The short answer is no, it carries serious risk. A telephone conversation is communications content and is specifically protected by Article 132 of the Criminal Code. The critical feature of the article is that it punishes publication through the press separately and expressly.
The three paragraphs
| Para. | Act | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 132/1 | Infringing the confidentiality of communications between persons | 1–3 years’ imprisonment; where the infringement occurs by recording the content, the sentence is doubled |
| Art. 132/2 | Unlawfully disclosing the content of communications between persons | 2–5 years’ imprisonment |
| Art. 132/3 | Unlawfully disclosing in public the content of communications to which one is a party, without the other party’s consent | 1–3 years’ imprisonment |
The sentence added to Article 132/3 by Law No. 6352 of 2 July 2012 targets the publisher directly: “Where such disclosed data are published through the press and media, the same penalty shall be imposed.”
If you were a party to the call
Recording a call you made yourself and disclosing it in public are different acts. Article 132/3 punishes with one to three years’ imprisonment a person who unlawfully discloses in public the content of communications to which they are a party, without the other party’s consent. “I was on that call too” does not make disclosure lawful.
Communications content and other recordings
| Situation | Applicable provision |
|---|---|
| Communications content — telephone, message, e-mail | Criminal Code, Art. 132 |
| A face-to-face non-public conversation | Criminal Code, Art. 133 |
| Images or sounds relating to private life | Criminal Code, Art. 134 |
| Interception carried out within an investigation | Criminal Code, Arts. 132 and 285 |
Article 133/3 has the same structure: a person who unlawfully discloses data obtained by recording non-public conversations is punished with two to five years’ imprisonment and a judicial fine of up to four thousand days, and “where such disclosed data are published through the press and media, the same penalty shall be imposed”.
Where the recording comes from an investigation
If the recording originates in an investigation file, Article 285 also engages. Under Article 285/1 publicly breaching the confidentiality of an investigation is an offence where the disclosure infringes the confidentiality of communications or is capable of preventing the emergence of the material truth — a condition that publication of a telephone recording typically satisfies.
The public interest defence
Article 24/2 of the Civil Code treats public interest as a ground of lawfulness, but it is a rule of private law. The text of Article 132 of the Criminal Code contains no public interest exception. In practice the argument may be advanced in the assessment of unlawfulness, but it does not guarantee the outcome in advance. The decision should be taken before publication and with legal advice.
An alternative: publish the information, not the recording
In most cases the news value lies not in the recording itself but in the fact it reveals. Verifying that information through independent sources and reporting it removes most of the Article 132 and 133 risk and strengthens the story’s foundation.
Is your source protected?
You cannot be compelled to disclose the person who passed you the recording. Under Article 12 of Law No. 5187: “The owner of a periodical, the responsible editor and the author of the work may not be compelled to disclose their news sources of any kind, including information and documents, or to give evidence on that matter.” That guarantee does not, however, remove liability arising from the publication itself.
Source protection is covered in the source guide and leaked documents in the leaked documents guide.