The Judgment No. 28455 of 2024 on Territorial Jurisdiction: An In-Depth Analysis

The judgment no. 28455 of June 11, 2024, from the Court of Cassation provides an important reflection on the exceptions of territorial incompetence within the context of precautionary orders. This ruling fits within a constantly evolving legal landscape, where precision in the application of norms becomes crucial to ensure effective and timely justice.

The Regulatory Context and the Judgment

The Court declared the appeal for cassation regarding a precautionary order inadmissible, establishing that the violation of territorial competence rules cannot constitute grounds for appeal unless such violation was raised in the review proceedings. This principle is of fundamental importance, as it signals the need for adequate timeliness in raising exceptions.

Precautionary order - Exception of incompetence for territory - Deduction for the first time with the appeal for cassation - Admissibility - Exclusion - Reasons. The violation of territorial competence rules by the judge who issued the precautionary order cannot constitute grounds for cassation appeal if such violation has not been raised in the review proceedings, as it is precluded for the legitimacy judge to decide on violations of law that cannot be detected ex officio, the factual prerequisites of which have not already been examined by the merits judges. (In its reasoning, the Court specified that the principle is further confirmed by the introduction, by art. 4, legislative decree of October 10, 2022, no. 15, of the mechanism of preliminary referral under art. 24-bis of the code of criminal procedure, which allows for an early and binding ruling on territorial jurisdiction, thus avoiding the risk of unnecessary multiple levels of judgment due to the erroneous determination of such jurisdiction).

The Implications of the Judgment

The decision of the Court of Cassation has important practical implications for legal practitioners. Here are some key points:

  • Clarity on the need to raise exceptions of incompetence during the review phase;
  • Inability to raise such exceptions for the first time in cassation;
  • Reference to the new mechanism of preliminary referral, which allows for an early ruling on territorial jurisdiction.

These aspects not only clarify the path to follow in case of disputes regarding jurisdiction but also curb possible abuses of the process that could arise from improper use of exceptions.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 28455 of 2024 represents an important step towards greater legal certainty regarding territorial jurisdiction. The Court of Cassation reiterated the necessity of adhering to certain procedures to ensure the effectiveness of judicial decisions. Lawyers and professionals in the field must pay attention to these provisions to avoid risks when faced with similar situations.

Bianucci Law Firm