea del Grande Oriente d’Italia ha revocato i rapporti con il Rito Scozzese Antico ed Accettato con sede in Piazza del Gesù a Roma e ha annullato il voto del 3 marzo 2024/Grand Lodge 2025. The Assembly of the Grand Orient of Italy has revoked all relatios with the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite headquartered at Piazza del Gesù in Rome and annulled the vote of March 3, 2024

 

“Uniti nei valori. Coerenti nei doveri” è il titolo scelto per la Gran Loggia 2025, la più importante assise annuale del Grande Oriente d’Italia– Palazzo Giustiniani che ha aperto ufficialmente i suoi lavori il 4 aprile alle 13, 30 presso il Palacongressi di Rimini. Un appuntamento cruciale che ha visto riuniti maestri venerabili, delegati delle logge, grandi ufficiali, questori, garanti di amicizia, presidenti circoscrizionali, membri della Corte Centrale, ispettori e numerosi altri membri della Comunione aventi diritto.

Nel corso della riunione, sono state prese decisioni di rilievo che segnano un passaggio storico per il Goi. L’Assemblea su richiesta delle Logge, ha deliberato in modo netto su questi tre temi chiave all’ordine del giorno:

Punto 9 e 10. Revoca definitiva di ogni rapporto con il Rito Scozzese Antico ed Accettato con sede a Roma in Piazza del Gesù 47

E’ stata approvata la definitiva revoca dei rapporti istituzionali con il corpo rituale denominato Rito Scozzese Antico ed Accettato con sede a Roma in Piazza del Gesù 47, a seguito di modifiche statutarie e regolamentari ritenute incompatibili con i principi del Grande Oriente d’Italia;

Punto 11. Revoca e annullamento del voto del 3 marzo 2024

Per spazzare ogni dubbio su possibili irregolarità emerse nel procedimento elettorale del 3 marzo 2024, l’Assemblea ha deciso di revocare la consultazione a garanzia di una corretta espressione del voto e della massima partecipazione e di ripeterla.

Punto 12. Immediata indizione di nuove elezioni

L’Assemblea ha deliberato la convocazione immediata di nuove elezioni, ex artt 108 e seguenti del Regolamento del Grande Oriente d’Italia, al fine di restituire alla Comunione serenità e certezza.

Come da tradizione, durante i lavori non sono mancati il saluto al Presidente della Repubblica e l’omaggio alla bandiera italiana ed europea, a sottolineare l’impegno civile e patriottico che da sempre contraddistingue l’azione del Grande Oriente d’Italia.

Nella giornata di sabato 5 aprile i lavori sono proseguiti con il voto del bilancio consuntivo 2024, l’illustrazione, l’esame, la discussione e il voto del bilancio preventivo 2025. Ha concluso l’eventoiuk Gran Maestro Stefano Bisi.

 

Grand Lodge 2025. The Assembly of the Grand Orient of Italy has revoked all relations with
the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite headquartered at Piazza del Gesù in Rome and has
annulled the vote of March 3, 2024.

“United in Values. Consistent in Duties” is the theme chosen for Grand Lodge 2025, the most
significant annual convocation of the Grand Orient of Italy – Palazzo Giustiniani, which formally
opened its proceedings on April 4 at 1:30 p.m. at the Palacongressi in Rimini. This pivotal gathering
brought together Worshipful Masters, Lodge Delegates, Grand Officers, Questori, Grand Stewards
of Friendship, District Presidents, members of the Central Court, Inspectors, and many other
Brethren of the Communion duly entitled to attend.
During the Assembly, momentous decisions were rendered, marking a historic milestone for the
GOI. At the behest of the Lodges, the Assembly deliberated decisively on three critical agenda
items:
– Items 9 and 10. Definitive revocation of all ties with the Ancient and Accepted Scottish
Rite headquartered at Piazza del Gesù 47 in Rome
The Assembly approved the permanent revocation of institutional relations with the body
known as the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, headquartered at Piazza del Gesù 47 in
Rome, following statutory and regulatory amendments deemed incompatible with the
principles upheld by the Grand Orient of Italy.

– Item 11. Revocation and annulment of the vote of March 3, 2024
To dispel any doubt regarding possible irregularities in the electoral procedure of March 3,
2024, the Assembly resolved to revoke that consultation, thereby ensuring the utmost
correctness in the expression of the vote and the broadest participation, and further decided
to repeat it.

– Item 12. Immediate call for new elections
The Assembly decreed the immediate convening of new elections, in accordance with
Articles 108 and following of the Grand Orient of Italy’s Regulations, in order to restore
tranquility and certainty within the Communion.

In keeping with tradition, the Assembly paid homage to the President of the Republic and to the
Italian and European flags, underscoring the civil and patriotic commitment that has ever guided the
mission of the Grand Orient of Italy.

On Saturday, April 5, the proceedings continued with the vote on the 2024 Financial Statement,
followed by the presentation, examination, discussion, and vote on the 2025 Budget. The event was
brought to a close by the Grand Master, Most Worshipfull Brother Stefano Bisi.

 

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF GRANDE ORIENTE D’ITALIA v. ITALY

(Application no. 29550/17)

JUDGMENT

Art 8 • Home • Correspondence • Search of applicant association’s premises

(a Masonic lodge) ordered by a parliamentary commission of inquiry and seizure of

large number of paper and digital documents, including the list of the association’s

members, their names and their personal data • Search carried out in the context of

an investigation into the serious matter of Mafia infiltration of masonic lodges •

Search order not subject to prior judicial scrutiny capable of circumscribing its wide

and indeterminate scope • Lack of evidence or a reasonable suspicion of the

applicant’s involvement in the matter under investigation • Absence of sufficient

counterbalancing guarantees, in particular of an independent and impartial review of

the search order • Need for some form of ex ante or ex post control required by an

independent and impartial authority as a safeguard against arbitrariness • In the

specific case-circumstances and in view of the subsidiarity principle and the State’s

margin of appreciation in matters closely linked to the separation of powers, not for

the Court to indicate the type of remedy to be provided • Impugned measure not “in

accordance with the law” nor “necessary in a democratic society”

Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.

STRASBOURG

19 December 2024

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the

Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

In the case of Grande Oriente d’Italia v. Italy,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber

composed of:

Ivana Jelić, President,

Alena Poláčková,

Georgios A. Serghides,

Erik Wennerström,

Raffaele Sabato,

Alain Chablais,

Artūrs Kučs, judges,

and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 29550/17) against the Italian Republic lodged with the

Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an association registered

under Italian law, Grande Oriente d’Italia (“the applicant association”), on

13 April 2017;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Italian Government

(“the Government”);

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 26 November 2024,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

INTRODUCTION

1. The case concerns a search of the applicant association’s premises

ordered by a parliamentary commission of inquiry and the subsequent seizure

of a number of paper and digital documents, in particular a list, including

names and personal data, of more than 6,000 members of the applicant

association. The applicant association raises complaints under Articles 8,

11 and 13 of the Convention.

THE FACTS

2. The applicant association is an Italian Masonic association which

groups together several lodges. It has been in existence since 1805 and is

affiliated to Universal Freemasonry. In Italian law the applicant association

has the status of an unrecognised private law association under Article 36 of

the Civil Code. It therefore does not have legal personality. It has filed its

Articles of Association with a notary (notaio) and anyone can have access to

them. The applicant association was represented by Mr V. Zeno Zencovich,

a lawyer practising in Rome.

3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr L. D’Ascia,

Avvocato dello Stato (counsel representing the State).

1GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.

5. The Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry on the phenomenon of

mafias and other criminal associations, including foreign ones (Commissione

parlamentare d’inchiesta sul fenomeno delle mafie e sulle altre associazioni

criminali anche straniere; hereinafter “Parliamentary Commission of

Inquiry”) was established by Law no. 87 of 19 July 2013 (“Law no. 87/2013”;

see paragraph 25 below). It was mandated, inter alia, to conduct an inquiry

into the relations between the Mafia and Freemasonry because of information

emerging from criminal proceedings that were then proceeding in various

courts.

6. On 3 August 2016 the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry heard

Dr Bisi, the Grand Master of the applicant association, in an “informal

hearing” (libera audizione), meaning that he was not burdened by any

particular legal obligation. The hearing concerned the relationship between

the Mafia and Freemasonry. Dr Bisi was asked whether he was prepared to

hand over to the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry a list of the members

of the lodges participating to the applicant association, and he replied that this

was not possible for reasons of confidentiality.

7. On 4 August 2016 the President of the Parliamentary Commission of

Inquiry wrote to Dr Bisi asking him to provide the abovementioned list. By a

letter of 11 August 2016, Dr Bisi replied that he could not comply with the

request. He relied on the Italian law on the protection of personal data, but

also on the fact that the request of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry

appeared to aim at a fishing expedition, as it did not mention any ongoing

investigations against identified members of the applicant association nor

specify any particular suspected crimes.

8. On 19 September 2016 the applicant association asked for an opinion

of the National Data Protection Authority (Garante per la protezione dei dati

personali) on whether the applicant association would be in breach of the

domestic rules on data protection if it handed over a list of its members,

including their names and personal data, as requested by the Parliamentary

Commission of Inquiry.

9. On 4 October 2016 the National Data Protection Authority, relying on

judgment no. 4 of 12 March 1983 of the Court of Cassation (see paragraph 29

below), said that it had no competence over the powers of Parliament,

including its power to institute or regulate parliamentary commissions of

inquiry.

10. On 21 December 2016 the President of the Parliamentary Commission

of Inquiry reiterated its request for a list of the members of the applicant

association’s constituent lodges (see paragraphs 6-7 above). This request was

however limited to lists of the members of lodges in the regions of Calabria

and Sicily, starting from 1990, and lists of the lodges in the other regions of

the country, giving the number of individual members in each lodge.

11. By a letter of 9 January 2017, Dr Bisi again refused to give the

Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry any list. He observed that its request

2GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

had made no reference to any ongoing investigations and that the request was

not limited to information about specific crimes allegedly committed by

individual members of the applicant association. The Grand Master

considered that the request was generic and unreasoned and could therefore

not be upheld. He argued, in particular, that under Article 82 of the Italian

Constitution a parliamentary commission of inquiry had the “same powers

and limitations” as the judicial authorities and that, in his view, the

Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry was, in the present case, exceeding

those limitations.

12. The Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry therefore summoned

Dr Bisi as a witness, so that he was required by law to tell the truth and would

otherwise be guilty of the offence of perjury. At the sitting of

18 January 2017, Dr Bisi again said that he was unable to disclose the names

of the members of the applicant association, as requested by the

Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry.

13. On 1 March 2017 the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, meeting

in a private session, ordered a search of the applicant association’s premises

and the seizure of various paper and digital documents. The reasoning of the

order reads as follows:

“WHEREAS

...

