Judgment No. 49964/2023: The General Nullity and the Right of Defense

The judgment no. 49964 of November 14, 2023, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers significant insights into the issue of nullity in criminal matters, particularly regarding the failure to communicate the conclusions of the Attorney General to the defendant's lawyer. The case at hand is situated within the context of the emergency measures adopted during the Covid-19 pandemic, which altered the appeal procedures, raising a series of questions about their validity.

The Regulatory Context

The emergency regulation, contained in Article 23-bis of the Law Decree of October 28, 2020, No. 137, introduced modes of conducting criminal proceedings in written form, limiting direct contact between the parties involved. In this context, the Court had to assess whether the failure to transmit the Attorney General's conclusions electronically could constitute a violation of the right to defense.

Analysis of the Judgment

Written proceedings in appeal - Emergency regulation for the containment of the Covid-19 pandemic - Written conclusions of the Attorney General - Failure to communicate to the defense lawyer - General nullity in an intermediate regime - Existence - Deductibility pursuant to Article 182, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Existence - Specific and concrete prejudice - Allegation - Necessity - Case. In the appeal proceedings conducted under the forms provided by Article 23-bis of Law Decree 28 October 2020, No. 137, converted, with modifications, into Law 18 December 2020, No. 176, the failure to transmit, electronically, to the defendant's lawyer the conclusions of the Attorney General does not constitute a nullity for violation of the right to defense, as it is necessary to indicate the concrete prejudice resulting to the defensive arguments due to the exhaustive nature of nullities and the absence of a specific procedural sanction. (In the case at hand, the Attorney General's conclusions contained merely the request for confirmation of the first-instance judgment, so that, in the absence of an allegation of prejudice to the defensive prerogatives, the Court excluded that the omitted communication had caused concrete harm to the appellant).

The Court stated that nullity does not automatically arise in the event of a violation of defensive rights, but it is necessary to demonstrate a concrete prejudice. This principle is based on the exhaustive character of nullities provided by the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly Article 182, paragraph 2. The judgment thus clarifies that the mere omission of communication is not sufficient to trigger nullity unless a real damage to the defensive arguments is demonstrated.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 49964/2023 represents an important reflection on the balancing between emergency needs and the fundamental rights of defendants. It emphasizes that, in a framework of streamlined proceedings adapted to extraordinary circumstances, it is essential to maintain attention on the protection of defense rights. In conclusion, it is evident that the Court of Cassation intends to ensure that any procedural violation is examined carefully, always in light of a concrete analysis of the consequences for the parties involved.

Bianucci Law Firm