Analysis of Judgment No. 1919 of 2024: Appeal and Obligation of Specific Statement of Grounds

The recent judgment no. 1919 of December 10, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, represents an important reflection on the theme of precautionary appeals in the context of personal measures. In this article, we will analyze the implications of this decision, paying particular attention to the obligation of specific statement of the grounds for appeal, as indicated by Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The Context of the Judgment

The Court, chaired by A. Costanzo and with rapporteur E. Calvanese, annulled without referral a decision of the Court of Freedom of Catanzaro, emphasizing the need for a clear and detailed exposition of the grounds for appeal. In particular, the Court highlighted that the precautionary appeal must follow a structure that allows the judge to understand exactly which points of the decision are being contested.

Appeal - Obligation of specific statement of grounds - Existence - Case. The precautionary appeal referred to in Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Code has the structural and instrumental features of ordinary means of appeal, so it must identify the points of the decision subject to criticism and state the grounds of fact and law that are submitted to the appellate judge in specific terms, or at least with a specificity proportional to that of the arguments supporting the challenged provision. (Case concerning a mere reiteration of the original request "de libertate").

The Significance of Specificity in the Grounds for Appeal

The aforementioned maxim clarifies that the appeal cannot be limited to a mere reiteration of what has already been presented in the request phase. It is essential that the appellant indicates the contentious points and provides adequate motivations; otherwise, the judge will not be able to make a correct and complete assessment of the case. This principle is of crucial importance, as it guarantees respect for the right of defense and the correct application of the principle of a fair trial.

  • Obligation of specificity: the grounds must be clear and detailed.
  • Implications for defense: a lack of specificity can compromise the right of defense.
  • Judge's assessment: the judge must have all necessary elements for an informed decision.

Not only the Court of Cassation but also several previous rulings have reiterated this concept, drawing attention to similar cases and the importance of precise formulation of appeals.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 1919 of 2024 represents an important call to order for all legal practitioners. Specificity in the grounds for appeal is not only a formal issue but an essential element to ensure a fair and equitable trial. Lawyers must pay particular attention to this aspect, as imprecise formulation can lead to negative consequences for their clients. Investing time and resources in preparing a well-structured appeal is, therefore, fundamental for the successful outcome of appeals.

Bianucci Law Firm