Analysis of Judgment No. 26764 of 2023: Emergency Regulation and Adherence to the Suspension of Defenders

Judgment No. 26764 of April 20, 2023, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides important insights into the emergency regulation introduced during the pandemic and the role of defenders in this context. In particular, the Court emphasizes the lack of effects of requests for adjournments made by defenders who adhere to the suspension proclaimed by professional bodies, unless accompanied by timely requests for oral discussion.

The Context of the Judgment

The Court's decision is set against a backdrop in which the Italian judicial system had to adapt to exceptional circumstances. The pandemic led to the adoption of extraordinary measures, including the holding of hearings in camera and written processing modalities. This context raised questions about the validity of defenders' suspensions and their power to request adjournments.

The Principle of the Judgment

Pandemic emergency regulation - Absence of requests for oral discussion - Hearing held in camera - Defender's adherence to the suspension proclaimed by professional bodies - Relevance - Exclusion - Reasons. In the cassation judgment held under the pandemic emergency regulation, in the absence of timely requests for oral discussion, the request for adjournment presented by the defender declaring adherence to the collective suspension proclaimed by the competent professional bodies is ineffective, as the applicant does not have the right to participate in the in-camera hearing. (In its reasoning, the Court clarified that an adjournment can only be granted in relation to acts or obligations for which the presence of the defender is required, and therefore, in the case of written processing, additional circumstances such as the deadline for submitting conclusions or whether this deadline falls within the suspension period remain entirely irrelevant for the acceptance of the request).

The Implications of the Judgment

This judgment clarifies that, in the emergency context, the defender's right to participate is limited. In fact, the Court highlighted that the request for adjournment made by defenders is not valid if the request modalities are not respected. This leads to considering the importance of timely planning and communication in criminal proceedings.

  • Adjournments for reasons of suspension cannot be accepted without a request for oral discussion.
  • The participation of the defender is essential for the validity of adjournment requests.
  • The modalities of written processing do not allow for invoking additional circumstances in favor of the adjournment.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 26764 of 2023 represents an important clarification for lawyers and legal practitioners, highlighting the necessity of a solid defense strategy even in emergency situations. It is essential that defenders are aware of the limitations imposed by emergency regulations and plan their actions to ensure maximum protection of their clients' rights. Jurisprudence continues to evolve, and this requires constant updates to legal practices.

Bianucci Law Firm