Commentary on Judgment No. 16556 of 2023: The Extraordinary Appeal for Material or Factual Error

Judgment No. 16556 of the Court of Cassation, filed on April 18, 2023, has provided important clarifications on the scope of the extraordinary appeal for material or factual error. In particular, the Court has excluded the possibility of filing this type of appeal to correct any errors contained in decisions relating to orders of the execution judge concerning pardons.

The Legal Context of the Extraordinary Appeal

The extraordinary appeal pursuant to art. 625-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure represents an extraordinary legal remedy that allows for the correction of material or factual errors in judicial decisions. However, in the judgment under review, the Court clarified that a pardon, being a cause for the extinction of the penalty, only affects the execution of the penalty itself and cannot alter the judgment that has already become final.

Extraordinary appeal for material or factual error - Scope of operation - Judgment of the Court of Cassation on orders of the execution judge concerning pardons - Admissibility – Exclusion - Reasons. The extraordinary appeal pursuant to art. 625-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be filed by the convicted person for the correction of an error contained in the decision of the Court of Cassation ruling on orders of the execution judge concerning pardons. (In its reasoning, the Court clarified that a pardon, falling within the category of causes for the extinction of the penalty, affects only the execution thereof, without intervening to stabilize the judgment, which has already become final).

Implications of the Judgment

This position of the Court of Cassation highlights the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between the execution of the penalty and the final judgment. The practical implications of this decision are significant:

• Limitation of the extraordinary appeal: Convicted persons cannot appeal to correct errors already established by the Court, making the system clearer and more predictable.
• Protection of the final judgment: The stability of judicial decisions is guaranteed, preventing every error from being subject to challenge.
• Clarity on pardons: The Court confirmed that a pardon does not alter the conviction judgment but only acts on the execution of the penalty.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 16556 of 2023 represents an important step forward in defining the limits of the extraordinary appeal for material error. It reiterates the need to clearly distinguish between the execution of the penalty and the final judgment, thereby protecting the stability of judicial decisions. This ruling is fundamental to ensuring a fairer and more predictable legal system, where the rights of convicted persons are respected without compromising the integrity of the judicial process.