Commentary on Judgment No. 28558 of 2024: Extinction of the Offense and Legal Costs

The recent judgment no. 28558 of July 2, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides important insights on the management of legal costs in cases of extinction of the offense due to statute of limitations. What emerges is a crucial clarification: the first-instance judge cannot order the defendant to reimburse the legal costs incurred by the civil party if they have not ordered compensation for damages. This principle is based on Article 541 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which establishes specific prerequisites for such an order.

The Legal Context of the Judgment

The Court's decision is based on a strict interpretation of procedural rules. The judge annulled the order for costs without referral, emphasizing that the extinction of the offense due to statute of limitations cannot automatically create an obligation to reimburse legal costs in favor of the civil party, unless there has been a ruling for compensation. This aspect is fundamental to ensuring fairness and justice in the proceedings, protecting the rights of all parties involved.

Extinction of the offense declared by the first-instance judge in the absence of a ruling for compensation for damages - Order for costs in favor of the civil party - Legitimacy - Exclusion - Reasons. The first-instance judge who declares the extinction of the offense due to the statute of limitations cannot order the defendant to reimburse the legal costs incurred by the constituted civil party, if they do not order compensation for damages in favor of the latter, as the provision of Article 541 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicates, as a prerequisite for such a ruling, the acceptance of the request for restitution or compensation for damages.

Implications for Civil Parties

This judgment has direct implications for civil parties who decide to join a criminal trial. Here are some key points to consider:

  • The necessity to demonstrate the existence of damage in order to request compensation.
  • The non-automatic nature of the order for costs simply for being a civil party.
  • The crucial role of the judge in assessing whether the prerequisites for compensation exist.

In this context, civil parties must be aware that the absence of a ruling for compensation for damages may result in the loss of the right to reimbursement of legal costs, a significant aspect in complex litigation situations.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 28558 of 2024 represents an important step forward in clarifying the rules concerning the extinction of the offense and legal costs. It emphasizes the need for a balanced approach, in which the right to compensation and the order for costs are closely linked. For civil parties, it is essential to carefully assess their position and the legal strategy to adopt, to avoid incurring unnecessary costs in the absence of a ruling for compensation for damages.

Bianucci Law Firm