- from the hearings held up to now and from the documentation acquired, it has

emerged that there is a definite danger that Cosa Nostra and the Ndrangheta have

infiltrated Freemasonry, assisted by the principle of confidentiality and by the bonds of

obedience of Masonic associations, and it is also pointed out that, in parallel to the

changes in mafia-type associations, unlawful arrangements can also be made through

Masonic lodges whose members may include members of the ruling class and the

country’s businessmen;

- in order for the parliamentary inquiry to be conducted successfully, it is essential

that a list of the names of the members of Masonic lodges is obtained urgently, in order

to check whether there are individuals among those members that are linked, in any of

various ways, to mafia-type associations, and to find out how many of them there are;

- in particular, it is necessary to obtain, as matter of priority, a list of the lodges of

Sicily and Calabria (those being the regions where the main past and present criminal

investigations have been focused, and where Masonic lodges have a substantial and

increasing number of members), and of the names of their members starting from 1990

(the period to which the most relevant reports about Mafia infiltration in Freemasonry

refer).”

14. The search order referred to the following sources of information:

prosecutorial hearings conducted by the Public Prosecutor’s Offices of

Reggio Calabria, Palermo and Trapani; witness statements of Grand Masters

and other members of Italian Masonic lodges; and documents obtained by the

National Anti-Mafia and Anti-Terrorism Directorate.

15. The Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry ordered a search of the

applicant association’s premises, including outbuildings and furnishings,

3GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

computers and electronic information systems, even where they were

protected by security measures, in order to find and seize lists of all categories

of members of the lodges of Calabria and Sicily, starting from 1990, including

people whose membership of the associations or active participation in them

had ceased, and giving their rank and role in each case, and also all

documentation concerning suspended or dissolved lodges in Calabria and

Sicily, again starting from 1990 and including the names of all their members

and their personal files and information about any inquiries held and the

decisions taken.

The Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry then ordered the seizure of the

abovementioned documents, if they were in hard copy, and the seizure of

computer files of whatever nature that contained such documents. These had

to be copied immediately, in the presence of the interested parties, so as to

ensure that they were a true copy of original and to avoid alteration of the

original data, and the computers and files seized had to be restored to the

legitimate owners once the operation was over.

16. The search was conducted by the Central Service for the Investigation

of Organised Crime of the Revenue Police (Guardia di Finanza). The officers

identified and seized the identity documents of the personnel present in the

applicant association’s premises. The search covered all the applicant

association’s premises, including archives and library, several computers and

the personal residence of the Grand Master. The search resulted in the seizure

of numerous paper and digital documents, including lists of the names of

approximately 6,000 persons who were registered with the applicant

association, as well as hard disks, pen drives and computers.

17. The seized items were kept in accordance with the secrecy regime

established under sections 5 and 6 of Law no. 87/2013 (see paragraph 25

below). The Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry ordered that they had to

be kept “at premises under the control of the judicial police dealing with this

matter, so as to prevent computer access other than that authorised in the

proceedings between the parties”, in a room equipped with a security door,

video surveillance and an alarm.

18. On 1 March 2017 another Masonic lodge which had been subjected to

a similar search applied to the Rome District Court for a review of the search

order under Article 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP). The court

dismissed the application on 16 March 2017, observing that an ordinary judge

had no jurisdiction to review any act of a parliamentary commission of

inquiry, including a search order (see paragraphs 29-32 below).

19. On 16 March 2017 the applicant association asked the Parliamentary

Commission of Inquiry to reconsider the search order under its own

procedures (ricorso in autotutela; see paragraph 26 below), arguing that it

was unlawful and illegitimate and that it was generic and did not contain any

allegations of specific offences. The Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry

made no ruling on the request.

4GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

20. On several dates, selected elements of the extensive material seized

were examined by the domestic authorities, in the presence of a representative

of the applicant association. Only material specifically referred to in the

search and seizure order was disclosed, and the parties had the right to be

present while the material was being selected and seized. Anything found that

was not related to the subject matter of the search and seizure order was

destroyed. A copy of all the computer material was made and the originals

were returned on 28 March 2017.

21. On 31 March 2017 the Grand Master of the applicant association filed

a criminal complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Rome District

Court. He argued that both the search and seizure order itself and the way it

had been enforced constituted criminal offences. Claiming that State powers

had been misused, the applicant association requested the prosecutor to apply,

under Article 134 of the Italian Constitution, for a judicial review by the

Constitutional Court of a misuse of powers as between State bodies (conflitto

di attribuzione tra poteri dello Stato; see paragraphs 23 and 35 below).

22. On 23 October 2017 the Public Prosecutor dismissed that application,

including its request to apply for a judicial review of a conflict of jurisdiction

between the powers of the State, and discontinued the investigation of the

applicant association’s criminal complaint.

The public prosecutor observed, in particular, that the ordinary judge

lacked jurisdiction over the acts of a parliamentary commission of inquiry

(see paragraphs 29-30 below). The public prosecutor further observed that the

conflict of jurisdiction could have been taken up with the Constitutional

Court, but further observed that the conditions for seeking such a review had

not been met in the specific circumstances of the case, since there were no

criminal proceedings about the same issues which were being investigated by

the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry and there were therefore no judicial

functions being exercised that it could interfere with. Moreover, referring to

the different nature and purpose of a parliamentary commission of inquiry,

the public prosecutor further held that no conflict of jurisdiction could be

identified in the present case.

As regards the way the search and seizure order in the present case had

been carried out, the public prosecutor denied that that had been unlawful.

RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE

I. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

A. Constitution

23. The relevant Articles of the Constitution read as follows:

5GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

Article 18

“Citizens have the right to form associations freely and without authorisation for

purposes that are not forbidden by the criminal law. Secret associations and associations

that even indirectly pursue political aims by means of organisations of a military

character shall be forbidden.”

Article 82

“Each Chamber of Parliament may order inquiries into matters of public interest.

For these purposes it shall appoint a commission from among its members reflecting

the proportion of the various groups within the Chamber. The commission of inquiry

shall conduct investigations and examinations with the same powers and limitations as

a judicial authority.”

Article 134

“The Constitutional Court adjudicates ... on applications for judicial review of misuse

of powers as between State bodies [conflitto di attribuzione tra poteri dello Stato] ...”

B. Code of Criminal Procedure

24. The relevant provisions of the CCP read as follows:

Article 247: Cases and forms of searches

“1. When there is a well-founded reason to believe that someone is concealing on his

person the proceeds of the offence or things pertaining to the offence, a personal search

shall be ordered. When there is a well-founded reason to believe that such things are in

a specifiable place or that the arrest of an accused person or fugitive may be carried out

there, a search of that place shall be ordered.

1-bis. When there is a well-founded reason to believe that data, information,

computer programs or evidence in any way pertinent to the offence are in a computer

or telecommunications system, even if it is protected by security measures, a search

shall be ordered, using technical means to ensure the preservation of the original data

and to prevent their alteration.

2. The order for the search shall give reasons.

3. The judicial authority may proceed through their own staff or arrange for the search

to be performed by judicial police officers, to whom power should be delegated by the

same order.”

Article 248: Delivery request

“1. If a search is to be made for a specific thing, the judicial authority may ask for it

to be handed over. If the thing is presented, the search shall not be carried out unless it

is considered useful to do so for the completeness of the investigation.

2. In order to trace the things to be seized or to ascertain other information useful for

the investigation, the judicial authority or officers of the judicial police delegated by it

may examine bank accounts, documents and correspondence as well as data,

information and computer programs. In the event of a refusal, the judicial authority shall

conduct a search.”

6GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

Article 252: Seizure following a search

“1. Things found as a result of a search shall be seized in accordance with the

provisions of Articles 259 and 260.”

Article 257: Review of the seizure order

“1. The defendant, the individual from whom items were seized and the individual

who would be entitled to have them returned may lodge an application for review

(riesame) under Article 324.

2. The application for review (riesame) shall not suspend the enforceability of the

seizure order.”

C. Law no. 87 of 19 July 2013 (Institution of a Parliamentary

Commission of Inquiry on the phenomenon of mafias and other

criminal associations, including foreign ones)

25. Law no. 87 of 19 July 2013 instituted the Parliamentary Commission

of Inquiry. Its relevant provisions read as follows:

Section 1: Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into the phenomenon of mafias and

other criminal associations, including foreign ones

“1. A Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into the phenomenon of mafias and other

criminal associations, including foreign ones in so far as they operate in the national

territory, is hereby established for the duration of the 17th Legislature, pursuant to

Article 82 of the Constitution, with the following tasks:

...

(e) ascertaining and assessing the nature and characteristics of the changes and

transformations of the phenomenon of the Mafia and all its connections, including the

institutional ones, with particular regard to those organisations permanently established

in regions other than those into which they have traditionally penetrated and those

where they have become strongly involved in the local economy or developed

international connections, including cooperation with other criminal organisations in

order to conduct new forms of illegal activity likely to cause damage to persons, the

environment, assets, intellectual property rights or national security, with particular

regard to the promotion and exploitation of irregular migrants; and for the same

purposes to acquire a deeper knowledge of the economic, social and cultural

characteristics of the areas where those criminal organisations originate and expand;

...

2. The Commission shall conduct investigations and examinations with the same

powers and limitations as a judicial authority. The Commission may not take measures

relating to the freedom and secrecy of correspondence and any other form of

communication or to any personal freedom, with the exception of forcing a person

summoned to appear as a witness for failure to appear under Article 133 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

3. The same tasks are allocated to the Commission with reference to other criminal

associations under whatever names, to foreign mafias, or those of a transnational nature

within the meaning of Article 3 of Law no. 146 of 16 March 2006, and to all criminal

7GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

groupings that have the characteristics referred to in Article 416-bis of the Criminal

Code or that present a serious danger to the social, economic and institutional system.”

Section 5: Request for acts and documents

“1. The Commission may obtain, also by way of derogation from the prohibition laid

down in Article 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, copies of orders and documents

relating to proceedings and investigations conducted by a judicial authority or other

investigating bodies, as well as copies of orders and documents relating to

parliamentary enquiries and investigations.

A judicial authority may also forward copies of orders and documents on its own

initiative.

2. The Commission shall ensure that secrecy is maintained where the acts and

documents copied pursuant to paragraph 1 are covered by secrecy.

3. The Commission may obtain, from bodies and offices of the public administration,

copies of deeds and documents held, produced or otherwise acquired by them on

matters pertaining to the purposes of this Law.

4. The judicial authority shall act promptly and where copies of deeds or documents

have been requested may delay the transmission of them by order giving reasons

relating only to its preliminary investigation. The order is valid for six months and may

be renewed. When the reasons for the order cease to exist, the judicial authority shall

transmit the material requested without delay. The order may not be renewed or take

effect after the close of the preliminary investigation.

5. When orders or documents have been made subject to functional secrecy by the

relevant parliamentary commissions of enquiry, that secrecy cannot be used against the

Commission under this Law.

