Judgment No. 14035 of 2024: Substitute Sanctions and the Bifacial 'Sentencing' Mechanism

The judgment No. 14035 of February 20, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, thoroughly analyzes the substitute sanctions provided by the Italian penal code, with particular attention to the bifacial 'sentencing' mechanism introduced by Article 545-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This ruling offers relevant insights for legal practitioners and defendants involved in criminal proceedings, clarifying the compatibility of substitute sanctions with the appeal judgment.

The Bifacial 'Sentencing' Mechanism

The bifacial mechanism referred to in Article 545-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for a more flexible and personalized application of substitute penalties. In particular, the judgment clarifies that this mechanism can also be activated after the appeal judgment, allowing the defendant to express their consent to the substitute penalty at a subsequent hearing. This represents an important recognition of the defendant's right to actively participate in the decision-making process regarding their conviction.

Substitute sanctions under Article 20-bis of the Penal Code - Bifacial 'sentencing' model under Article 545-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Compatibility with the appeal judgment - Existence - Conditions. Regarding substitute penalties, the bifacial mechanism referred to in Article 545-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure can operate even at the outcome of the appeal judgment, as the defendant who is not present at the reading of the ruling must be allowed to personally express, or through a special power of attorney granted to the defense attorney, consent to the application of a substitute penalty different from the monetary one, where conditions exist, at a subsequent hearing specifically scheduled, with notification to the parties.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant consequences for the Italian penal system, as it:

  • Recognizes the defendant's right to actively participate in the choice of substitute penalty.
  • Establishes that the assessment of the defendant's consent must occur in a clear and formalized manner.
  • Reiterates the importance of transparency in the criminal process, ensuring that all parties are informed and involved.

Furthermore, the judgment highlights the necessity of careful consideration of the conditions under which substitute sanctions can be applied, emphasizing that the judge's discretion must be exercised in respect of the fundamental rights of the defendant.

Conclusions

In summary, judgment No. 14035 of 2024 represents a step forward in the protection of defendants' rights within the criminal context. The recognition of the compatibility between the bifacial 'sentencing' mechanism and the appeal judgment offers new perspectives for the application of substitute sanctions, ensuring greater justice and fairness in the Italian judicial system.

Bianucci Law Firm