Commentary on Judgment No. 24260 of 2023: The Guarantees in the Police Chief's Order

Judgment No. 24260 of April 28, 2023, filed on June 6, 2023, offers important insights into the rights of defense and administrative proceedings related to sporting events. In particular, the Court addressed the issue of the validation of the Police Chief's order, highlighting the relevance of procedural deadlines and their influence on the right of defense of the parties involved.

The Case and the Role of the Police Chief

The Police Chief's order, in this case, falls within the context of preventive measures related to sporting events, as established by Law No. 401 of December 13, 1989. The Court annulled and remanded the previous decision of the Preliminary Investigating Judge, emphasizing that the failure to indicate the time of filing of the ordinance does not necessarily lead to the annulment of the measure, provided that it can be verified that the dilatory terms were respected.

  • Reference to Law No. 401/1989 on the prohibition of disturbances in the conduct of sporting events.
  • Importance of the dilatory term of 48 hours for the validation of the order.
  • Possibility of verifying "ex actis" compliance with the deadlines.

The Reference Maxim

Disturbances in the conduct of sporting events - Police Chief's order - Validation - Failure to indicate the time of filing - Dilatory term of 48 hours provided under penalty of nullity - Possibility of verifying compliance "ex actis" - Existence. Regarding the validation of the Police Chief's order pursuant to Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2, Law No. 401 of December 13, 1989, the failure to indicate the time of filing of the ordinance does not lead to the annulment of the measure, where it is possible to ascertain from the records that the Preliminary Investigating Judge has respected the dilatory term of 48 hours from the notification of the administrative measure to the interested party, prescribed, under penalty of nullity, to protect the effective exercise of the right of defense.

This maxim highlights how adherence to procedures is crucial not only for the validity of the measures adopted but also for ensuring the right of defense of the parties involved. In particular, the 48-hour term represents a fundamental safeguard for the effective exercise of rights, preventing decisions from being made in a hurried or arbitrary manner.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 24260 of 2023 represents an important reference for all legal practitioners, particularly for those dealing with criminal and administrative law. It reiterates the importance of procedural deadlines and their correct application, emphasizing how their violation can compromise the right of defense. In an era where the protection of fundamental rights is at the center of legal debate, this decision stands as a bulwark in defense of individual guarantees, inviting broader reflection on how procedures must always respect the principles of justice and legality.

Bianucci Law Firm