Judgment No. 48275 of 2023: Reflections on Nullity in Summary Proceedings

The recent judgment No. 48275 of October 20, 2023, has raised important questions regarding the regulation of summary proceedings in an emergency context. In particular, it examines the relevance of the violation of the appearance deadline established by Article 601, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which led to a general nullity. This decision fits into the current legal landscape, influenced by the extraordinary measures adopted to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Regulatory Context and Implications of the Judgment

According to the judgment, in the summary appeal proceedings, the failure to comply with the twenty-day deadline for the appearance of the defendant is considered a nullity that can only be raised with the first useful act. The regulation provides that such an exception can be proposed through a memorandum or conclusions pursuant to Article 23-bis of Law No. 176 of December 18, 2020. However, in the specific case, the exception was deemed tardy, as it was subsequently raised with a request for cassation.

Emergency regulation for the containment of the COVID-19 pandemic - Summary proceedings - Violation of the appearance deadline - Intermediate regime nullity - Raiseable with the request for cassation - Tardiness - Case law. In the summary appeal proceedings held under the emergency regulation for the containment of the COVID-19 pandemic, the failure to comply with the twenty-day deadline established by Article 601, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, giving rise to a general nullity regarding the defendant's intervention, can only be raised by the defense with the first useful act, whether it be a memorandum or the conclusions pursuant to Article 23-bis of Law No. 176 of December 18, 2020, so that the exception raised with the request for cassation is tardy. (In this case, the Court deemed the nullity resulting from the tardiness of the appeal citation to be healed on the grounds that the defense had failed to submit a request for postponement or an oral hearing).

This judgment highlights how, in an emergency period like that caused by the pandemic, procedural norms require particularly careful interpretation in order to ensure the rights of defendants. The Court determined that the tardiness of the appeal citation, in this case, was healed, as the defense had not requested a postponement or an oral hearing, indicating a possible attention deficit in the management of the proceedings.

Consequences for the Defense Attorney and the Defendant

  • Importance of adhering to deadlines: The judgment emphasizes that adhering to deadlines is crucial to avoid procedural nullities.
  • Role of the defense attorney: The defense attorney must act promptly to protect the rights of their client, presenting any exceptions within the prescribed time limits.
  • Effects of the pandemic: The emergency regulation cannot be an excuse to neglect procedural norms, but must be interpreted in a way that protects fundamental rights.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 48275 of 2023 provides us with a reflection on the delicacy of criminal procedures in times of emergency. It is essential that legal professionals remain vigilant and ready to uphold the rights of their clients, even in complex contexts such as the current one. Jurisprudence continues to evolve and provide valuable guidance on how to tackle legal challenges while respecting current regulations.

Bianucci Law Firm