Analysis of Judgment No. 1759 of 2024: Abnormality in the Rejection of the Request for Penal Decree of Condemnation

Judgment No. 1759 of November 18, 2024, filed on January 15, 2025, represents an important ruling in the field of criminal law, particularly regarding the powers of the public prosecutor and the procedures for issuing a penal decree of condemnation. In this article, we will examine the reasons that led to the declaration of abnormality of the decision by the preliminary investigations judge, providing a clear and understandable analysis of the matter.

The Context of the Judgment

In the case examined, the Preliminary Investigations Judge (GIP) of the Bari Court rejected a second request for the issuance of a penal decree of condemnation, arguing that the first unaffirmed request had exhausted the powers of the public prosecutor to exercise criminal action. However, the Court established that such a ruling is to be considered abnormal.

Preliminary investigations judge - Rejection of a second request for the issuance of a penal decree of condemnation - Abnormality - Existence - Reasons. The ruling by the preliminary investigations judge rejecting a second request for the issuance of a penal decree of condemnation on the grounds that the previously submitted, unaffirmed request has consumed the powers of the public prosecutor to exercise criminal action is abnormal, since, as a result of the regression of the proceedings to the preliminary investigation phase, the latter is reinstated in the entirety of the powers conferred upon him by Articles 405 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning the exercise of the same and its modalities.

The Implications of the Judgment

The Court clarified that, in the event of a regression of the proceedings to the preliminary investigation phase, the public prosecutor recovers all powers conferred by law. This means that they cannot be limited by previous decisions, such as the rejection of the first request for a penal decree of condemnation. This principle is fundamental to ensure the effectiveness of criminal action and to prevent a rejection ruling from hindering further initiatives by the public prosecutor.

Regulatory and Jurisprudential References

The Court's decision is based on various articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in particular:

  • Art. 405: Regulates the exercise of criminal action.
  • Art. 459: Governs appealable decisions.
  • Art. 50: Concerns the modalities of exercising criminal action.

Furthermore, the ruling is consistent with other jurisprudential decisions, such as those from the United Sections, which have reiterated the importance of a flexible interpretation of the rules concerning criminal action.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 1759 of 2024 represents a significant step in defining the limits and prerogatives of the public prosecutor during preliminary investigations. It underscores the importance of ensuring adequate protection of criminal action, preventing abnormal decisions from obstructing the proper conduct of the trial. Legal professionals must pay attention to such jurisprudential developments, as they can have significant repercussions on defense strategy and the effectiveness of criminal action.

Bianucci Law Firm