Judgment No. 14024 of 2024: Abbreviated and Ordinary Procedures in Multi-Subject Proceedings

Judgment No. 14024 of February 6, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, represents an important ruling concerning multi-subject criminal proceedings, particularly regarding the coexistence of abbreviated and ordinary procedures. The defendant in question, F. T., had their case examined in a context where it was discussed whether the joint treatment of these two procedures could lead to issues of abnormality or nullity of the final decision.

The Context of the Judgment

The case originated from the Court of Appeal of Rome, which addressed the issue of how to manage criminal proceedings involving multiple defendants, each of whom may find themselves in different legal positions due to the choice of procedure. The Court established that the coexistence of different procedures does not necessarily entail the annulment of the decision or the recusal of the judge.

  • Abbreviated Procedure: a process that allows for the shortening of trial times through the acknowledgment of guilt by the defendant.
  • Ordinary Procedure: the traditional, longer, and more complex process that involves a complete investigation.
  • Multi-Subjectivity: the presence of multiple defendants in the same trial, which can complicate the management of evidence and decisions.

Clarifications on the Judgment's Maxim

Simultaneous conduct of the abbreviated and ordinary procedures in multi-subject trials - Abnormality - Exclusion - Nullity - Exclusion - Recusal - Exclusion - Reasons. The joint treatment of the abbreviated and ordinary procedures concerning different defendants does not cause abnormality or nullity of the decision, nor does it create a situation of incompatibility that could lead to a reason for recusal, since the coexistence of procedures only requires that, at the time of decision, the evidentiary regimes provided for each be strictly kept separate.

The maxim highlighted by the judgment clarifies that the mere coexistence of the two procedures should not raise concerns regarding the validity of the judicial decision. It is essential, however, that the evidentiary regimes are respected and kept distinct. This means that, while dealing with different cases, the judge must not confuse the methods of acquiring and evaluating evidence depending on the applied procedure.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 14024 of 2024 represents an important point of reference for lawyers and legal practitioners, as it clarifies a matter that could generate confusion in multi-subject proceedings. The confirmation that the coexistence of procedures does not automatically result in abnormality or nullity provides greater legal certainty, which is essential in the criminal field. Legal practitioners should, therefore, pay attention to maintaining distinct evidentiary regimes, thus ensuring compliance with procedures and the rights of the defendants.

Bianucci Law Firm