(ANSA) - Milan, March 31 - A Milan appeals court on Monday
ruled that a charge against ex-premier Silvio Berlusconi for
involvement in the publication of an illegally obtained wiretap
in his brother's newspaper has timed out.
Berlusconi had been sentenced to one year in jail last
March by a lower court over the case, which concerned the
publication of an illegally obtained wiretap in his brother
Paolo's conservative newspaper Il Giornale.
It concerned a conversation in 2005 between one of
Berlusconi's political opponents, Piero Fassino, who was at that
time the head of the former centre-left Democratic Left (DS)
party, and Giovanni Consorte, the former chairman of Unipol, an
association of insurers historically linked to the DS, the heir
to Italy's Communist Party.
At the time Unipol came close to taking over one of Italy's
leading banks, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL), and Fassino was
recorded as saying "we have a bank!".
Fassino, now mayor of Turin, was widely criticised for the
comment, especially among the rank and file of the DS, which has
since turned into a larger centre-left group, the Democratic
Party.
The lower court explained last year its decision, saying
that without Berlusconi's "support in terms of moral
complicity...the publication would not have taken place".
It added that centre-right leader Berlusconi had clear
political motives to give a green light to the publication late
in 2005, months before the 2006 general election that his
alliance narrowly lost to Romano Prodi's centre left.
In Italy, prison sentences for non-violent crimes do not
usually become effective until the two-tier appeals system has
been exhausted.
The appeals court said Monday that it would release its
full reasons for the decision within the next 30 days.
It also dismissed charges against Paolo Berlusconi, who had
been sentenced to two years and three months, but upheld an
80,000 euro compensation award for Fassino.
The brothers Berlusconi have always denied any wrongdoing.
Berlusconi wiretap charge timed out, says court
Case involved conversation published in newspaper