Vatican, Becciu loses civil suit against Perlasca

Claim for damages against his great accuser rejected. The lawyer Sammarco: “The cardinal also convicted of abuse of the procedural instrument: he will have to pay Perlasca a fair amount of compensation”

Cardinal Angelo Becciu lost the civil suit filed against his main accuser, Msgr. Alberto Perlasca, key witness in the trial against the former number two of the Secretariat of State underway in the Vatican, and was also sentenced to compensate the costs for reckless litigation. The decision is by the judge of the II Civil Section of the Court of Como Lorenzo Azzi, who in recent months had already rejected the request of the former Substitute aimed at obtaining a conservation seizure of 500 thousand euros against Perlasca himself and his friend Genoveffa Ciferri .



The judge therefore rejected the case, condemning the cardinal to pay not only legal fees but also 9 thousand euros in expenses for reckless litigation. “The absolute evanescence – and not mere groundlessness – which cloaks the claim made against the defendant Perlasca – writes the judge in the sentence – justifies the sentence, in favor of this party alone, pursuant to Article 96, paragraph III, cpc, for abuse of the procedural instrument “.

“I am satisfied because the Court of Como recognized the recklessness and the absolute evanescence of the judicial actions initiated by Card. Becciu against Mons. Perlasca, from whom he had first requested a seizure of all his assets and then a maxi compensation damages for alleged persecutory conduct – the lawyer Pieremilio Sammarco comments to the Adnkronos – More than any comment, the decision of the judge in the sentence applies, who, in declaring the total loss of Card. Becciu, also condemned him for abuse of the procedural instrument and he will therefore have to pay Mgr Perlasca a fair amount of compensation “.

Becciu had asked Perlasca and Ciferri to be sentenced to compensation, in solidarity, “identifying the criminal offense in the crime of persecutory acts” or, “in the alternative, in the violation of harassment or disturbance to people”. According to the allegations underlying the claim for compensation – “to be allocated to works of charity” -, behind the “critical review process” of Perlasca, the cardinal’s main accuser, there is the figure of Genoveffa Ciferri, who, to rehabilitate the reputation of his friend, would have induced him to direct the investigators’ investigations on Becciu. According to the cardinal’s assertion, Ciferri would also have directly carried out a persecutory action against Becciu and his family members.

“The actor did his utmost to describe a hypothetical ‘revenge action aimed at prejudicing and damaging the person of the actor in an attempt to rehabilitate the now compromised position of Mons. Alberto Perlasca’, put in place by the defendants in competition, which is why Perlasca should also be called to answer for the conduct carried out by Ciferri “, writes the judge, but the thesis” has remained, in this context, an arbitrary inference, given that the only documentary element in the proceedings, moreover produced by the same plaintiff, moves in the opposite direction, testifying that the defendant has distanced himself from the defendant “, and” in the same claim, Ciferri never presented himself to Becciu as a person acting on behalf or, in any case, solicitation of the defendant “.

With regard to persecutory acts, “the alternative event of damage (persistent and serious state of anxiety or fear or well-founded fear for safety or, finally, alteration of life habits) remained completely unproven in court and, indeed, there are even two elements, provided by the plaintiff, which move in the opposite direction “, writes the judge, who then, with regard to harassment, including telephone, excludes them, arguing that” the recipient had an easy means available to escape from it without having to deactivate the telephone set: the “blocking” of the contact, with regard to messages (see doc. 13), and the notification to the switchboard of the dicastery, with regard to telephone calls “.



Source-www.adnkronos.com