Judgment no. 25935 of 2024: the inadmissibility of the appeal for the fugitive

The judgment no. 25935 of April 16, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers an important reflection regarding the admissibility of appeals, particularly in the case of absent defendants declared fugitives. With this decision, the Court reaffirms the necessity of adhering to certain formal requirements, emphasizing the crucial role of the defense attorney in ensuring the right to defense, even when the defendant is not present.

The legal context of the ruling

The Court declared inadmissible the appeal presented by the defendant R. B., who was a fugitive at the time of the hearing. The decision is based on Article 581, paragraph 1-quater, of the code of criminal procedure, which establishes that the defense attorney must file a specific mandate for the appeal, including a declaration or election of domicile. According to the Court, this provision also applies in the case of absent defendants declared fugitives.

ADMISSIBILITY AND INADMISSIBILITY - Art. 581, paragraph 1-quater, code of criminal procedure - Applicability to the absent defendant declared fugitive - Existence - Reasons. Regarding appeals, Art. 581, paragraph 1-quater, code of criminal procedure, according to which the defense attorney must file, under penalty of inadmissibility, the specific mandate to appeal containing the declaration or election of domicile, also applies to the absent defendant who has been declared a fugitive, as no compression of the right to defense can be configured, since the fugitive is not legally unable to maintain contact with their defense attorney in order to agree on defense strategies.

Implications for the right to defense

This ruling has important implications for the right to defense. The Court of Cassation clarified that although a defendant may be in a state of flight, this does not imply that they cannot interact with their defense attorney. In fact, the fugitive has the possibility to maintain contact and discuss defense strategies, which means that their absence cannot be used as an excuse to justify potential noncompliance by the defense attorney.

  • The defense attorney must be diligent and comply with legal deadlines.
  • Fugitive status does not exclude the possibility of communication with the defense attorney.
  • Compliance with procedures is essential to ensure the admissibility of appeals.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 25935 of 2024 represents an important reminder of the observance of procedural rules in the context of appeals. It clarifies that, even in situations of absence and flight, the right to defense must be protected through strict adherence to the procedures established by law. Lawyers and defenders must be aware of these responsibilities to ensure that the rights of their clients are always safeguarded.

Bianucci Law Firm