Commentary on Judgment No. 47271 of 2024: Rescission of the Judgment and Knowledge of the Process

The recent judgment No. 47271 of October 22, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important insights on the theme of rescission of the judgment in relation to the knowledge of the process by the defendant. The Court annulled with referral a decision of the Court of Appeal of Turin, emphasizing the need to distinguish between the mere appointment of a defender and the actual knowledge of the criminal proceedings.

The Context of the Judgment

The central issue concerned a proceeding originated from a complaint filed by the spouse of the defendant, E. P.M. Marzagalli Cristina. Specifically, the Court had to evaluate whether the appointment of a trusted defender, followed by the resignation of the mandate before the "vocatio in iudicium," could be considered as proof of the actual knowledge of the process by the defendant.

Rescission of the judgment - Proceedings originated from the complaint of the spouse - Appointment of a trusted defender - Resignation of the mandate before the “vocatio in iudicium” - Actual knowledge of the process - Nonexistence - Blameworthy negligence - Irrelevance. In terms of rescission of the judgment, the knowledge of the proceedings, initiated following the spouse's complaint, and the subsequent appointment of a trusted defender, followed by their resignation before the "vocatio in iudicium," do not meet the requirements of the actual knowledge of the process by the defendant nor can they establish a judgment of blameworthy negligence on the part of the same.

Analysis of the Maxim

The maxim expressed by the Court of Cassation clarifies that knowledge of the proceedings cannot be taken for granted solely based on the appointment of a defender. This is a crucial aspect, as the Court emphasized that the mere existence of a lawyer does not necessarily imply that the defendant was aware of the specific dynamics of the process. The resignation of the mandate by the defender before the court summons is an element that, according to the Cassation, cannot be considered an indication of culpable responsibility on the part of the defendant.

In this context, it is important to highlight that the concept of "actual knowledge" falls within a broader scope, in which the rights of defense and procedural guarantees must be considered. The Court also referenced articles of the penal code and the code of criminal procedure, highlighting how the current legislation protects the defendant from situations of uncertainty and confusion related to their procedural position.

Practical Implications for Defendants

This judgment has significant implications for defendants and their defenders. It is essential that every defendant is always informed and aware of the status of their criminal proceedings. To this end, legal defenses must ensure clear and timely communication with their clients. Among the practical considerations arising from the judgment, we can list:

  • The necessity of clear communication between lawyer and client regarding the status of the process.
  • The importance of verifying that the defendant has truly understood the phases of the proceedings.
  • The protection of defense rights as a cornerstone principle for the proper administration of justice.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 47271 of 2024 of the Court of Cassation represents an important step in the protection of the rights of defendants, emphasizing how the mere appointment of a defender cannot be sufficient to consider a defendant informed and aware of their procedural positions. The distinction between knowledge and responsibility is fundamental, and defenders must play an active role in ensuring that their clients are adequately informed and protected throughout the process. With this decision, the Court reaffirms the importance of a fair and transparent process, in which each defendant can fully exercise their right to defense.

Bianucci Law Firm