6. The Commission shall determine which orders and documents must not be

disclosed, and the same applies in relation to requirements relating to other ongoing

investigations or enquiries.”

Section 6: Secrecy

“1. Members of the Commission, officials and staff of any rank and grade attached

to the Commission and any other person who cooperates with the Commission or carries

out or assists in carrying out investigative measures or has knowledge thereof by reason

of their office or employment shall be bound by an obligation of secrecy with regard to

all the orders and documents referred to in Article 5(2) and (6).

2. Unless it constitutes a more serious offence, a breach of secrecy shall be punished

pursuant to Article 326 of the Penal Code.

3. Unless the breach of secrecy constitutes a more serious offence, the same penalties

shall apply to any person who discloses, in whole or in part, even in summary or in the

form of reported information, orders or documents from investigation proceedings

whose disclosure has been prohibited.”

D. The power of self-correction (autotutela)

26. As part of its power of “self-correction” (autotutela), a public

administrative body can annul or revoke decisions that have already been

made, without the intervention of a judicial authority.

8GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC CASE-LAW

A. Constitutional Court

27. In judgment no. 231 of 22 October 1975, the Constitutional Court

clarified that the purposes and activities of parliamentary commissions of

inquiry differ markedly from those of investigations conducted by judicial

authorities. The task of parliamentary commissions of inquiry is not to

adjudicate but only to gather the information and data necessary for the

exercise of the Parliament’s legislative functions; they do not aim to effect,

nor could their concluding reports effect, any legal changes (unlike when they

take a judicial decision), but simply aim to make available as much useful

information as possible to the Chambers of Parliament so that they can decide

what to do with full knowledge of the facts, and can either propose legislation

or invite the Government to take appropriate measures.

28. The Constitutional Court therefore held that holding an inquiry was

part of the function of parliamentary scrutiny; an inquiry was motivated by

political concerns and had equally political ends; it could not take decisions

on crimes or criminal responsibility, because if it did so, it would usurp the

jurisdiction of the courts. The Constitutional Court further held that if a

parliamentary commission became aware of facts that could constitute

offences during the course of its investigations, it would be obliged to report

them to the judicial authorities (see also, Constitutional Court, judgments

no. 219 of 24 June 2003, and no. 26 of 13 February 2008).

B. Court of Cassation

1. Lack of jurisdiction of the ordinary judge

29. In judgment no. 4 of 12 March 1983, the Court of Cassation, sitting

as a full court, held that an ordinary judge had no jurisdiction over the actions

of a parliamentary commission of inquiry. The case concerned an application

for review of a search order issued by a parliamentary commission of inquiry

against the applicant association, concerning a list of the names of its

members.

30. As regards the nature of a parliamentary commission of inquiry, the

Court of Cassation observed that it was not a “body” of the Chambers of

Parliament but a direct instance of the Chambers themselves which allowed

them to acquire the information needed to exercise their legislative powers

by holding an inquiry. Accordingly, the Court of Cassation held that a

parliamentary commission of inquiry could not be considered, from either an

objective or a subjective point of view, a body with a particular jurisdiction

or exercising judicial functions. It exercised of a “power of inquiry” which

was different in nature and purpose from the exercise a judicial function. In

particular, a parliamentary commission of inquiry did not have any power to

adjudicate, but only to collect information and data relevant to the exercise of

9GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

legislative powers. The Court of Cassation therefore concluded that a

parliamentary commission of inquiry was a “political body”.

31. With specific regard to search and seizure ordered by a parliamentary

commission of inquiry, the Court of Cassation held that it was different, in its

purpose and effects, from a search ordered by a judge in relation to a crime.

A search ordered by a judge was limited by the judgment which would

conclude the criminal proceedings: by that point, the seized items had to have

been either confiscated or returned, as provided for by law. Search and seizure

ordered by a parliamentary commission of inquiry concerned items pertaining

to the inquiry, with the consequence that it was limited by the inquiry: items

seized could be retained for a limited period of time, which could not extend

beyond the inquiry, which of its nature was limited in time.

32. The Court of Cassation further held that Article 82 of the Constitution,

which said that the powers exercised by a parliamentary commission of

inquiry were subject to the same limitations as a judicial authority, did not

entail that the same remedies (including an application for review of a search

order) applied. In the same way that a search order made by a judge was

subject to review by a judge, a search order made by a parliamentary

commission of inquiry would have to be subject to review by a body of the

same legislative power.

33. In the light of the above, the Court of Cassation concluded that an

ordinary judge had no jurisdiction over the actions of a parliamentary

commission of inquiry and could not quash, revoke or modify something such

as a search and seizure order.

34. As regards the remedies available to the individual affected by the

actions of a parliamentary commission of inquiry, the Court of Cassation held

that they were subject to the ordinary provisions concerning liability for

unlawful acts, both civil and criminal.

2. Application for judicial review of a misuse of powers as between State

bodies (conflitto di attribuzione tra poteri dello Stato)

35. In judgment no. 15236 of 12 May 2022, the Court of Cassation, sitting

as a full court, reiterated that a judge was not obliged to make an application

for judicial review by the Constitutional Court of a misuse of powers as

between State bodies. The judge had the power to decide whether the case in

front of him or her fell within the domestic jurisdiction of Parliament as a

matter of its autonomy and independence, or whether it was a matter for him

or her under the ordinary rules of his or her jurisdiction.

3. Search orders

36. In several judgments, the Court of Cassation held a search order to be

void where it did not include a description of the allegations against the

person under investigation, the legislative provision making that conduct a

criminal offence, or the nature of the objects that had to be seized and how

10GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

they were relevant to the crime under investigation, and that merely referring

to the provision supposedly violated was insufficient (see, for example, Court

of Cassation judgments no. 41765 of 12 September 2023; no. 37639 of

13 March 2019; no. 13594 of 27 February 2015; and no. 5930 of

31 January 2012).

37. The Court of Cassation further held that the judiciary had to order the

return of objects seized once the criminal investigation and trial were over

(see Court of Cassation, judgment no. 22078 of 18 April 2023).

III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS

A. Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals

with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data

38. The relevant part of the Council of Europe Convention for the

Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal

Data (ETS No. 108, hereinafter “the Data Protection Convention”), which

entered into force on 1 September 2001 in respect of Italy, read as follows:

Article 6: Special categories of data

“Personal data revealing racial origin, political opinions or religious or other beliefs,

as well as personal data concerning health or sexual life, may not be processed

automatically unless domestic law provides appropriate safeguards. The same shall

apply to personal data relating to criminal convictions.”

B. Recommendation R (87)15 of the Committee of Ministers of the

Council of Europe, regulating the use of personal data in the police

sector

39. Recommendation R (87)15 was adopted by the Committee of

Ministers of the Council of Europe on 17 September 1987 at the

410th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies. Its relevant parts read as follows:

Principle 2: Collection of data

“2.1. The collection of personal data for police purposes should be limited to such as

is necessary for the prevention of a real danger or the suppression of a specific criminal

offence. Any exception to this provision should be the subject of specific national

legislation.

...

2.4. The collection of data on individuals solely on the basis that they have a

particular racial origin, particular religious convictions, sexual behaviour or political

opinions or belong to particular movements or organisations which are not proscribed

by law should be prohibited. The collection of data concerning these factors may only

be carried out if absolutely necessary for the purposes of a particular inquiry.”

11GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

IV. INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS

A. Venice Commission

40. In paragraph 131 of its opinion CDL-AD(2019)015 of 24 June 2019,

the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice

Commission), the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional

matters, noted that the creation of committee of inquiries by national

parliaments is a common feature of many countries. Their mandate is to

investigate specific events or situations. Their primary functions appear to be

to ensure parliamentary supervision of the executive, but they may also be

created for other purposes, for example collecting information for lawmaking

purposes.

41. In its third-party intervention in the case of Rywin v. Poland

(nos. 6091/06 and 2 others, 18 February 2016), the Venice Commission

observed, inter alia, that in the majority of the countries examined those

bodies could be provided with some or all of the usual powers of the

investigating judges, and that this is a matter largely defined by the State’s

history and experience in the field. The third-party intervention was

summarised by the Court as follows:

“190. In its observations, the European Commission for Democracy through Law,

known as the Venice Commission, emphasised the essentially political nature of

proceedings conducted by parliamentary commissions of inquiry, which were not to be

confused with criminal investigations or proceedings. Such commissions should not

make any assessment or adjudication as to the criminal liability of persons covered by

the inquiry, those powers being reserved for the public prosecutor and the courts.

At the same time, it was in the nature of political ‘scandals’ – whether alleged or real

– that they might give rise to parallel processes. A case under parliamentary inquiry

might at the same time be subject both to administrative inquiries and to court

proceedings. However, this situation required all parties involved to ensure that proper

distance was kept between the parliamentary (political) inquiry and the criminal

investigations or proceedings.

191. The Venice Commission took the view that in the event of the discovery of

elements suggesting a criminal offence, the commission of inquiry would naturally have

to notify the public prosecutor and provide the latter with the relevant information and

documents, to the extent that it was allowed to do so under national law.

Such discovery should not in itself stop an otherwise legitimate parliamentary process

of inquiry. There was no such legal obligation under international or European law. In

accordance with the principle that Parliament – as an autonomous institution separate

from the judiciary – cannot be impeded from carrying out its own inquiries, the

commission should continue to look into the case and make its own (political)

assessment on the basis of its own examination. It should in particular have full

discretion to continue examining the facts, even if they may constitute criminal charges.

192. The Venice Commission pointed out that, even when a commission looked into

the possible criminal conduct of individuals, its process was essentially one of a

political nature and was not to be confused with criminal investigations and

proceedings. The results of a parliamentary inquiry would not alter the legal order. The

12GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

report which closed its work was in itself only an incentive to parliamentary discussion.

The ultimate aim of the inquiry was transparency with a view to ensuring that the public

were informed of matters affecting the res publica (the public good).

193. In the Venice Commission’s opinion, searching for offences could not be the

only goal of an inquiry conducted by a parliamentary commission, or even the main

purpose of its creation. This would be unconstitutional, even if domestic law did not

provide for any sanction. The means granted to a commission of inquiry always had to

serve the jurisdiction of the parliament in a system of separation of powers – either to

establish the responsibility of government and ministers or to collect information

necessary for more effective legislation or to present political recommendations to

government.

Even if identical items might be subject to both criminal proceedings and a

parliamentary inquiry, the aim of the two processes should always be different. The

criminal investigation should lead to an individual legal measure: the conviction or

acquittal of the accused. The commission of inquiry, for its part, had no power over

individuals, except to call them to testify.

194. The Venice Commission stressed the fact that proper procedures had to be

established for cooperation and the exchange of information and evidence between the

commission of inquiry and the public prosecutor, while respecting the differences

between the two processes and the procedural rights of the person suspected of

committing a criminal offence or other persons appearing before the commission.

