Analysis of Judgment No. 3087 of 2024: Nullity and Interrogation in Criminal Proceedings

Judgment No. 3087 of October 30, 2024, published on January 27, 2025, provides important clarifications regarding the nullity of the request for trial adjournment following an interrogation not conducted in accordance with current regulations. This ruling by the Court of Cassation fits within a legal context that is constantly evolving, where the adaptation to new communication methods in criminal proceedings plays a crucial role.

The Case and the Regulatory Context

In the case at hand, the accused had submitted a request for interrogation through unauthorized means, specifically via PEC, instead of through filing in the electronic trial portal (PPT), as provided by the transitional regulations set out in Article 87, paragraph 6-bis, Legislative Decree No. 150 of October 10, 2022. This irregularity led to the declaration of nullity of the request for trial adjournment.

The Court clarified that such a declaration of nullity cannot be considered abnormal, as the regression of the procedure does not result in a standstill of the trial itself. In fact, the public prosecutor has the opportunity to reconsider the exercise of criminal action once the interrogation has been conducted in accordance with the law.

Legal Principles Underlying the Judgment

Article 415-bis of the Criminal Procedure Code - Request for interrogation submitted by the accused in an unauthorized manner - Declaration of nullity of the request for trial adjournment due to failure to conduct the interrogation - Abnormality - Exclusion - Reasons - Case. The declaration of nullity of the request for trial adjournment due to failure to conduct the interrogation requested in an unauthorized manner is not abnormal, since the consequent regression of the procedure does not entail any standstill, as the public prosecutor can once again determine the exercise of criminal action following the prescribed interrogation. (Case in which the interrogation was requested by the accused via PEC instead of through filing in the electronic trial portal (PPT), as provided by the transitional regulations set out in Article 87, paragraph 6-bis, Legislative Decree No. 150 of October 10, 2022, in relation to Article 111-bis of the Criminal Procedure Code).

This maxim highlights the importance of following the procedures established by the legislator to ensure the proper conduct of the trial. The Court has therefore reaffirmed the centrality of communication methods in criminal proceedings and the importance of adhering to them to guarantee fundamental rights, such as the right to defense.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 3087 of 2024 represents an important precedent for future applications of criminal procedural law. It emphasizes the importance of following the legal provisions regarding the methods of submitting requests and complying with procedures, without which the trial risks losing its effectiveness and fairness. It is essential that legal practitioners and the accused strictly adhere to current regulations to avoid situations of nullity that could compromise the entire criminal proceeding.

Bianucci Law Firm