Commentary on Judgment No. 44361 of 2024: Nullity of the Chamber Procedure During Pandemic

Judgment No. 44361 of October 24, 2024, filed on December 4, 2024, provides important clarifications on the validity of criminal procedures in an emergency context, such as that of the Covid-19 pandemic. In particular, the Court of Cassation rules on the nullity of the appeal trial conducted with a non-participated chamber procedure, highlighting the right to defense as a fundamental principle of criminal proceedings.

The Context of the Judgment

The decision is set against the backdrop of the emergency legislation introduced to address the pandemic. The Court examined a case where the defendant's lawyer had made a timely request for an oral hearing, a right provided for by Article 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the trial was held with a chamber procedure, without the presence of the lawyer, constituting a violation of the right to defense.

The Principle of the Judgment

Pandemic emergency regulation - Timely request from the lawyer for an oral hearing - Trial held with a non-participated chamber procedure - Absolute and incurable nullity - Existence - Reasons. In terms of appeal judgment, under the emergency regulation for containing the Covid-19 pandemic, where the defendant's lawyer has submitted a formal and timely request for an oral hearing, the conduct of the trial with a non-participated chamber procedure takes place according to a procedural model that is completely different from the one chosen, with the absence of the lawyer in a case where their presence is mandatory, thus resulting in an absolute and incurable nullity under the effects of Article 179, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Implications of the Judgment

The Court's ruling highlights how the absence of the lawyer in a criminal trial, especially during a health emergency, compromises the defendant's right to defense. It is essential that every trial respects procedural guarantees, and the decision of the Court of Cassation emphasizes that deviations from such principles cannot be tolerated, even in extraordinary situations.

  • Principle of the right to defense: fundamental and non-derogable.
  • Strict application of procedural rules: necessary to ensure fairness.
  • Emergency context: cannot justify violations of rights.

The judgment is part of a jurisprudential trend that recognizes the importance of the lawyer's presence as a guarantee of a fair trial, maintaining a balance between public safety needs and fundamental rights.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 44361 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the protection of defendants' rights, reaffirming that emergencies cannot undermine the right to defense. It is essential for lawyers and legal professionals to keep this ruling in mind, as it serves as a warning for future procedures, ensuring that fundamental rights are always upheld, even in crisis situations.

Bianucci Law Firm