195. During its inquiries, hearings and deliberations, a parliamentary commission

had to take proper account of the pending criminal investigations or proceedings. Its

members had to exercise caution so as not to make assessments or statements on the

issue of guilt, or in other ways disregard the presumption of innocence principle. A

commission had to take great care to ensure that its inquiries did not obstruct or in any

other way unduly interfere with the criminal investigation or proceedings.

When drafting its report, a parliamentary commission had to take care not to make

any assessments of a criminal legal nature and in particular not to pass judgment on the

criminal liability of the persons concerned. It should, however, remain free to describe

and analyse all the facts of the case and to assess these from a political perspective.

196. The fact that persons not holding public powers were involved should not

prevent a parliamentary commission from enquiring into the conduct of such person to

the extent that it was relevant. If a public scandal was being scrutinised, the fact that a

person did not occupy any public role should not exempt him or her from appearing

before the commission.

197. The Venice Commission took the view that it should primarily be for the

national law to determine whether and to what extent the hearings of a parliamentary

commission should be open to the public. This applied regardless of whether the

witnesses summoned to give testimony were private individuals or official figures

(ministers or civil servants).

From a legal perspective this was only problematic if the process led to the disclosure

of secret or classified information, or if the persons summoned to give testimony were

forced to publicly disclose information that was protected as confidential by law, or if

their rights to privacy under national or European law were infringed.

As regards the summoning before a commission of inquiry of individuals holding

public office, any restriction to the public nature of their hearing should be exceptional

and justified by specific objectives such as national security or the protection of secret

or confidential information.

13GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

198. When private persons were summoned to testify before parliamentary

commissions, they would usually be asked to give information about their relations and

dealings with government figures. In such cases the public might well have a legitimate

interest in full openness and transparency. At the same time, the right of private

individuals to respect for their private and family life might more easily justify or

necessitate the conduct of proceedings behind closed doors. There might be

circumstances where this was necessary to ensure conformity with the European

Convention on Human Rights, in particular Article 8 thereof. Moreover, holding

closed-door meetings of some sessions of the commission of inquiry might also

contribute to their effectiveness, as witnesses tend to feel freer is the proceedings are

covered by secrecy.

199. In the Venice Commission’s view, the ‘best model’ was one under which a

balance of interests was maintained by the parliamentary commission’s members on the

basis of the case at hand. This should preferably be provided for expressly in the

inquiry’s procedure, whether laid down in statute law or in parliamentary rules of

procedure.”

B. European Parliament

42. In March 2020 the European Parliament published a comparative

survey on committees of inquiry in national parliaments, which gathered

information from in total 20 Member States’ parliaments that replied to a

questionnaire. The survey noted that most EU Member States’ parliaments

can set up parliamentary committees of inquiry, and the legal basis for their

establishment is often enshrined in the Constitution.

43. As regards their investigative powers, the survey observed that it

appears that all parliamentary committees of inquiry have the right to request

information or documentation from public bodies, such as government

members, administrative authorities and both public and private bodies,

whenever deemed necessary for the conduct of their proceedings. However,

while in some Member States the refusal to provide necessary information

can lead to sanctions, in a few national parliaments sanctioning mechanisms

are considered unjustified, due to the parliamentary committees of inquiry’s

purely political role, that excludes any powers similar to those of the

judiciary.

44. They survey further showed that in many parliaments there are legal

remedies in place for the situations where the committee of inquiry as a whole

or its individual members or staff commit an act or omission violating either

the rules of procedure or the rights of natural or legal persons concerned by

an investigation.

14GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

THE LAW

I. THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

A. Alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies

1. The parties’ submissions

(a) The Government

45. The Government submitted that the application was inadmissible for

failure to exhaust the available domestic remedies, since the present

application had been made on 20 April 2017, less than two months after the

disputed search had taken place and without any attempt to seek redress from

the national authorities. In particular, the Government submitted that there

were two available effective remedies that the applicant association could

have exhausted before making the present application: specifically, either an

application to the Constitutional Court for a decision on the misuse of powers

as between State bodies under Article 134 of the Italian Constitution (conflitto

di attribuzione) or a request to the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry itself

to use its “self-correction” procedure (ricorso in autotutela).

46. As regards the former, the Government referred to Constitutional

Court judgment no. 231/1975, in which the court had given a ruling in a

similar case (see paragraph 27 above). It submitted that the applicant

association should have appealed to the territorially competent ordinary court

and asked it to seek a finding from the Constitutional Court that the

Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry had not had the power to authorise a

search.

47. As regards the latter, the Government observed that the Parliamentary

Commission of Inquiry, by exercising its power of “self-correction”, could

have decided to amend its own requisition – that is, the search and seizure

order – and could have revoked its actions itself. If the applicant association

said that its Convention rights had been breached as a consequence of actions

of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, it should have sought a remedy

from the Commission itself exercising its powers of self-correction. In the

Government’s view, the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry satisfied the

conditions established in the Court’s case-law for an independent and

impartial court established by law and whose activities were regulated by law.

(b) The applicant association

48. The applicant association contested the Government’s submission. It

considered that it had exhausted all the possible domestic remedies against

the search and seizure order, and that all of them had proved to be ineffective.

49. First, the applicant association argued that, in its submissions, the

Government had recognised that Parliament could not be held liable for its

actions and that it could not be subject to scrutiny by the ordinary courts.

15GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

A similar application had been made by a different Masonic lodge, but it had

been dismissed by the Rome District Court on the basis of the lack of

jurisdiction of the ordinary courts over the actions of a Parliamentary

Commission of Inquiry (see paragraph 18 above).

50. Secondly, the applicant association observed that the Government had

also admitted that, had it asked an ordinary court to make an application to

the Constitutional Court to review whether the Parliamentary Commission of

Inquiry had misused its powers, the competent ordinary court could have

raised the issue but would not have been obliged to do so. The possibility that

the case would be referred for a decision on the possible misuse of powers

(conflitto di attribuzione) was merely hypothetical and was not something an

individual could arrange for. In this regard, the applicant association stressed

that the Italian legal system, unlike others such as those of Germany or Spain,

did not allow individuals direct access to the Constitutional Court.

Under Article 134 of the Constitution only the domestic courts could decide

whether an action taken by Parliament was in conflict with their powers and,

consequently, only they could have raised the issue before the Constitutional

Court. Relying on judgment no. 15236 of 12 May 2022 of the Court of

Cassation (see paragraph 35 above), the applicant association stressed that an

ordinary judge was not obliged to raise the issue with the Constitutional

Court. The applicant association further submitted that it had expressly asked

the Public Prosecutor of the Rome District Court to ask the Constitutional

Court to review whether the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry had

misused its powers (see paragraph 21 above) in relation to its criminal

complaint, but the request had been dismissed (see paragraph 22 above).

51. Thirdly, the applicant association submitted that it had asked the

Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry to act in “self-correction” (autotutela)

and revoke the search and seizure order, but the Commission had not even

replied (see paragraph 19 above).

52. Lastly, the applicant association stressed that it had also made a

complaint to the National Data Protection Authority, which had rejected it,

saying that it had no competence over the actions of a parliamentary

commission of inquiry.

2. The Court’s assessment

(a) General principles

53. The obligation to exhaust domestic remedies requires an applicant to

make normal use of remedies which are available and sufficient in respect of

his or her Convention grievances. The existence of these remedies must be

sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they

will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. To be effective, a

remedy must be capable of directly redressing the impugned state of affairs

and must offer reasonable prospects of success (see Communauté genevoise

16GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

d’action syndicale (CGAS) v. Switzerland [GC], no. 21881/20, § 139,

27 November 2023).

54. Thus, there is no obligation to have recourse to remedies which are

inadequate or ineffective (see Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary

objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, § 73, 25 March 2014). In this

connection, the Court has considered, for example, that applicants were

dispensed from the obligation to exhaust a remedy referred to by the

Government where it was bound to fail and there were objective obstacles to

its use, or where its use would have been unreasonable and would have

constituted a disproportionate obstacle to the effective exercise of the right of

individual application under Article 34 of the Convention (see Communauté

genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS), cited above, 141).

55. As regards the burden of proof, it is incumbent on the Government

claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy advanced by

them was an effective one, available in theory and in practice at the relevant

time. Once this burden of proof has been satisfied it falls to the applicant to

establish that the remedy was in fact exhausted or was for some reason

inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case, or that

there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from the

requirement (see Vučković and Others, § 77, and Communauté genevoise

d’action syndicale (CGAS), § 143, both cited above).

(b) Application of the above principles to the present case

(i) The application for judicial review by the Constitutional Court of a misuse of

powers as between State bodies (conflitto di attribuzione tra poteri dello Stato)

56. As regards whether the applicant association was obliged to institute

proceedings in the ordinary courts asking them to make a request for judicial

review by the Constitutional Court of a misuse of powers as between State

bodies, the Court reiterates that a remedy which is not directly accessible for

an applicant but is dependent on the exercise of discretion by an intermediary

is not effective for the purpose of Article 35 of the Convention (see Tănase

v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, § 122, ECHR 2010).

57. The Court has observed in the past that, in the Italian legal system, it

had not been shown, based on established case-law and practice, that an

action by the applicant before the ordinary courts combined with the duty on

those courts to raise a question of constitutionality before the Constitutional

Court in the light of the Convention amounted to an effective remedy.

Accordingly, in the absence of specifics of the functioning of constitutional

review proceedings in the domestic system at issue, such an application could

not be a remedy whose exhaustion was required under the Convention

(see Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, §§ 101 and 104, ECHR 2015, with

further references).

58. However, the Court notes that the present case does not concern an

“ordinary” question of constitutionality, but rather an application for judicial

17GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

review by the Constitutional Court of a possible misuse of powers as between

State bodies.

59. In this regard, the Court notes that an application under Article 134 of

the Constitution for judicial review of a misuse of powers as between State

bodies can be made at the discretion of an authority, whether judicial or non-

judicial, which considers that its powers have been usurped. Should this issue

emerge before a judicial authority, the parties to the proceedings have no

procedural right to insist on whether to refer the situation to the Constitutional

Court. In this regard, the Court observes that the Italian Court of Cassation

recently reiterated that an ordinary judge is not obliged to make an application

for judicial review by the Constitutional Court of a possible misuse of powers

as between State bodies. The decision on whether a case before him or her

falls within the domestic jurisdiction of Parliament is a matter entirely for the

judge (see paragraph 35 above).

60. Moreover, taking into account the domestic case-law on the powers

of parliamentary commissions of inquiry (see paragraphs 27-34 above), the

Court cannot definitively conclude whether the situation in the present case

would have warranted the ordinary judge making such an application to the

Constitutional Court.

