Commentary on Judgment No. 13714 of 2024: Alternative Procedure and Appeal in Absentia

The recent judgment No. 13714 of 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a matter of significant importance in criminal law: the issue of the mandate to appeal in the case of a summary judgment and its applicability when the defense counsel requests a resolution through an alternative procedure. This ruling serves as an important clarification for legal professionals and defendants involved in criminal proceedings.

Context of the Judgment

The Court of Cassation, presided over by S. B., and with L. A. as rapporteur, quashed without referral the decision of the Court of Appeal of Bologna, highlighting that, in cases where an alternative procedure is requested by defense counsel holding a special power of attorney, the obligations set forth in Article 581, paragraph 1-quater, of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not apply. This provision stipulates that, in the event of an appeal against a judgment rendered in the absence of the defendant, a specific mandate to appeal is required.

Analysis of the Judgment's Headnote

Alternative procedure requested by defense counsel holding a special power of attorney - Applicability of the obligations under Article 581, paragraph 1-quater, of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Exclusion - Reasons. In matters of appeal against a judgment rendered following a summary judgment, the provisions of Article 581, paragraph 1-quater, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires a specific mandate to appeal concerning a defendant tried in absentia, do not apply when the alternative procedure was requested by defense counsel holding a special power of attorney. This is because, in such circumstances, there are no doubts regarding the defendant's knowledge of the proceedings, as the defendant must be considered present pursuant to Article 420, paragraph 2-ter, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (In its reasoning, the Court deemed it irrelevant that the defendant was erroneously indicated as absent in the first-instance judgment).

This headnote clarifies that when defense counsel acts with a special power of attorney to request a resolution through an alternative procedure, the issue of the defendant's knowledge of the proceedings does not arise. In fact, the Court held that the defendant must be considered present, pursuant to Article 420, paragraph 2-ter, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This means that, even if erroneously indicated as absent, the defendant is nevertheless aware of the stages of the trial.

Implications of the Judgment

The implications of this judgment are manifold and touch upon various aspects of Italian criminal law:

• Clarity on the role of defense counsel: The role of defense counsel is central in criminal proceedings, and their ability to request alternative procedures is now better defined.
• Greater protection for the defendant: This interpretation ensures that defendants are not penalized by formal errors regarding their presence in the proceedings.
• Strengthening the right to defense: The judgment underscores the importance of ensuring that every defendant can exercise their right to defense, even in complex situations.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 13714 of 2024 represents an important step towards greater clarity and protection of defendants' rights in the context of criminal proceedings. It offers an interpretation that values the role of defense counsel and ensures that the defendant's knowledge of the proceedings cannot be called into question, thereby guaranteeing a fair trial. Such developments are fundamental for the continuous improvement of the Italian legal system and for safeguarding the rights of all citizens.