Commentary on Judgment No. 48556 of 14/11/2023: Plea Bargaining and Accessory Administrative Sanctions

Judgment No. 48556 of November 14, 2023, represents an important reference point in the field of criminal law, particularly regarding the institution of plea bargaining and accessory administrative sanctions. The Court of Cassation, with this ruling, addressed the validity of agreements between the parties concerning the application of sanctions, highlighting how recent legislative changes have profoundly affected this area.

The Regulatory Context and the 2022 Amendments

Article 444, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure has undergone significant changes with Legislative Decree No. 150 of 2022, which introduced new possibilities for judges regarding accessory penalties in the case of plea bargaining. In particular, the judge can now decide not to apply such penalties or to limit their duration. However, the Court clarified that any clause stipulating the duration and content of accessory administrative sanctions must be considered as not included, as the application of these sanctions is not within the parties' discretion.

The Specific Case and Implications

Art. 444, paragraph 1, Code of Criminal Procedure - Amendment introduced by Art. 25, paragraph 1, letter a), no. 1), Legislative Decree No. 150 of 2022 - Agreement on the application of the accessory administrative sanction - Irrelevance - Reasons - Case law. Regarding plea bargaining, even following the amendment of Art. 444, paragraph 1, Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced by Art. 25, paragraph 1, letter a), no. 1), Legislative Decree of October 10, 2022, No. 150, which provided for the possibility of requesting the judge not to apply accessory penalties or to apply them for a determined duration, the clause determining the content and duration of accessory administrative sanctions must be considered as not included, as their application is not within the parties' discretion. (In the case at hand, the Court deemed the judgment imposing a penalty for the crime of aggravated vehicular homicide due to altered state from alcohol or drug use immune from criticism, wherein the judge, disregarding the agreement of the parties—which provided for the application of a temporary suspension of the driving license—had ordered, ex officio, the more severe sanction of revocation of the driving license, automatically provided for by Art. 222, paragraph 2, of the Traffic Code).

In the case examined, the Court confirmed the legality of the judge's decision to revoke the driving license, despite the agreement between the parties stipulating a less severe sanction. This aspect underscores the importance of protecting public order and road safety, highlighting how the legislator intends to ensure that more severe sanctions are applied in situations of particular gravity, such as in cases of vehicular homicide.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 48556 of 14/11/2023 provides a clear and detailed view of the recent legislative developments regarding plea bargaining and accessory administrative sanctions. It reiterates that, despite the will of the parties, the judge has the power to decide on the severity of sanctions, especially in situations involving public safety. This principle not only reinforces the deterrent function of criminal law but also ensures that decisions are aimed at guaranteeing justice and collective safety.

Bianucci Law Firm