61. In any event, the Court observes that the applicant association did try

to use that remedy. As the applicant association has said, its representative

made a criminal complaint to the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Rome

District Court and asked the Public Prosecutor to refer the issue to the

Constitutional Court (see paragraph 21 above). However, the request was

dismissed by the Public Prosecutor, who said that the conditions for making

an application for judicial review of misuse of powers as between State bodies

had not been met in the specific circumstances of the case, since there were

no criminal proceedings concerning the same issues which were being

investigated by the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry and where the

exercise of judicial functions could have been interfered with by the

Commission (see paragraph 22 above).

62. In the light of the above, the Court considers that the applicant

association should not have had to institute an action before an ordinary court

which would have had no jurisdiction over the actions of a parliamentary

commission of inquiry (see paragraph 29 above), with the sole purpose of

asking that court to exercise its discretion to make an application for judicial

review by the Constitutional Court of a possible misuse of powers as between

State bodies. Such a requirement would amount to an unreasonable and

disproportionate obstacle to the effective exercise of the right of individual

application under Article 34 of the Convention (see paragraph 54 above).

(ii) Parliament’s power to act in self-correction (ricorso in autotutela)

63. As regards the Government’s argument that the applicant should have

asked the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry to act in self-correction

18GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

(autotutela) and revoke the search order (see paragraph 26 above), the Court

notes that the applicant association made such a request but to no avail (see

paragraph 19 above).

64. In any event, the Court reiterates that discretionary or extraordinary

remedies are not considered effective remedies within the meaning of

Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and thus need not be used (see Goulandris

and Vardinogianni v. Greece, no. 1735/13, § 27, 16 June 2022, and Talmane

v. Latvia, no. 47938/07, § 21, 12 October 2016). Moreover, remedies which

have no precise time-limits, thus creating uncertainty and rendering nugatory

the six-month rule contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, are not

effective remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 (see Nicholas

v. Cyprus, no. 63246/10, § 38, 9 January 2018).

65. In the particular circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that

there was no procedure laid down in regulations and the procedure in question

is the result of ad hoc discretionary decisions of the Parliamentary

Commission of Inquiry. There are no provisions regulating how a

parliamentary commission may exercise its power to correct its own actions

or within what time-limits. Accordingly, the applicant association was not

required to ask the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry to exercise its

power of self-correction.

(c) Conclusions as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies

66. In the light of the above, the Government’s objection of

non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed.

B. Allegedly manifestly ill-founded nature of the application

67. Relying on the Court’s case-law on the autonomy of Parliaments and

the importance of the principle of the separation of powers, the Government

argued that the application was, in its entirety, manifestly ill-founded.

68. The applicant association did not comment on this issue.

69. The Court considers that the Government’s preliminary objection

raises complex issues of facts and law which cannot be determined without

an examination of the case on its merits. It follows that it is not manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. The

Court therefore dismisses the Government’s objection (for a similar

approach, see Mehmet Zeki Doğan v. Türkiye (no. 2), no. 3324/19, § 74,

13 February 2024, and Gil Sanjuan v. Spain, no. 48297/15, § 23,

26 May 2020).

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION

70. The applicant association complained that the search of its premises

and the seizure of the list of its members, including their names and personal

data, was not “in accordance with the law” within the meaning of Article 8 of

19GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

the Convention and was grossly disproportionate, since the contested measure

had not been based on relevant or sufficient reasons, it was extremely broad

in its scope, and there were no sufficient procedural safeguards against abuse

and arbitrariness. Article 8 reads as follows:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his ... home ...

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right

except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in

the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the

country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals,

or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

A. Admissibility

71. The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded

(see paragraph 69 above) nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in

Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

1. The parties’ submissions

(a) The applicant association

72. The applicant association argued that the search and seizure had not

been in accordance with the law and had been grossly disproportionate.

73. It submitted that under Article 82 of the Italian Constitution the

Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry had the same powers and limitations

as a judicial authority.

74. In its view, there had been no reasons sufficient to justify the search

and seizure. In addition, its purpose – specifically, finding out whether there

was anyone among the members of the applicant association that was

connected to criminal organisations – could have been achieved by less

intrusive means. In particular, according to the applicant association, the

Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry could have enquired confidentially of

the central Masonic organisation whether any of the individuals accused of

being involved in criminal activities were or had been members. The search

order made was instead very vague, since the expression “variously

connected” to criminal organisations was open to the broadest interpretation

and had no legal meaning. Furthermore, the order covered twenty-seven

years, a time span incompatible with any judicial investigation, which would

surely have been outside any limitation period.

75. According to the applicant association, a judicial authority could not

have validly and lawfully issued a search warrant in similar terms. Relying

on several judgments of the Court of Cassation (see paragraph 36 above), the

applicant association submitted that a search warrant issued by a judicial

authority would be void if it did not contain a description of the allegations

20GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

against the person under investigation, the legislation making the alleged

conduct a criminal offence, the nature of the objects that had to be seized and

how they were involved with the crime under investigation, and that merely

referring to the provision supposedly breached was insufficient. In this

connection, the applicant association argued that the search order had been in

breach of domestic law as it did not comply with the rules concerning search

orders made by a judicial authority, as required by Article 82 of the

Constitution.

76. In the applicant’s association’s view, membership of a Masonic lodge

fell within the definition of “other beliefs” as protected under Article 6 of the

Data Protection Convention (see paragraph 38 above) and the search order

had been in breach of the principles established in Recommendation R (87)15

of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (see paragraph 39

above). Referring to the Court’s case-law on mass surveillance, the applicant

association further argued that the mass collection of sensitive personal data

was incompatible with the Convention.

77. Furthermore, the applicant association complained that the data seized

are still held in the archives of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. In

its view, this retention is unlawful under domestic law, which provides that

once the purpose for which data is obtained has been achieved, there is no

longer any justification for retaining the information. In this regard, the

applicant association stressed that the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry

issued its report in 2017 and was dissolved in 2018. The applicant association

further stressed that under Article 263 of the CCP and domestic case law

(see paragraph 37 above), the material seized had to be returned once the

investigation was over. In the present case, by contrast, a digital copy of the

electronic files and a photocopy of the hard copy documents seized were both

still being held in the Parliamentary archives, in breach of domestic law.

78. The applicant association further argued that the measure was not

undertaken in a proportionate way as (i) it was carried out by thirteen police

officers specialised in countering organised crime; (ii) the documents

requested had immediately been provided by the applicant association, which

cooperated fully with the authorities; (iii) all the employees of the applicant

association who were present at the moment of the search were identified;

(iv) the search continued for fourteen hours; (v) the private apartment of the

Grand Master was also searched, including its loft, balcony, garden and

garden shed; and (vi) the documents seized included data concerning

members of the applicant association who did not belong to the Sicily or

Calabria lodges.

(b) The Government

79. The Government submitted that the search and seizure had been

carried out in accordance with the law, specifically in compliance with Article

82 of the Constitution and Law no. 87/2013, and that it had been necessary in

21GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

a democratic society for reasons of security, maintenance of public order and

the prevention of crime. They considered that the measure had been in

accordance with the law because the powers of the Parliamentary

Commission of Inquiry had been clearly set out in domestic law.

80. In their view, the reasons justifying the contested measure were

clearly given by the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry at their sitting of

18 January 2017 and in the search order of 1 March 2017.

81. According to the Government, the measure was compatible with

Article 6 of the Data Protection Convention. In particular, as reiterated by its

Grand Master, the applicant association was not a political association.

The Government submitted that Masonic lodges were known entities which

were accepted as legal bodies, and that the names of members belonging to

regular lodges were confidential but certainly not secret. As regards

Recommendation R (87)15 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of

Europe, the Government stressed that it was not binding and that it had not

been infringed given that the collection of data in the present case had not

been for the “only reason” of establishing the membership of a specific

association but also for the purposes of criminal proceedings and of the

investigation carried out by the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry.

It therefore pertained to “a specific inquiry”, within the meaning of principle

2.4. of the Recommendation cited.

82. In this regard, the Government submitted that the Court’s judgment in

Szabo and Vissy v. Hungary (no. 37138/14, 12 January 2016), which the

applicant association had referred to (see paragraph 76 above), was irrelevant.

In that case, the Court censured the Hungarian law granting the executive (not

the legislature) excessive discretion in determining the number of individuals

to be subject to covert interception for reasons of national security. The Court

pointed out that this was in practice a law under which all citizens could

potentially be subjected to surveillance without their knowledge.

The situation in the present case was clearly completely different. Leaving

aside the obvious difference between a specific house search and unrestricted

telephone wiretapping, the search order made by the Parliamentary

Commission of Inquiry was based on limited and specific reasons and the

applicant association had been told about it in advance.

83. The Government further submitted that the measure was not

disproportionate. On the contrary, the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry

had adopted a gradual approach and offered the applicant association multiple

opportunities for cooperation. The duration of the search and the number of

police officers involved was completely irrelevant.

84. Moreover, the Government submitted that, even assuming that the

disclosure of the information seized had been an interference with the

applicant association’s Article 8 rights, that interference would have been

proportionate as the search and seizure had been conducted in the context of

an investigation aimed at countering mafia infiltration.

22GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

85. As regards the remedies available to the applicant association for the

contested measure, the Government admitted that an application for review

of a search order pursuant to Article 257 CCP (riesame) could not be made

where the search order had been made by a parliamentary commission of

inquiry. However, the Government submitted that the applicant association

could have asked the ordinary judge to refer the case to the Constitutional

Court for review of a possible misuse of powers as between State bodies

(conflitto di attribuzione) or it could have asked the Parliamentary

Commission of Inquiry to act in self-correction (autotutela).

86. Moreover, the Government justified the absence of a judicial remedy

against a search order of a parliamentary commission of inquiry on the basis

of the principle of the separation of powers and the need to protect the

autonomy and independence of Parliament.

2. The Court’s assessment

(a) Whether there was an interference

87. The Court observes first of all that it is common ground between the

parties that in the present case there has been an interference with the rights

guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. On the basis of the following

considerations, it finds no reasons to hold otherwise.

88. A “search” of an individual’s domicile constitutes an interference with

the right to respect for the home, within the meaning of Article 8

(see Modestou v. Greece, no. 51693/13, § 29, 16 March 2017, and Gutsanovi

v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, § 217, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). The Court has

already held that a legal person is entitled to respect for its “home” within the

meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention. An association is therefore not

wholly deprived of the protection of Article 8 by the mere fact that it is a legal

person (see Association for European Integration and Human Rights and

Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, § 60, 28 June 2007, with further

references, and Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 41,

ECHR 2002-III). The Court has further held that any measure, if it is

no different in its manner of execution and its practical effects from a search,

amounts, regardless of its characterisation under domestic law, to interference

with the rights guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention (see Kruglov

and Others v. Russia, nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, § 123, 4 February 2020,

and the case-law cited therein). Accordingly, the Court found that the search

of a legal person’s premises and the seizure of its documents constituted an

interference with its right to respect for its “home” (see Erduran and Em

Export Dış Tic A.Ş. v. Turkey, nos. 25707/05 and 28614/06, § 78,

20 November 2018, and Bernh Larsen Holding AS and Others v. Norway,

no. 24117/08, § 106, 14 March 2013).

