Judgment No. 26805 of 2024: Nullity and Competence of Honorary Justices of the Peace in the Court of Review

The Italian legal system relies on strict rules to ensure the proper administration of justice, especially when it comes to precautionary measures and criminal proceedings. The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation, No. 26805 of May 29, 2024, provides important insights into the competence of honorary justices of the peace in the context of the court of review. In particular, it addresses the issue of the nullity of orders issued by such justices and the legal consequences of that nullity.

The Regulatory Context

The main issue addressed in this ruling is the limitation on the use of honorary justices of the peace in the panels of the court of review, regulated by Article 12 of Legislative Decree No. 116 of July 13, 2017. This decree clearly establishes that honorary justices cannot be assigned to make up the review panel in criminal matters. This provision aims to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the criminal process, preventing significant decisions, such as those regarding precautionary measures, from being influenced by inadequately qualified jurisdictions.

The Principle of the Judgment

Honorary justices of the peace - Criminal competence - Assignment to the review panel - Nullity - Reasons - Precautionary measure - Effectiveness - Case. The non-derogable prohibition of assigning the honorary justice of the peace to the panels of the court of review, introduced by Article 12 of Legislative Decree No. 116 of July 13, 2017, imposes a limitation on the judge's capacity under Article 33 of the Criminal Procedure Code, whose violation is grounds for absolute nullity under Article 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (Case concerning an order issued in the review phase by a panel also composed of an honorary justice of the peace, in which the Court specified that the provision, although affected by nullity, could not be considered nonexistent, so that, if intervened within ten days from the receipt of the acts referred to in Article 324, paragraph 5, of the Criminal Procedure Code, the precautionary measure adopted with it retained its effectiveness).

This principle emphasizes the importance of the correct composition of the review panel and the consequences arising from the violation of the rule. Even if an order issued by an illegitimate panel is affected by nullity, the Court clarified that such provision is not considered nonexistent. This means that if the interested party files an appeal within ten days from the receipt of the acts, the precautionary measure taken retains its effectiveness.

Practical Implications of the Judgment

  • Clarity on competencies: The ruling clarifies that honorary justices of the peace cannot be involved in sensitive proceedings such as the review, thus ensuring greater legal certainty.
  • Effects of nullities: Even rulings affected by nullity can have practical effects, provided that certain deadlines for filing appeals are respected.
  • Protection of rights: The decision contributes to protecting the rights of defendants, ensuring that precautionary measures are taken by judges with adequate competence and training.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 26805 of 2024 marks a significant step in protecting the rights of defendants and safeguarding the correctness of the criminal process. The rigidity of the rules regarding the composition of the panels of the court of review not only reflects a commitment to justice but also offers greater legal certainty. It is essential that all legal practitioners are aware of such rulings to ensure an effective and correct application of the rules.

Bianucci Law Firm