Comment on Judgment No. 47016 of 2024: Archiving and Malfunctioning of the Telecommunication System

The judgment No. 47016 of November 6, 2024, issued by the Court, focused on a crucial issue in criminal proceedings: the request for archiving in situations of malfunctioning of the telecommunication system. The decision of the preliminary investigations judge, who declared the request for archiving for "unknown serial offenders" submitted in analog format inadmissible, raised questions about the legitimacy and actions of the judiciary in such circumstances.

The Context of the Judgment

The case began when the Public Prosecutor, due to a temporary malfunction of the "APP" system, submitted a request for archiving in analog form. The judge, however, deemed it unacceptable to accept such a submission, arguing that the violation of the obligation to deposit electronically was sufficient to declare the request inadmissible. This decision was contested and led to the intervention of the Court.

Request for archiving for “unknown serial offenders” submitted in analog format and not electronically due to the certificate of temporary malfunctioning of the “APP” system - Order of inadmissibility by the preliminary investigations judge - Structural and functional abnormality - Existence. Regarding archiving, it is abnormal, as adopted in the absence of power and causing procedural stagnation, the order by which the preliminary investigations judge declares inadmissible the request for archiving of a proceeding relating to so-called "unknown serial offenders", submitted in analog format and not electronically, based on the certificate from the Public Prosecutor of temporary malfunctioning of the “APP” system. (In motivation, the Court specified that no provision grants the preliminary investigations judge the power to declare the request for archiving inadmissible or to declare the analog submission of the request unreceivable, constituting the violation of the obligation of electronic submission, as provided by art. 111-bis of the criminal procedure code, a mere irregularity, which does not determine the non-existence of the act).

The Implications of the Decision

The Court highlighted that the act of declaring the request for archiving inadmissible, solely because it was submitted in analog form, represents an abuse of power that causes an unjustified procedural stagnation. It is essential that the legal system adapts and responds to the technical difficulties that may arise during investigations.

  • The judge does not have the power to declare an analog submission unreceivable.
  • The violation of the rules on electronic submission is considered a mere irregularity.
  • The safeguarding of the rights of the investigated individuals and the parties involved must remain a priority, even in cases of technical malfunctions.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 47016 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the protection of rights in criminal proceedings. It reaffirms the principle that procedural irregularities should not compromise the effectiveness and regularity of the process itself. It is essential that institutions, particularly the judiciary, operate under the banner of justice, respecting the rules and ensuring the correct administration of justice even in situations of technical difficulty.

Bianucci Law Firm