89. The Court further reiterates that the search and seizure of electronic

data amounts to an interference with a legal person right to respect for its

“correspondence” (see Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria,

23GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

no. 74336/01, § 45, ECHR 2007-IV; Vinci Construction and GTM Génie

Civil et Services v. France, nos. 63629/10 and 60567/10, § 63, 2 April 2015;

Naumenko and SIA Rix Shipping v. Latvia, no. 50805/14, § 45, 23 June 2022;

and UAB Kesko Senukai Lithuania v. Lithuania, no. 19162/19, § 109,

4 April 2023).

90. Moreover, although the applicant association cooperated with the

domestic authorities and supplied the documents requested, the Court has

already clarified that the absence of coercive powers does not mean there is

no interference with the rights guaranteed by Article 8 (see, mutatis mutandis,

Halabi v. France, no. 66554/14, § 55, 16 May 2019, and the case-law cited

therein).

91. The Court therefore considers that the search of the applicant

association’s premises and the subsequent seizure of various paper and digital

documents, including the list of the association’s members, their names and

their personal data, amounted to an interference with the right to respect for

its home and correspondence.

(b) The nature of the interference

92. In the assessment of whether such an interference was justified, the

scope of the domestic authorities’ margin of appreciation will depend on such

factors as the nature and seriousness of the interests at stake and the gravity

of the interference (see Bernh Larsen Holding AS and Others, § 158, and

Naumenko and SIA Rix Shipping, § 51, both cited above).

93. In the present case, on the one hand, the Court must remain mindful

of the fact that the nature of the interference complained of was not of the

same seriousness and degree as is ordinarily the case where search and seizure

are carried out under criminal law, the type of measures considered by the

Court in a number of previous cases (see Bernh Larsen Holding AS and

Others, § 173, and Erduran and Em Export Dış Tic A.Ş., § 98, both cited

above). Moreover, the Court reiterates that the Contracting States’ margin of

appreciation and the corresponding entitlement to interfere may be more

far-reaching where the business premises of a legal person, rather than an

individual, are concerned (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992,

§ 31, Series A no. 251-B; see also Société Colas Est and Others, § 49; Bernh

Larsen Holding AS and Others, § 159; Naumenko and SIA Rix Shipping, § 51;

and Erduran et Em Export Dış Tic A.Ş., § 99, all cited above).

94. On the other hand, even where a wide margin of appreciation is

accorded to the State, the Court’s review is not limited to ascertaining whether

the respondent State exercised its discretion reasonably, carefully and in good

faith (see DELTA PEKÁRNY a.s. v. the Czech Republic, no. 97/11, § 82,

2 October 2014, and Naumenko and SIA Rix Shipping, cited above, § 50).

Moreover, the Court has also previously acknowledged that where a large

amount of information is seized, that is a factor militating in favour of strict

scrutiny on its part (see Bernh Larsen Holding AS and Others, § 159;

24GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

Naumenko and SIA Rix Shipping, § 51; and UAB Kesko Senukai Lithuania,

§ 119, all cited above) and, in the present case, it is undisputed that the

domestic authorities seized a very large quantity of documents

(see paragraph 16 above).

(c) Whether the interference was justified

95. A similar interference entails a violation of Article 8 of the

Convention unless it complied with the requirements of the second paragraph

of such provision. The Court must therefore examine whether the interference

was “in accordance with the law”, pursued one or more of the legitimate aims

set out in that paragraph and was “necessary in a democratic society” to

achieve the aim or aims in question (see, among many other authorities,

Heino v. Finland, no. 56720/09, § 35, 15 February 2011, and DELTA

PEKÁRNY a.s., cited above, § 79).

(i) Whether the interference was “in accordance with the law”

(α) General principles

96. The expression “in accordance with the law”, within the meaning of

Article 8 § 2 of the Convention, requires firstly that the impugned measure

should have some basis in domestic law. Second, the domestic law must be

accessible to the person concerned. Third, the person affected must be able,

if need be with appropriate legal advice, to foresee the consequences of the

domestic law for him, and fourth, the domestic law must be compatible with

the rule of law (see Brazzi v. Italy, no. 57278/11, § 39, 27 September 2018;

De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 107, 23 February 2017; and

Heino, cited above, § 36). The concept of “law” must be understood in its

“substantive” sense, not its “formal” one. It therefore includes everything that

goes to make up the written law, including enactments of lower rank than

statutes, and the relevant case-law authority (see, among others, Bodalev

v. Russia, no. 67200/12, § 66, 6 September 2022, and National Federation of

Sportspersons’ Associations and Unions (FNASS) and Others v. France,

nos. 48151/11 and 77769/13, § 160, 18 January 2018).

97. In the context of investigative activities such as the one at issue,

because of the lack of public scrutiny and the risk of abuse of power,

compatibility with the rule of law requires that the domestic law provide

adequate protection against arbitrary interference with Article 8 rights (see,

mutatis mutandis, Rustamkhanli v. Azerbaijan, no. 24460/16, § 41,

4 July 2024, and Erduran and Em Export Dış Tic A.Ş., cited above, § 80).

(β) Application of the above principles to the present case

98. As regards whether the measure contested in the present case had a

sufficient basis in domestic law, the Court notes that the power of the

Chambers of Parliament to institute a parliamentary commission of inquiry

25GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

was enshrined in Article 82 of the Italian Constitution, which gives those

entities the “same powers and limitations as a judicial authority”

(see paragraph 23 above). The Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry in the

present case was instituted under Article 1 of Law no. 87/2013 (see paragraph

25 above). The power of parliamentary commissions of inquiry to order

search and seizure was therefore based on the reference in Article 82 of the

Constitution to the “same powers” held by judicial authorities and, therefore,

to the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see

paragraph 24 above), and that power had never previously been disputed (see

paragraph 31 above).

99. The Court is therefore satisfied that the measure being discussed in

the present case had a sufficient legal basis in domestic law. It must now

assess whether domestic law and practice afforded adequate and effective

safeguards against abuse and arbitrariness (see paragraph 97 above).

100. In this regard, the Court observes that under Article 247(2) CCP

when a search is ordered, reasons must be given (see paragraph 24 above).

In the context of criminal proceedings, the Court of Cassation clarified that a

search warrant would be void if it did not contain a description of the

allegations against the person under investigation, the legislation making the

alleged conduct a criminal offence, the nature of the objects that had to be

seized and their involvement in the crime under investigation, and that merely

referring to the provision supposedly breached was insufficient

(see paragraph 36 above).

101. Moreover, the Court of Cassation further held that the seizure was

limited in time, because at the end of the criminal proceedings the seized

items had to be returned (see paragraph 37 above). With specific regard to

search and seizure ordered by a parliamentary commission of inquiry, the

Court of Cassation held that seized items could be retained for a limited

period of time which could not extend beyond the parliamentary commission

of inquiry, which of its nature was limited in time (see paragraph 31 above).

102. The Court therefore considers that the guarantees provided by the

reference in Article 82 of the Italian Constitution to the “same limitations” as

those on the powers of judicial authorities, adapted where appropriate to the

context of a parliamentary inquiry, were sufficient to prevent abuse and

arbitrariness by a parliamentary commission of inquiry.

103. The parties disagreed, however, as to whether the Parliamentary

Commission of Inquiry had complied with the requirements and limitations

established under domestic law. In the present case, the applicant

association’s complaints had mainly concerned the authorities’ alleged failure

to comply with those provisions. The complaints therefore relate primarily to

the manner in which the legal framework was applied. The applicant

association’s arguments concerning the lawfulness of the interference being

closely related to the question as to whether the “necessity” test was complied

with in their case, the Court will address jointly the “in accordance with the

law” and “necessity” requirements (see, for an example of such approach,

26GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

Erduran and Em Export Dış Tic A.Ş., cited above, § 82, with further

references).

(ii) Whether the interference pursued a “legitimate aim”

104. The Government maintained that the search and seizure had served

a legitimate aim, namely the interests of national security, public safety and

the prevention of crime. Their submission was not disputed by the applicant

association.

105. The Court, observing that the search and seizure was ordered in the

context of an inquiry concerning the Mafia, finds no reason to arrive at a

different conclusion in this regard.

(iii) Whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society”

(α) General principles

106. The notion of “necessity” implies that the interference corresponds

to a pressing social need and, in particular, that it is proportionate to the

legitimate aim pursued. In determining whether an interference is “necessary

in a democratic society” the Court will take into account the fact that a certain

margin of appreciation is left to the Contracting States (see paragraph 93

above). However, the exceptions provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 8 are

to be interpreted narrowly, and the need for them in a given case must be

convincingly established (see Smirnov v. Russia, no. 71362/01, § 43, ECHR

2007-VII, with further references, and Erduran and Em Export Dış Tic A.Ş.,

cited above, § 85).

107. As regards, in particular, searches and inspections of the premises of

legal persons and the seizure or copying of their documents, the Court has

observed that while States may consider it necessary to have recourse to such

measures in order to obtain physical evidence of certain offences,

nevertheless, the relevant legislation and practice must afford adequate and

effective safeguards against abuse and arbitrariness (see Naumenko and SIA

Rix Shipping, § 50; DELTA PEKÁRNY a.s., § 83; and Société Colas Est and

Others, § 48, all cited above).

108. In this context, in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the Court

must consider the impugned decisions in the light of the case as a whole and

determine whether the reasons adduced to justify the interference at issue are

“relevant and sufficient” (see Naumenko and SIA Rix Shipping, cited above,

§ 50) and whether the proportionality principle was adhered to (see Vinks and

Ribicka v. Latvia, no. 28926/10, § 102, 30 January 2020, and Erduran and

Em Export Dış Tic A.Ş., cited above, § 87).

109. In the context of criminal proceedings, the criteria the Court has

taken into consideration in determining whether the proportionality principle

was adhered to are, inter alia: the severity of the offence in connection with

which the search and seizure was effected; the manner and circumstances in

which the order was issued, in particular, whether any further evidence was

27GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

available at that time; the content and scope of the order, having particular

regard to the nature of the premises searched and the safeguards implemented

in order to confine the impact of the measure to reasonable bounds; and the

extent of possible repercussions on the reputation of the person affected by

the search (see Vinks and Ribicka, § 102, and Erduran and Em Export Dış

Tic A.Ş., § 87, both cited above, with further references).

110. In cases concerning the protection of individuals and legal persons

from arbitrary interferences with their rights guaranteed by Article 8, the

Court has held that the absence of a prior judicial warrant may be

counterbalanced by the availability of an ex post judicial review (see Smirnov,

§ 45; Heino, § 45; and DELTA PEKÁRNY a.s., § 83 in fine, all cited above).

