• via Alberto da Giussano, 26, 20145 Milano
  • +39 02 4003 1253
  • info@studiolegalebianucci.it
  • Criminal Lawyer, Family Lawyer, Divorce Lawyer

Commentary on the Judgment of the Court of Cassation, Criminal Section III, No. 6218 of 2018: Reflections on Drug Offenses and Favoritism

The judgment No. 6218 of 2018 by the Supreme Court of Cassation offers significant insights regarding the offenses provided for by Presidential Decree No. 309 of 1990 and the application of grounds for non-punishment. In particular, the Court examined the positions of G.L. and Ga.Ra.Ma.Fr., involved in drug-related offenses and favoritism, respectively. The decision highlights the importance of adjusting penalties to new legislative provisions and jurisprudential interpretations.

The Case of G.L. and the Redefinition of Penalty

G.L. was convicted for the offense referred to in Article 73, paragraph 5, of Presidential Decree No. 309/1990, an offense that, following legislative amendments, has seen its legal nature transformed into an autonomous title. This change led to new, more favorable sentencing limits, with a minimum of six months and a maximum of four years of imprisonment. However, the Court of Appeal of Messina did not proceed with a redefinition of the penalty, thus violating the principle of lex mitior, which requires the application of the most favorable penal treatment in the event of regulatory changes.

  • The defendant's right to be judged according to the most favorable law, as established by Article 2 of the Criminal Code, paragraph 4.
  • The necessity to reassess punitive measures in light of the principles of equality and proportionality.
  • The duty to adequately justify the imposed penalty, especially in the absence of aggravating circumstances.
The rehabilitative purpose of the penalty requires a thorough evaluation of regulatory changes and mitigating circumstances.

The Case of Ga.Ra.Ma.Fr. and the Concept of Family

Regarding Ga.Ra.Ma.Fr., the central issue was the application of the cause for non-punishment provided for by Article 384 of the Criminal Code for favoritism. The Court recognized that the notion of family has broadened to also include de facto unions, in line with social evolution and the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. The Emonet ruling of 2007 established that the notion of family is not limited to marriage but includes stable de facto relationships.

This legal aspect is fundamental, as it recognizes the value of non-formalized affective relationships, a principle that has been further reaffirmed by Italian jurisprudence. The Court therefore annulled the judgment of the Court of Appeal, considering that the possibility of applying the cause for non-punishment for Ga.Ra.Ma.Fr. had not been adequately considered.

Conclusions

The judgment of the Court of Cassation, Criminal Section III, No. 6218 of 2018 marks an important step in Italian jurisprudence regarding drug offenses and favoritism. It emphasizes the importance of a correct and updated application of penal norms, particularly in a continuously evolving legal context. With the annulment of the contested judgment and the referral to the Court of Appeal of Reggio Calabria, a new assessment of penalties based on the most recent legal principles and social evolutions that influence the concept of family is opened.