2.3.2. The special rules in the field of ministerial crimes.

The Article 96 of the Constitution in his original formulation, it was foreseeing that the President of Council of the Ministers and the Ministers could be put by them in state of accusation aside of the Parliament reunited on common meeting by the crimes committed in the execution of their functions; in this case they would have been judged by the Constitutional court in his supplemented composition.²³

This constitutional disposition has been substituted by The Law 1/1989, adopted after a popular referendum had abrogated the relative legislative dispositions to the examining commission and that is to the bicameral parliamentary commission that it was instituting the declarations arrived at cargo of the Ministers. The constitutional bill, which has passed also a new text, is asserted than on the crimes committed by the President of the Council and by the Ministers (also any more in office), in the execution of their functions, it judges the simple ordinary, previous magistracy authorization from the Chamber to which they are investigated, or of the Senate if they are involved belonging to both Chambers or not members of parliament.²⁴

The same Chambers must authorize also the necessary limitative measures of personal freedom, telephone interceptions, sequestration or violations of the secrecy of the correspondence, “unless they are picked in the act of committing a crime for which is obligatory the mandate or the order of capture”.

The ministerial crimes, and that is the crimes committed in the execution of the ministerial functions, they consist in common crimes (generally belonging to the category of the crimes against public administration) committed by assistances of the President of the Council or of a Minister, using their powers or, in any case, within the bounds of the ministerial functions. Beyond this border, the member of the Government that commits crimes, answers for it as each another citizen (it saves the application of the Art. 68 Const., in the hypothesis that is one parliamentarian).

The competence to ask for the authorization to proceed has been attributed to one special judicial college instituted close to the Court of the chief town of the district of Court of competent appeal for territory, which is also the task of unwinding the ordinary preliminary activity. The college is formed by three magistrates extracted to destiny between the magistrates of the Courts of the district, which have at least five years the qualification of magistrate of Court or superior, and each biennium is renewed. The parliamentary body can deny the authorization for the continuation of criminal, but alone progress to absolute majority, “in case it considers, with evaluation unquestionable, that the investigated one has behaved for the guardianship of an interest of the constitutionally prominent state or for the pursuit of a pre-eminent public interest in the exercise of the function of government”.²⁵

Subsequently to the parliamentary authorization it is the Court of the chief district of the court of appeal that is called to judge, according to the ordinary rules; the same thing for the possible following judgement degrees. The only privilege rule, in phase of the judgement, it seems to be that one for which “towards the President of Council of the Ministers and of the Ministers the temporary application cannot be arranged of accessory punishments that involve the suspension of I was at their office”.