This review must be effective in the particular circumstances of the case in

question (see Gutsanovi, cited above, § 222). The Court has also held that,

although Article 8 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as requiring an ex

post judicial review in all cases concerning a search or seizure carried out in

the premises of a legal person, the availability of such a review may be taken

into account, among other elements, when assessing the compliance of

searches and seizures with Article 8 (see UAB Kesko Senukai Lithuania, cited

above, § 117).

111. With specific regard to the interference at issue in the present case,

the Court has held that a remedy against a search undertaken in alleged

violation of the rights guaranteed by the Convention must allow an

assessment of the lawfulness and necessity of the impugned measure

(see Contrada v. Italy (no. 4), no. 2507/19, § 51, 23 May 2024; Popovi

v. Bulgaria, no. 39651/11, § 122, 9 June 2016; Stoyanov and Others

v. Bulgaria, no. 55388/10, § 152, 31 March 2016; Govedarski v. Bulgaria,

no. 34957/12, § 94, 16 February 2016; Gutsanovi, cited above, § 234; Iliya

Stefanov v. Bulgaria, no. 65755/01, § 44, 22 May 2008; and Brazzi, cited

above, § 46). In particular, once the search has been carried out or the person

concerned has become otherwise aware of the existence of the search order,

there must exist a procedure whereby the person can challenge the legal and

factual grounds of the order and obtain redress in the event that the search

was unlawfully ordered or executed (see Avanesyan v. Russia, no. 41152/06,

§ 29, 18 September 2014).

112. In different contexts, the Court has observed that the procedural

safeguards required by the Convention should be adapted to the parliamentary

context, bearing in mind the generally recognised principles of parliamentary

autonomy and the separation of powers (see Mándli and Others v. Hungary,

no. 63164/16, § 72, 26 May 2020, and Drozd v. Poland, no. 15158/19, § 73,

6 April 2023).

(β) Application of the above principles to the present case

113. In the present case, the parties’ submissions concentrated on the

necessity of the interference and, in particular, on the questions of whether

28GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

the measure was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and whether the

procedural safeguards provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure, to

which Article 82 of the Constitution made reference, were adequately

complied with, as well as on whether the applicant association had had at its

disposal a remedy to deal with the alleged unlawfulness of the contested

measure.

114. As regards the scope of the domestic authorities’ margin of

appreciation, the Court considers that one factor that militates in favour of

strict scrutiny in the present case is that the authorities seized and copied a

very large quantity of paper and digital documents (see paragraph 16 above),

without there being any demonstration that they were all relevant to the

ongoing inquiry about the Mafia (see, mutatis mutandis, Naumenko and SIA

Rix Shipping, cited above, § 51; see paragraphs 130-131 below). On the other

hand, the fact that the measure was aimed at legal persons meant that a wider

margin of appreciation could be applied than would have been the case had it

concerned an individual (see DELTA PEKARNY a.s., § 88, and Bernh Larsen

Holding AS and Others, § 159, both cited above).

115. In the light of the principles reiterated above (see paragraphs 106-

112 above), although considering that they must be adapted to the different

context of a parliamentary inquiry, and taking into account the applicant

association’s complaints, the Court will examine the seriousness of the matter

being investigated in connection with which the measure was effected (see

paragraphs 116-117 below); the manner and circumstances in which the

search and seizure order was issued (see paragraphs 118-124 below); the

content and scope of the order (see paragraphs 125-145 below), and the

existence of sufficient procedural safeguards against abuse and arbitrariness

(see paragraphs 132-145 below).

‒ The seriousness of the matter being investigated

116. The Court notes that the search of the premises of the applicant

association was for the purpose of obtaining a list of the names of the

members of certain masonic lodges, in order to verify whether there were

individuals among them who were linked, for various reasons, to mafia-type

associations (see paragraph 13 above).

117. It therefore considers that the matters being investigated were

serious.

‒ The manner and circumstances in which the order was issued

118. As regards the manner in which the order was issued, the Court notes

that the search order was made by the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry

itself, since it had the “same powers” as a judicial authority (see paragraphs

23 and 31 above), and that it was not subject to prior judicial scrutiny capable

of circumscribing its scope (see, a contrario, Société Canal Plus and Others,

29GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

§§ 55-56; Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH, § 59; and Naumenko and

SIA Rix Shipping, § 53, all cited above).

119. In this connection, the Court reiterates that it has already held that it

must redouble its vigilance where domestic law allows a search to be

undertaken without prior judicial scrutiny (see DELTA PEKARNY a.s., § 83;

Brazzi, § 41; and Halabi, § 64, all cited above; see also Bostan v. the Republic

of Moldova, no. 52507/09, § 23, 8 December 2020).

120. As regards the circumstances in which the order was issued, the

Court must consider whether it was based on evidence or reasonable

suspicion of the existence of an involvement in the matter being investigated

(see, mutatis mutandis, Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH, § 57; Heino,

§ 41; and Naumenko and SIA Rix Shipping, §§ 54-55, all cited above) and, in

particular, whether any further evidence was available at the time (see, for a

similar assessment, Vinks and Ribicka, § 102, and Erduran and Em Export

Dış Tic A.Ş., § 87, both cited above).

121. In this regard, the Court observes that the applicant association had

been informed that the inquiry concerned, in general, the infiltration by Mafia

groups of Masonic lodges (see paragraph 5 above). As reiterated multiple

times by the applicant association’s representative, no references to specific

investigations, offences or individuals capable of demonstrating that such

infiltration had taken place were made by the Parliamentary Commission of

Inquiry in its request for a list of the members of the applicant association

(see paragraphs 7 and 11 above).

122. The Court further notes that the search order said that “from the

hearings held up to now and from the documentation obtained, it is apparent

that there is a concrete danger of the infiltration of Freemasonry by Cosa

Nostra and the Ndrangheta” (see paragraph 13 above). As regards the

evidence available at that time, the order referred generically to the results of

previous hearings and to ongoing criminal investigations (see paragraph 14

above). However, no reference to individualised items of evidence was made

in the search order.

123. In this context, the Court cannot but observe that that the

Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry mentioned the subject of the ongoing

inquiry only briefly in its order and did not set out the facts or documents

capable of supporting a reasonable suspicion of an involvement in the matter

being investigated (see, mutatis mutandis, DELTA PEKARNY a.s., cited

above, § 85). That lack of reasoning was in breach of the domestic provisions,

which required reasons to be given (see paragraph 100 above).

124. The Court therefore considers that the measure was not based on

relevant or sufficient reasons. In particular, it does not appear that the search

order was based on elements giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the

applicant association had been involved in the matter being investigated.

30GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

‒ The content and scope of the order

125. As regards the content and scope of the order, the Court must assess

whether it was reasonably limited (see Erduran and Em Export Dış Tic A.Ş.,

cited above, § 90). In particular, it must assess whether it defined the type of

material that could be searched for, seized and copied, preferably by

indicating the items of evidence that the authorities expected to find in

connection with the allegations they were investigating (see DELTA

PEKARNY a.s., cited above, § 88) in order to avoid massive and

indiscriminate access to items not related to the inquiry (see, a contrario,

Vinci Construction and GTM Génie Civil et Services, § 76, and UAB Kesko

Senukai Lithuania, § 118, both cited above).

126. As to the type of information sought, the Court considers it to have

been of a very wide range, as the contested measure aimed at obtaining a list

of anyone who had belonged, for any reason, to a Masonic lodge of Calabria

or Sicily starting from 1990, including people who had ceased to belong to a

lodge or ceased active membership, and information about the level of their

membership and the role they played, as well as information about all the

lodges of Calabria and Sicily which had been dissolved or suspended from

1990 onwards, including the names of all their members and their personal

files, any inquiries held and the decisions taken (see paragraph 15 above).

127. The Court therefore has serious doubts as to whether the measure

was confined to reasonable bounds (see, a contrario, Vinci Construction and

GTM Génie Civil et Services, cited above, § 76).

128. As to the scope of the search order, the Court observes that it was

formulated in somewhat broad terms. It referred to a wide range of actions,

such as the search of the applicant association’s premises, including annexes,

chattels and associated premises, and of computers and electronic information

systems, even if they were protected by security measures. It also ordered the

seizure of the abovementioned documents, where they were in hard copy, and

the seizure of computer files of whatever nature containing documents in

digitised form, to be copied immediately in the presence of the interested

parties in such a way as to ensure the conformity of the data acquired with

the original and to avoid alteration of the original data, followed by the

restitution, at the end of those operations, of the computers and files seized to

their legitimate owners (see paragraph 15 above).

129. It therefore appears to the Court that the order was couched in very

broad terms (see Erduran and Em Export Dış Tic A.Ş., cited above, § 90).

130. The Court further notes that, during the search, the officers identified

the personnel present in the applicant association’s premises, and that the

search concerned all of those premises, including its archives, the library, and

the personal residence of the Grand Master, and that several computers were

searched (see paragraph 16 above). Moreover, the search resulted in the

seizure of numerous documents, including lists of approximately 6,000

31GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

persons registered with the applicant association, as well as hard disks, flash

drives and computers (ibid.).

131. The Court therefore considers that the applicant association’s rights

under Article 8 of the Convention were significantly affected during the

operation since the domestic authorities examined and retained a large

number of paper and digital documents, which included confidential

information (see, mutatis mutandis, Naumenko and SIA Rix Shipping, cited

above, § 54).

‒ The existence of sufficient procedural safeguards against abuse and

arbitrariness

132. In this context, the Court must examine whether the deficiencies in

the limitation of the scope of the order were offset by sufficient procedural

safeguards capable of protecting the applicant association against any abuse

or arbitrariness (see Erduran and Em Export Dış Tic A.Ş., cited above, § 90)

and confining the impact of the measure to reasonable bounds.

133. The Court observes at the outset that some safeguards were

effectively put in place. In particular, the seized items were subjected to the

secrecy regime established under sections 5 and 6 of Law no. 87/2013

(see paragraph 25 above). Moreover, the Parliamentary Commission of

Inquiry ordered that the seized documentation had to be kept “at premises at

the disposal of the delegated judicial police, suitable to prevent computer

access other than that authorised in the proceedings between the parties”, in

a room equipped with a security door, video surveillance and alarms (see

paragraph 17 above).

134. However, the Court notes that under Italian law the applicant

association had no means of contesting the lawfulness of the search order or

its execution before an independent and impartial authority (see, Iliya

Stefanov, cited above, § 44, and a contrario, Bernh Larsen Holding AS and

Others, cited above, § 164-65).

135. In this connection, the Court has already concluded that the remedies

asserted by the Government, notably the judicial review by the Constitutional

Court of a possible misuse of powers as between State bodies, and the power

of Parliament to self-correct its actions, cannot be considered effective for the

purpose of the Convention (see, respectively, paragraphs 59-60 and 65

above).

