Commentary on Judgment No. 47271 of 2024: Rescission of Res Judicata and Knowledge of Proceedings

The recent judgment No. 47271 of October 22, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important food for thought on the theme of rescission of res judicata in relation to the defendant's knowledge of the proceedings. The Court annulled with referral a decision of the Court of Appeal of Turin, emphasizing the need to distinguish between the mere appointment of a lawyer and the actual knowledge of the criminal proceedings.

Context of the Judgment

The central issue concerned proceedings originating from a complaint filed by the defendant's spouse, E. P.M. Marzagalli Cristina. In particular, the Court had to assess whether the appointment of a chosen lawyer, followed by a renunciation of the mandate before the "vocatio in iudicium", could be considered proof of the defendant's actual knowledge of the proceedings.

Rescission of res judicata - Proceedings originating from a spouse's complaint - Appointment of a chosen lawyer - Renunciation of mandate before "vocatio in iudicium" - Actual knowledge of proceedings - Non-existence - Blameworthy negligence - Irrelevance. In terms of rescission of res judicata, knowledge of the proceedings, initiated following a spouse's complaint, and the subsequent appointment of a chosen lawyer, followed by renunciation by the latter before the "vocatio in iudicium", do not constitute the prerequisites for the defendant's actual knowledge of the proceedings, nor can they establish a judgment of blameworthy negligence on the part of the defendant.

Analysis of the Maxim

The maxim expressed by the Court of Cassation clarifies that knowledge of the proceedings cannot be taken for granted solely on the basis of the appointment of a lawyer. This is a crucial aspect, as the Court emphasized that the mere existence of a lawyer does not necessarily imply that the defendant was aware of the specific dynamics of the proceedings. The lawyer's renunciation of the mandate before the summons to trial is an element that, according to the Cassation, cannot be considered an indication of culpable responsibility on the part of the defendant.

In this context, it is important to highlight that the concept of "actual knowledge" falls within a broader scope, where the rights of defense and procedural guarantees must be considered. The Court also referred to articles of the criminal code and the code of criminal procedure, emphasizing how current legislation protects the defendant from situations of uncertainty and confusion related to their procedural position.

Practical Implications for Defendants

This judgment has significant implications for defendants and their lawyers. It is essential that every defendant is always informed and aware of the status of their criminal proceedings. To this end, legal defenses must ensure clear and timely communication with their clients. Among the practical considerations arising from the judgment, we can list:

• The need for clear communication between lawyer and client regarding the status of the proceedings.
• The importance of verifying that the defendant has truly understood the stages of the proceedings.
• The protection of the rights of defense as a cornerstone principle for a just administration of justice.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 47271 of 2024 by the Court of Cassation represents an important step in protecting the rights of defendants, emphasizing that the mere appointment of a lawyer cannot be sufficient to consider a defendant informed and aware of their procedural positions. The distinction between knowledge and responsibility is fundamental, and lawyers must play an active role in ensuring that their clients are adequately informed and protected throughout the proceedings. With this decision, the Court reaffirms the importance of a fair and transparent trial, in which each defendant can fully exercise their right to defense.