Commentary on Judgment No. 28912 of 2024: Inadmissibility and Domicile in the Appeal to the Supreme Court

The recent judgment No. 28912, issued by the Supreme Court on May 7, 2024, offers reflections on a crucial topic in criminal law: the admissibility of the appeal to the Supreme Court in relation to the inadmissibility orders issued by the appellate judge. In particular, the Court reiterated the importance of the declaration or election of domicile by the defendant, emphasizing how its absence can jeopardize the possibility of challenging the order.

The Context of the Judgment

The case at hand concerns M. A., who was declared inadmissible in his appeal due to the lack of a declaration of domicile. The Court of Appeal of Bologna, with an order dated September 18, 2023, declared the inadmissibility "de plano," a decision that subsequently led to the request for cassation by the defendant's public defender. Here, Article 581, paragraph 1-quater, of the code of criminal procedure comes into play, which applies also to inadmissibility orders, not limited solely to judgments.

Analysis of the Maxim

ADMISSIBILITY AND INADMISSIBILITY - Art. 581, paragraph 1-quater, code of criminal procedure - Applicability to the appeal to the Supreme Court against the inadmissibility order pronounced "de plano" by the appellate judge due to the absence of the declaration or election of domicile - Existence. Regarding appeals, Article 581, paragraph 1-quater, code of criminal procedure also applies in cases where the public defender of the defendant judged in absence appeals to the Supreme Court against the inadmissibility order of the appeal pronounced "de plano" for the failure to attach the declaration or election of domicile of the defendant. (In its reasoning, the Court deemed irrelevant that Article 581, paragraph 1-quater, code of criminal procedure makes exclusive reference to the appeal of judgments, since the order in question, issued pursuant to Article 591, paragraph 2, code of criminal procedure, has, like judgments, a definitive character in the knowledge trial).

This maxim highlights the importance of a correct procedure in presenting the appeal, emphasizing that the absence of the declaration of domicile is not just a mere formality, but an essential requirement for the legitimacy of the appeal itself. The Court thus clarified that the lack of such a document cannot be considered irrelevant, underscoring the necessity to comply with procedural rules.

The Implications of the Judgment

The decision of the Supreme Court has several practical implications:

  • It reinforces the importance of the declaration of domicile in the appeal process, making it an indispensable requirement.
  • It clarifies the role of the public defender, who must ensure compliance with procedures even in the absence of the defendant.
  • It reiterates that the inadmissibility order carries the same legal weight as a judgment and therefore deserves adequate consideration in appeals.

These considerations are fundamental for lawyers and professionals in the field, as they highlight the need for careful preparation and verification of documentation before proceeding with the appeal.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 28912 of 2024 represents an important point of reference for jurisprudence in matters of appeals in criminal law. The Supreme Court has clarified that the lack of a declaration of domicile can compromise the defendant's right to challenge the decisions of the appellate judge. This reinforces the importance of a well-structured defense and adequate preparation by lawyers, thus emphasizing the value of procedural rules in ensuring a fair trial.

Bianucci Law Firm