Commentary on Judgment No. 1187 of 2024: Appeals and Tempus Regit Actum

The recent judgment No. 1187 of November 21, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, has raised significant questions regarding the succession of different provisions concerning appeals. In particular, the Court clarified the application of the principle of "tempus regit actum" in the context of regulatory changes, a crucial aspect for understanding how to handle appeals in the absence of specific transitional provisions.

The Legal Context of the Judgment

The case in question involved M. D., who had filed an appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of Milan. The Court of Appeal had deemed the request to convert the short prison sentence into a monetary penalty inadmissible, justifying this decision by stating that the request had not been submitted by the defendant or by a lawyer with special power of attorney. However, such conditions had been introduced by a legislative decree subsequent to the filing of the appeal.

Succession over time of different provisions in the absence of transitional regulation - Applicable regime - Identification - Case. For the purposes of identifying the applicable regime concerning appeals, where different regulations succeed each other over time and the transition from one to another is not expressly regulated by transitional provisions, the application of the principle "tempus regit actum" requires reference to the moment of issuance of the challenged provision and not to that of the filing of the appeal. (Case in which the Court annulled with referral the decision whereby the appellate judges had deemed inadmissible the request to convert the short prison sentence into a monetary penalty because it did not come from the defendant personally or from a lawyer with special power of attorney, as such conditions were provided by Legislative Decree No. 31 of March 19, 2024, which came into effect after the filing of the appeal).

Analysis of the Judgment

The Court thus applied the principle of "tempus regit actum," establishing that it is the moment of issuance of the challenged provision that determines the applicable legal regime. This principle, of fundamental importance in Italian law, means that the rules in force at the time of the issuance of the provision must be those used to assess the legitimacy of the challenged act.

The implications of this judgment are significant. Firstly, it clarifies that, in the absence of transitional provisions, new rules cannot be applied retroactively. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that the rights of defendants are respected, avoiding situations where a regulatory change could prejudice their legal positions currently under consideration.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 1187 of 2024 offers a clear interpretation of the legal principles concerning appeals and the succession of norms over time. It represents a step forward in protecting the rights of defendants, highlighting the importance of respecting the regulations in force at the time of the issuance of provisions. This jurisprudential orientation could have a significant impact on future cases, underscoring the need for careful evaluation of the applicable rules in appeal contexts.

Bianucci Law Firm