Commentary on Judgment No. 37470 of 19/09/2024: Adjournment to New Role and Absolute Nullity

The recent judgment No. 37470 of September 19, 2024, published by the Court of Cassation, offers an important reflection on some fundamental procedural issues in criminal law. In particular, it addresses the problem concerning the adjournment of a trial hearing without specifying the date of the new hearing, with significant implications for the validity of the proceedings.

Adjournment to New Role and Its Consequences

According to the Court's ruling, adjourning a hearing to a new role, without specifying the date of the new hearing, implies the obligation to notify the interested party and their defense counsel of the notice of its scheduling. Violation of this obligation results in absolute nullity of the act, which cannot be remedied. This applies both in cases of legitimate impediment of the defendant and for any other cause for adjournment.

Adjournment of the hearing to a new role - Adjournment ordered for a cause other than the defendant's legitimate impediment - Notice to the parties of the date of the new hearing - Necessity - Consequences - Omission - Absolute Nullity - Case Law The adjournment of a trial hearing to a new role, carried out without specifying the date of the new hearing, entails the obligation to notify the interested party and their defense counsel of the notice of its scheduling, under penalty of general, absolute, and irremediable nullity, both when the postponement was ordered due to the defendant's legitimate impediment to appear, and when it was ordered for any other cause. (Case law concerning the adjournment of the appeal judgment to a new role, ordered due to the excessive caseload of trials scheduled for hearing on the same date).

Legal References and Case Law

This judgment refers to several articles of the New Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly Articles 601, 179, and 178, highlighting the importance of correct information to the parties in criminal proceedings. The Court, with this decision, reaffirms a principle already established in previous judgments, such as No. 43854 of 2019 and No. 36734 of 2015, which have addressed similar issues regarding the nullity of procedural acts due to procedural irregularities.

• Article 601: Adjournment of the hearing.
• Article 179: Notifications and communications.
• Article 178: Principles of procedural correctness and clarity.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 37470/2024 represents an important clarification on procedural adjournments in criminal law. It underscores the necessity of ensuring correct communication between the parties involved in the proceedings and the consequent invalidity of acts that do not comply with this obligation. This principle not only protects the rights of defendants and their defense counsel but also contributes to ensuring the efficiency and transparency of the judicial system.