136. Moreover, the Court notes that the Government admitted (see

paragraph 85 above) that the remedy provided for by Article 257 CCP,

notably an application for review of the search order (riesame; see paragraph

24 above) could not be applied for in respect of search orders made by a

parliamentary commission of inquiry (see, as regards the general features of

the application for review, Brazzi, cited above, § 19, and Contrada v. Italy

(no. 4), no. 2507/19, §§ 16-20, 23 May 2024). This is confirmed by the

case-law of the Court of Cassation, which held that the remedy in question

32GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

could not be sought in respect of a search order made by a parliamentary

commission of inquiry (see paragraph 32 above).

137. As the system in Italy currently stands, no other remedy is available

following a search and seizure order made by a parliamentary commission of

inquiry, whether before a judicial authority or any other body. Indeed,

domestic law confers exclusive jurisdiction on Parliament to rule on the

validity of its acts. Under domestic law, the courts decline jurisdiction to deal

with disputes concerning the actions of a parliamentary commission of

inquiry (see paragraphs 18 and 29 above). The measure therefore could not

be subjected to an ex post scrutiny by an independent authority (see DELTA

PEKARNY a.s., cited above, § 86).

138. The Court notes that the Government justified the absence of a means

of contesting the search order on the basis of the principle of the separation

of powers and the need to protect the autonomy and independence of

Parliament (see paragraph 86 above).

139. In this regard, the Court notes that the principles concerning

parliamentary autonomy were outlined in Karácsony and Others v.

Hungary ([GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, §§ 138-47, 17 May 2016), a

case concerning disciplinary proceedings which was examined under Article

10 of the Convention. They may be summarised as follows. Parliament is a

unique forum for debate in a democratic society, which is of fundamental

importance (ibid., § 138). There is a close nexus between an effective political

democracy and the effective operation of Parliament (ibid., § 141). The rules

concerning the internal operation of Parliament are the exemplification of the

well-established principle of the autonomy of Parliament. In accordance with

this principle, Parliament is entitled, to the exclusion of other powers and

within the limits of the constitutional framework, to regulate its own internal

affairs, for example the composition of its bodies. This forms part of “the

jurisdictional autonomy of Parliament” (ibid., § 142). In principle, the rules

concerning the internal functioning of national parliaments, as an aspect of

parliamentary autonomy, fall within the margin of appreciation of the

Contracting States (ibid., § 143).

140. The Court has also already found, for example, that the inherent

characteristics of the system of parliamentary immunity and the resulting

derogation from the ordinary law pursue the aim of allowing free speech for

representatives of the people and preventing partisan complaints from

interfering with parliamentary functions (see A. v. the United Kingdom,

no. 35373/97, § 79, ECHR 2002-X; Cordova v. Italy (no. 1), no. 40877/98,

§ 59, ECHR 2003-I; Cordova v. Italy (no. 2), no. 45649/99, §§ 60 and 62,

ECHR 2003-I (extracts); Zollamann v. the United Kingdom (dec.),

no. 62902/00, ECHR 2003-XII; De Jorio v. Italy (dec.), no. 73936/01, § 52,

3 June 2004; C.G.I.L. and Cofferati v. Italy, no. 46967/07, § 71, 24 February

2009; Kart v. Turkey [GC], no. 8917/05, § 88, ECHR 2009 (extracts); and

Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, § 256,

22 December 2020).

33GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

141. Moreover, the Court has pointed out that it cannot impose on States

a given constitutional model governing, in one way or another, the relations

and interaction between the various State powers (see Savino and Others

v. Italy, nos. 17214/05 and 2 others, § 92, 28 April 2009; Thiam v. France,

no. 80018/12, § 62, 18 October 2018; and Eminağaoğlu v. Turkey,

no. 76521/12, § 94, 9 March 2021). In this connection, in Savino and Others

the Court held that the choice of the Italian legislator to preserve the

autonomy and independence of Parliament by granting it immunity from the

ordinary courts could not in itself be challenged before the Court (cited above,

§ 92).

142. However, the Court has also stressed that the national discretion of

the domestic authorities, which is inherent in the notion of parliamentary

autonomy, is not unfettered, but should be compatible with the concepts of

“effective political democracy” and “the rule of law” to which the Preamble

to the Convention refers (see Karácsony, cited above, § 147; Mugemangango

v. Belgium [GC], no. 310/15, § 74, 10 July 2020; and Guðmundur

Gunnarsson and Magnús Davíð Norðdahl v. Iceland, nos. 24159/22 and

25751/22, § 63, 16 April 2024). Therefore, reiterating that none of the

provisions of the Convention requires States to comply with any theoretical

constitutional concepts regarding the permissible limits of the powers’

interaction (see Thiam, cited above, § 62), the Court stresses that the question

is always whether, in a given case, the requirements of the Convention are

met (see Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98 and

3 others, § 193, ECHR 2003-VI, and Savino and Others, cited above, § 93).

143. In the light of the above, while reiterating that some form of ex ante

or ex post control of a measure by an impartial authority with sufficient degree

of independence from the authority which ordered the measure is an essential

safeguard against arbitrary interference by public powers with the rights

protected by Article 8 (see paragraph 110 above), the Court considers, having

also regard to the subsidiarity principle and the margin of appreciation

afforded to Contracting States in matters closely linked to the separation of

powers (see, mutatis mutandis, Mugemangango, cited above, § 138), that it

is not for it to indicate what type of remedy should be provided in order to

satisfy the requirements of the Convention in the specific circumstances of

the present case

144. Lastly, the Court observes that, according to the information

provided by the applicant association and not contested by the Government,

a copy of the seized documents is still held in the archives of the

Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, notwithstanding the facts that its

functions are complete and it has been dissolved (see paragraph 77 above).

145. In this connection, the Court reiterates that it has already observed

that the absence of regulations requiring the destruction of copies of

documents obtained through a search may be incompatible with Article 8

(see DELTA PEKARNY a.s., cited above, § 92).

34GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

146. In the present case, it appears that, under the relevant domestic

legislation and case-law, the seized documents should have been returned, or

the copies of them destroyed, at the conclusion of the inquiry (see paragraphs

31 and 37 above). However, this provision was not complied with.

(iv) Conclusion

147. In the light of the foregoing and, in particular, of the lack of evidence

or a reasonable suspicion of involvement in the matter being investigated,

capable of justifying the measure (see paragraph 124 above), its wide and

indeterminate content (see paragraphs 126-131 above), and the absence of

sufficient counterbalancing guarantees, in particular of an independent and

impartial review of the contested measure (see paragraphs 134-145 above),

the Court concludes that the disputed measure was not “in accordance with

the law” nor “necessary in a democratic society”.

148. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the

Convention.

III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

149. The applicant association also complained that the search and seizure

order further entailed an unlawful and disproportionate interference with its

right to freedom of association, guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention,

and that there was no effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of

the Convention for any unlawfulness and lack of proportionality of the

contested measure.

150. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties

and its findings above (see paragraph 148 above), the Court considers that it

has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no

need to examine the admissibility and merits of these complaints (see Centre

for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC],

no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

151. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols

thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only

partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the

injured party.”

A. Damage

152. The applicant association asked the Court to award compensation for

non-pecuniary damage on an equitable basis.

153. The Government submitted that the claim was unsubstantiated.

35GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

154. The Court considers that the applicant association certainly sustained

non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the

finding of a violation (see, for example, Société Colas Est and Others, cited

above, § 55) and, ruling on an equitable basis, awards the applicant

association 9,600 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any

tax that may be chargeable.

B. Costs and expenses

155. The applicant association also claimed EUR 16,552.60 for the costs

and expenses incurred in dealing with the domestic authorities and

EUR 5,344 for those incurred before the Court.

156. The Government did not comment on this issue.

157. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the

reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that

these were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum

(see, among many others, H.F. and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24384/19

and 44234/20, § 291, 14 September 2022).

158. As regards the claims concerning the costs and expenses incurred

before the domestic authorities, the Court notes that they were submitted

without any description of the legal services that had been provided. In

particular, the documents submitted to the Court merely mentioned

“consultation in the field of freedom of association”. As a result, the Court is

unable to find that those expenses were related to the present case and that

they were necessarily incurred (see UAB Kesko Senukai Lithuania, cited

above, § 136). The Court therefore rejects the applicant association’s claim

for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings.

159. As regards the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before

the Court, it considers that, taking into account the legal issues raised in the

present case, the amount claimed by the applicant association can be

considered reasonable as to quantum. It therefore grants that part of the claim

in full and awards the applicant association EUR 5,344, plus any tax that may

be chargeable to it.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT

1. Declares, unanimously, the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention

admissible;

2. Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the

Convention;

36GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT

3. Holds, by six votes to one, that there is no need to examine the

admissibility and merits of the complaints under Articles 11 and 13 of the

Convention;

4. Holds, unanimously,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant association, within

three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in

accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following

amounts:

(i) EUR 9,600 (nine thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that

may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii) EUR 5,344 (five thousand three hundred and forty-four euros),

plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant association, in

respect of costs and expenses;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until

settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a

rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank

during the default period plus three percentage points;

5. Dismisses, by six votes to one, the remainder of the applicant association’s

claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 December 2024, pursuant

to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Ivana Jelić

Deputy Registrar President

In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the

Rules of Court, the partly dissenting opinion of Judge G. A. Serghides is

annexed to this judgment.

37GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA v. ITALY JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SERGHIDES

1. The applicant association (hereinafter the “applicant”) is an Italian

Masonic association which groups together several lodges. The applicant

complained that there had been violations of Articles 8, 11 and 13 of the

Convention owing to a search of its premises ordered by a parliamentary

commission of inquiry and the subsequent seizure of a number of paper and

digital documents, in particular a list, including names and personal data, of

more than 6,000 members of the association.

2. I voted in favour of all points of the operative provisions of the

judgment except for points 3 and 5. In particular, I disagree that having found

a violation of Article 8 of the Convention – and on the ground that the Court

has “dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case” – there is no need

to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Articles 11

(freedom of association) and 13 (effective remedy) of the Convention (point

3 and paragraphs 149 and 150 of the judgment). I also disagree with the

dismissal of the remainder of the just satisfaction claim.

3. Since I recently took the same position in my partly dissenting opinion

in Adamčo v. Slovakia (no. 2), nos. 55792/20 and 2 others, 12 December 2024

(not yet final), where I thoroughly presented all arguments relevant to the

issue at hand, I opt to refer to that opinion rather than restate the same

arguments here.

38

...

Hai bisogno di te.

Al di sopra di tutto hai bisogno di pace interiore, il che richiede armonia tra l'interno e l'esterno.

Fai quello in cui credi, e credi in quello che fai.

Magas Cantoras II