Commentary on Judgment No. 45862 of 2024: Inadmissibility and Monetary Sanctions

The judgment no. 45862 of October 22, 2024, by the Court of Cassation provides important insights regarding the issue of the inadmissibility of appeals and the related monetary sanctions. This provision fits into a complex legal context, where the responsibility of the parties in the process is central and directly affects the quantification of the sanctions themselves.

The Context of the Judgment

In this decision, the Court declared inadmissible an appeal filed by V. S., establishing that the monetary sanction provided for by Article 616 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be applied according to a gradual criterion. This approach takes into account the specific cause of inadmissibility of the appeal, thus reflecting the legislator's intent to prevent procedural abuses.

The Court highlighted that, in cases of inadmissibility due to the fault of the appealing private party, the sanction may be increased up to three times if significant profiles of inadmissibility emerge. This position is consistent with what has been established in previous judgments, such as those of 2017 and 2024, which reaffirmed the importance of a rigorous application of the rule to ensure the integrity of the process.

The Maxim of the Judgment

Inadmissibility - Quantification of the monetary sanction pursuant to Article 616 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Gradual criterion taking into account the cause of inadmissibility of the appeal - Indication. In the case of inadmissibility of the appeal for cassation due to the fault of the appealing private party, the monetary sanction in favor of the fines fund pursuant to Article 616, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be determined based on a gradual criterion, anchored to the reasons for the ruling, with the possibility of increasing it up to three times in cases where the identified profiles of inadmissibility take on significant relevance or attribute to the appeal a "frivolous" nature. (In the reasoning, the Court specified that this last condition exists where the grounds for appeal are based on factual data that are completely contradicted by the procedural reality or, even, non-existent, or in the hypothesis of "abuse of process").

Practical Implications of the Judgment

The practical consequences of this judgment are multiple and deserve attention:

  • Encouragement for greater responsibility on the part of lawyers and the parties involved in the process.
  • Possibility of more severe sanctions in cases of frivolous appeals, to protect the fairness of the process.
  • Clarity in defining the criteria for quantifying sanctions, contributing to greater predictability in legal decisions.

It is essential that lawyers and parties carefully consider the motivations behind an appeal, in order to avoid sanctions that could be burdensome. The Court, with this judgment, has marked an important step towards a fairer and more responsible criminal process.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 45862 of 2024 represents an important reference point for legal practice regarding the inadmissibility of appeals and monetary sanctions. Legal practitioners must pay attention to these indications to ensure the legitimacy of their actions in the appeal process, thus avoiding incurring heavy sanctions and contributing to a fairer and just process.

Bianucci Law Firm