Commentary on Judgment No. 3824 of 2024: Archiving and Computer Malfunctions

The recent judgment no. 3824 of October 17, 2024, filed on January 30, 2025, has generated considerable interest in the field of criminal law, particularly regarding archiving procedures. On this occasion, the GIP of the Court of L'Aquila declared the request for archiving in a case involving "unknown serial offenders" inadmissible, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the methods of filing documents and the consequences of any computer malfunctions.

The Context of the Judgment

The case in question concerns a request for archiving submitted in analog format, not electronically, due to a certificate of malfunction of the "APP" computer system issued by the head of the judicial office. The GIP deemed that the decree of inadmissibility was not abnormal, as it was not adopted in the absence of power and did not cause an irreparable procedural standstill. This point is crucial, as it clarifies how the method of filing documents can influence the course of the proceedings.

Request for archiving in a case concerning "unknown serial offenders" - Filing in analog format and not electronically - Malfunction of the "APP" computer system certified by the head of the judicial office - Judge's decree of inadmissibility - Abnormality - Exclusion - Reasons. Regarding archiving, the decree by which the judge declares the request concerning the proceeding related to "unknown serial offenders," filed in analog format and not electronically, inadmissible based on the certificate of malfunction of the "APP" computer system by the Public Prosecutor's Office is not abnormal, as it is a measure not adopted in the absence of power and does not cause an irreparable procedural standstill. (In the motivation, the Court clarified that the return of documents does not prevent the public prosecutor from reiterating the request for archiving, and no nullity arises if it is late with respect to the deadline set for the closure of preliminary investigations).

Implications of the Judgment

The consequences of this decision are manifold and have a direct impact on judicial practice. In particular, it is essential to emphasize that:

  • The public prosecutor has the opportunity to reiterate the request for archiving even after the return of the documents, thus avoiding situations of procedural standstill.
  • The malfunction of the computer system does not in itself justify nullity of the request, provided that the form required by law is respected.
  • Adhering to the methods of filing documents is essential to ensure proper management of the criminal proceedings.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 3824 of 2024 provides significant insights into the management of requests for archiving in an increasingly digitalized context. The importance of proper formalization of documents and adequate management of information technologies emerges as central themes for the future of criminal justice. It is crucial that all legal practitioners understand these dynamics to ensure effective administration of justice.

Bianucci Law Firm