Commentary on Judgment No. 44096 of 2024: Referral to Trial and Procedural Abnormality

Judgment No. 44096 of November 7, 2024, published on December 3, 2024, provides an important reflection on the procedural dynamics related to the referral to trial for offenses provided for in Article 73, paragraph 5, of the Presidential Decree No. 309 of 1990. In particular, the Court of Cassation highlighted the abnormality of an order issued by the preliminary hearing judge, who mistakenly ordered the return of the documents to the public prosecutor after the amendment of the maximum penalty, leading to a crucial decision regarding the legitimacy of the actions taken in the process.

The Regulatory Context and Legislative Amendment

The offense referred to in Article 73, paragraph 5, of the Presidential Decree No. 309/1990 concerns violations related to narcotic substances. The recent amendment introduced by Law Decree No. 123 of 2023, converted by Law No. 159 of 2023, raised the maximum penalty for this offense to five years of imprisonment. This amendment has a direct impact on the management of requests for referral to trial and on the subsequent decisions made by the judiciary.

The Crucial Point of the Judgment

Request for referral to trial for the offense referred to in Article 73, paragraph 5, of Presidential Decree No. 309 of 1990 following the entry into force of Law Decree No. 123 of 2023, converted with amendments by Law No. 159 of 2023 - Transmission of documents to the public prosecutor for the issuance of the summons to trial - Abnormality - Existence. The order issued by the preliminary hearing judge, tasked with the request for referral to trial for the offense referred to in Article 73, paragraph 5, of Presidential Decree No. 309 of October 9, 1990, submitted after the amendment introduced by Article 4 of Law Decree No. 123 of September 15, 2023, converted with amendments by Law No. 159 of November 13, 2023, which raised the maximum penalty to five years of imprisonment, is abnormal as it erroneously orders the return of the documents to the public prosecutor to proceed with direct summons to trial.

The Court deemed that the order in question was abnormal, as it was contrary to the legal provisions governing the criminal procedure. The error of the preliminary hearing judge led to a violation of procedural guarantees, which could have significant effects on the defendant's right to defense.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 44096 of 2024 emphasizes the importance of a strict application of procedural rules and the necessity for judges to operate in compliance with recent legislative amendments. Mistakes in managing requests for referral to trial risk not only compromising the criminal process but also undermining trust in the entire legal system. This case serves as a warning for legal practitioners and judges to pay utmost attention to regulatory developments and to always ensure the respect of the fundamental rights of defendants.

Bianucci Law Firm