Judgment No. 19376 of 2023: Postponement and Chamber Procedure in Emergency Regulation

The judgment No. 19376 of 2023 from the Court of Appeal of Rome provides important clarifications on the management of hearings during an emergency period, such as that caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. In particular, it focuses on the consequences of the late oral hearing request submitted by the defendant's counsel and the validity of the postponement of the hearing.

The Regulatory Context and the Chamber Procedure

The judgment is situated within an emergency regulatory context, in which Decree-Law 28/10/2020 No. 137 introduced extraordinary measures for containing the epidemic. In this scenario, the trial was held according to a chamber procedure, which provides for simplified and, at times, non-participatory handling. The judge established that, in the event of a postponement of the trial, there is no nullity even if the request for an oral hearing was submitted beyond the established deadlines.

The Focal Point of the Judgment

Emergency regulation for the containment of the Covid-19 pandemic - Late request for oral hearing - Postponement of the hearing - Celebration of the trial according to the chamber procedure introduced by emergency regulation - Nullity - Exclusion. In the appeal trial, under the emergency regulations for the containment of the Covid-19 pandemic, where the counsel has submitted the request for an oral hearing beyond the deadline of fifteen clear days before the scheduled hearing for the trial, the conduct of the same with a non-participatory chamber procedure, in the case of postponement of the trial, is not affected by nullity, as the postponement is not suitable for allowing the recovery of a late request.

The Court clarified that the absence of nullity in the case of postponement of the hearing is crucial to ensure the functionality of the judicial system during a health crisis. This decision emphasizes the importance of timeliness in the submission of requests by counsel, but also acknowledges the practical difficulties that may arise in an emergency context.

Conclusions

In summary, judgment No. 19376/2023 represents an important legal precedent in the context of managing hearings during the pandemic. It not only clarifies the procedures for conducting trials but also highlights the need for a flexible and pragmatic approach by the judicial system. The distinction between nullity and validity of late requests is crucial to ensuring the right to defense and the proper administration of justice, even in extraordinary situations.

Bianucci Law Firm