Implications of Judgment No. 15865 of 2024: The Importance of Specific Mandate in Case of Appeal

The recent Judgment No. 15865 of January 17, 2024, filed on April 16, 2024, has raised important questions regarding the standing of the defense attorney to appeal judgments made in the absence of the defendant. In particular, the Court established that the mere appointment of a trusted defense attorney, contained in the request for admission to state-sponsored legal aid, is not sufficient to confer the necessary standing for the appeal. This decision is in line with the principle of formal rigor required by the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Content of the Judgment and Its Reasons

The Court, presided over by V. D., declared the appeal presented by A. B., an absent defendant, inadmissible. According to Article 581, paragraph 1-quater, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is necessary to provide a specific mandate to proceed with the appeal. The Court emphasized that the simple appointment of the attorney, while valid for other procedures, does not meet the requirements for the appeal. Therefore, the judgment reiterated the need for an ad hoc mandate, stressing that the absence of such a mandate leads to the inadmissibility of the act.

Judgment pronounced in absence - Specific mandate to appeal - Request for admission to state-sponsored legal aid containing appointment of trusted defense attorney - Sufficiency - Exclusion - Reasons. Regarding the appeal of a judgment pronounced against an absent defendant, the appointment of the trusted attorney contained in the request for admission to state-sponsored legal aid filed concurrently with the appeal is not equivalent to the specific mandate required under penalty of inadmissibility by Article 581, paragraph 1-quater, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the mere appointment does not confer the attorney with the standing to appeal.

The Practical Implications of the Decision

The Court's decision has significant repercussions for lawyers and defendants. It is essential that attorneys are aware of the need to obtain a specific mandate, especially in situations where the defendant is not present. This aspect highlights the importance of proper information and preparation on the part of the defense attorney, who must be able to carefully manage the appeal processes. Among the main consequences are:

  • Need for a thorough verification of the documentation presented to avoid inadmissibility.
  • Importance of clear communication with the defendant regarding rights and legal procedures.
  • Risk of waiving defense rights due to lack of an adequate mandate.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 15865 of 2024 represents an important reminder of formality and precision in appeal procedures. It clarifies that the mere appointment of a defense attorney is not sufficient to ensure the necessary standing to appeal a judgment, instead requiring a specific mandate. This decision is crucial to protect the rights of defendants and ensure that legal procedures are followed correctly. Lawyers must therefore pay particular attention to these details, so that the rights of their clients are always adequately protected.

Bianucci Law Firm