Commentary on Judgment No. 17091 of 2024: Ten-Day Deadline and Intermediate Nullity

The recent Judgment No. 17091 of January 31, 2024, from the Court of Cassation, which addresses the issue of non-compliance with the ten-day deadline for the notification of the hearing notice, serves as an important reference for Italian criminal law. In particular, the Court has established that this non-compliance results in an intermediate nullity, which must be raised within specific deadlines set by the regulations. This article aims to analyze the key points of the ruling and its practical implications.

The Regulatory Context and the Judgment

The case examined by the Court refers to an enforcement proceeding, in which the adherence to the notification deadlines set by the New Code of Criminal Procedure was highlighted. The judgment clarifies that the ten free days deadline, provided for in Article 666, paragraph 3, is essential to ensure the right of defense of the parties involved. The failure to comply with this deadline does not result in an absolute nullity, but rather an intermediate nullity, as specified in the ruling's maxim:

Ten-day deadline between the notification of the notice and the holding of the hearing - Non-compliance - Consequences - Intermediate nullity - Existence. In the context of enforcement proceedings, non-compliance with the ten free days deadline for notifying the parties and their defenders of the hearing date results in an intermediate nullity, to be raised within the deadlines provided for in Article 182, paragraph 2, of the code of criminal procedure, and not an absolute nullity, as the latter results from the failure to cite.

This distinction is crucial: intermediate nullity does not entail the automatic invalidity of the proceeding, but requires that the interested parties raise the exception within the prescribed deadlines, as established by Article 182, paragraph 2, of the code of criminal procedure.

Practical Consequences of the Judgment

The implications of this judgment are manifold and concern not only legal professionals but also citizens involved in criminal proceedings. Here are some key points to consider:

  • Protection of defense rights: The judgment reaffirms the importance of ensuring adequate notice to the parties, essential for an effective defense.
  • Flexibility of nullity: The distinction between absolute nullity and intermediate nullity allows for greater flexibility in the judicial system, preventing formal errors from compromising the entire proceeding.
  • Need for attention from lawyers: Professionals must pay attention to deadlines and notification methods to avoid potential procedural flaws being raised against them.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 17091 of 2024 represents an important reflection on the rights of parties in criminal proceedings and the necessity of scrupulously observing notification deadlines. It not only clarifies the regime of nullity in cases of non-compliance but also urges legal practitioners to ensure proper adherence to procedures, for the benefit of the legal system as a whole. Jurisprudence continues to be a beacon for the interpretation of norms and for the protection of fundamental rights in the criminal context.

Bianucci Law Firm