Commentary on Judgment No. 13714 of 2024: Alternative Procedure and Appeal in Absence

The recent judgment No. 13714 of 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a matter of significant importance in criminal law: the issue of the mandate to appeal in cases of abbreviated judgment and its applicability when the defense counsel requests a resolution through an alternative procedure. This ruling serves as an important clarification for legal practitioners and defendants involved in criminal proceedings.

The Context of the Judgment

The Court of Cassation, presided over by S. B., with the reporting judge L. A., annulled without referral the decision of the Court of Appeal of Bologna, highlighting that, in the case of a resolution through an alternative procedure requested by a defense counsel with special power of attorney, the burdens provided for by Article 581, paragraph 1-quater of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not apply. This provision establishes that, in the event of an appeal against a judgment issued in the absence of the defendant, a specific mandate to appeal is necessary.

Analysis of the Ruling's Maxim

Resolution through alternative procedure requested by the defense counsel with special power of attorney - Applicability of the burdens referred to in Article 581, paragraph 1-quater, Code of Criminal Procedure - Exclusion - Reasons. In the matter of appeal against a judgment issued following an abbreviated procedure, the provision of Article 581, paragraph 1-quater, Code of Criminal Procedure, which prescribes a specific mandate to appeal regarding the defendant judged in absence, does not apply if the resolution through an alternative procedure was requested by the defense counsel with special power of attorney, given that, in such a case, there are no doubts regarding the defendant's awareness of the proceedings, with the defendant being considered present under Article 420, paragraph 2-ter, Code of Criminal Procedure. (In the reasoning, the Court deemed it irrelevant that the defendant was incorrectly indicated as absent in the first instance judgment).

This maxim clarifies that when the defense counsel acts with a special power of attorney to request a resolution through an alternative procedure, the issue of the defendant's awareness regarding the proceedings does not arise. In fact, the Court has determined that the defendant must be considered present, pursuant to Article 420, paragraph 2-ter, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This means that, even if mistakenly indicated as absent, the defendant is still aware of the stages of the trial.

Implications of the Judgment

The implications of this judgment are manifold and touch on various aspects of Italian criminal law:

  • Clarity on the role of the defense counsel: The role of the defense counsel is central in criminal proceedings, and their ability to request alternative procedures is now better defined.
  • Greater protection for the defendant: This interpretation ensures that defendants are not penalized for formal errors regarding their presence in the trial.
  • Reinforcement of the right to defense: The judgment emphasizes the importance of ensuring that every defendant can exercise their right to defense even in complex situations.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 13714 of 2024 represents an important step toward greater clarity and protection of defendants' rights in the context of criminal proceedings. It provides an interpretation that values the role of the defense counsel and ensures that the defendant's awareness of the proceedings cannot be called into question, thereby guaranteeing a fair trial. Such developments are fundamental for the continuous improvement of the Italian legal system and for the safeguarding of the rights of all citizens.

Bianucci Law Firm