Amazing. But I don't buy it.
The article suggests that because of this "love" connection, it was overturned. Reading between the lines, however, I suspect it was overturned because that bit of evidence was improperly disallowed, creating a procedural dilemma. I am speculating, but if evidence of any kind is withheld at trial, could it not invalidate any conviction on legal-technical grounds, no matter how "obvious" the guilt may otherwise be? Had the evidence been allowed in the original trial, I seriously doubt it would have exonerated the defendant or lessened his guilt before the judge in any way.
Italy's supreme court ruled that the verdict did not sufficiently consider "the 'consensus', the existence of an amorous relationship, the absence of physical force, the girl's feelings of love...." It really sounds like they are not lessening the sentence because those items mitigated the crime, but are going to retrial because those arguments were withheld from the legal arena. In other words, the defense wins a retrial on a technicality and the news media sensationalizes it as some court-sanctioned legal acquiescence to an absurd "love" defense.
That said, those very arguments are extremely flawed, obviously. They NEED to be presented at trial, because they NEED to be exposed as dangerous misinformation; no 11-year-old child could possibly ever consent to something like this. So I might even agree with the Italian supreme court on this one. Remember - the defendant is not skating free. It's a retrial. That alone speaks to this as not being an exoneration but a technical maneuver.
In fact, I suspect this really says more about provocative, sensationalized journalism that skirts the truth to sell stories than it is about the supreme court defending a pedophile.