Judgment no. 30372 of 2024: Real Precautionary Appeals and Notification to Un-detained Suspects

The recent judgment no. 30372 of May 28, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important clarifications on the rules for notifications concerning real precautionary appeals. In particular, the decision focuses on the methods of communicating the notice of the hearing date for un-detained suspects, a crucial aspect for guaranteeing the right to defense and the proper conduct of proceedings.

Regulatory Context

The issue addressed by the Court concerns Article 324, paragraph 6, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which establishes that the notification of the notice of the hearing date before the review court must be carried out effectively and promptly. This article is essential to ensure that the suspect can exercise their right to defense, which is a fundamental principle of criminal law.

The Ruling's Maxim

Notification of the notice pursuant to Article 324, paragraph 6, of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Un-detained Suspect - Impossibility of carrying out notification at the previously declared or elected domicile - Applicable rules - Indication. In matters of real precautionary appeals, the notification to the un-detained suspect of the notice of the hearing date before the review court, as provided for by Article 324, paragraph 6, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, must be carried out by delivery to the trusted or court-appointed lawyer, pursuant to Article 157-bis, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in cases where it is not possible to carry it out at the previously declared or elected domicile.

The Court ruled that, if it is not possible to notify the suspect at the previously declared domicile, the notification must be made to the trusted or court-appointed lawyer. This principle is in line with Article 157-bis, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for alternative notification methods to ensure the protection of the suspect's rights.

Implications of the Judgment

• Strengthening the right to defense: The judgment emphasizes the importance of ensuring that the suspect, even if not detained, receives the necessary communications to be able to actively participate in the proceedings.
• Clarity in notification methods: The decision offers clear guidance on how to proceed in situations where notification at the domicile is not possible.
• Jurisprudential references: The judgment connects to important precedents, including maxims no. 4746 and no. 39902 of 2014, which have addressed similar issues.

Conclusion

In summary, judgment no. 30372 of 2024 represents a significant step in defining the notification procedures for un-detained suspects. It not only clarifies the procedures to be followed but also reaffirms the importance of protecting the suspect's rights, ensuring that every individual can exercise their right to defense effectively and promptly. This type of ruling is fundamental for the proper functioning of the legal system and for safeguarding human rights in the criminal context.