Judgment No. 16493 of 2024: Offer of Compensation and Recognition of Mitigating Factors

The judgment no. 16493 of February 23, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides significant insights regarding the issue of damage compensation and the mitigating factors related to the conduct of the defendant. In particular, it clarifies the necessary conditions for the application of the mitigating factor referred to in Article 62, no. 6 of the Penal Code in the case of the victim's refusal to accept the compensation.

The Regulatory Context

The relevant provision, Article 62, no. 6 of the Penal Code, states that the mitigating factor may be recognized when the defendant has offered compensation that has not been accepted by the victim. However, the Court emphasized that for the application of this mitigating factor, it is necessary that the offer was made in the forms of a real offer, as established by Articles 1209 and following of the Civil Code. This implies that the defendant must deposit the amount to be compensated and make it available to the victim, thereby allowing for a careful assessment of the situation.

The Importance of the Real Offer

Offer of compensation - Refusal by the victim - Recognition of the mitigating factor referred to in Article 62, no. 6 of the Penal Code - Conditions - Necessity for the proposal to be made in the forms of a real offer - Reasons - Case law. Regarding circumstances, the mitigating factor referred to in Article 62, no. 6 of the Penal Code may be recognized, in the case where the victim has not accepted the compensation, only if the defendant has proceeded in the forms of the real offer as per Articles 1209 and following of the Civil Code, depositing the amount and leaving it available to the victim, thus allowing the latter to assess its suitability to compensate for the damage and to decide with the necessary consideration whether to accept it or not, and for the judge to appreciate its appropriateness and its connection to an actual remorse of the offender. (Case relating to an amount offered by means of a bank check, rejected by the victim, in which the Court excluded the configurability of the mitigating factor, since the check had not been deposited and left at the disposal of the victim).

In the analyzed case, the Court excluded the configurability of the mitigating factor since the offer had been made through a bank check that had not been deposited. This aspect is crucial, as it highlights that the defendant did not comply with the necessary formalities to allow the victim to properly assess the offer. The Court, therefore, concluded that without the deposit of the amount, the offer cannot be considered valid for the purposes of recognizing the mitigating factor.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 16493 of 2024 represents an important clarification in the field of compensation and mitigating factors. It clarifies that an offer of compensation, to be effective, must follow precise modalities; otherwise, it risks not being considered by the judge. This jurisprudential orientation encourages defendants to pay particular attention to the forms of compensation offers, as procedural correctness can significantly influence the assessment of their criminal liability.

Bianucci Law Firm