Comment on Judgment No. 37470 of 19/09/2024: Referral to New Role and Absolute Nullity
The recent judgment No. 37470 of September 19, 2024, published by the Court of Cassation, provides an important reflection on some fundamental procedural issues in criminal law. In particular, it addresses the problem related to the postponement of the trial hearing without specifying the date of the new hearing, with significant implications for the validity of the process.
The Referral to New Role and Its Consequences
According to the Court's ruling, the postponement of the hearing to a new role, carried out without specifying the date of the new hearing, implies the obligation to notify the interested party and their defender of the notice of scheduling the same. The violation of this obligation results in the absolute nullity of the act, which cannot be remedied. This applies both in the case of legitimate impediment of the defendant and for any other reason for postponement.
Referral to new role of the hearing - Postponement ordered for reasons other than the legitimate impediment of the defendant - Notice to the parties of the date of scheduling the new hearing - Necessity - Consequences - Omission - Absolute nullity - Case The postponement of the trial hearing to a new role, carried out without specifying the date of the new hearing, entails the obligation to notify the interested party and their defender of the notice of scheduling the same, under penalty of general nullity, absolute and unremediable, both in cases where the postponement was ordered due to the legitimate impediment of the defendant to appear, and in those where it was ordered for any other reason. (Case related to the referral to a new role of the appeal judgment, ordered due to the excessive burden of cases scheduled for discussion in the same hearing).
Regulatory References and Case Law
This ruling cites several articles of the New Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly articles 601, 179, and 178, highlighting the importance of proper communication of the parties in criminal proceedings. The Court, with this decision, reaffirms a principle already established in previous rulings, such as No. 43854 of 2019 and No. 36734 of 2015, which addressed similar issues concerning the nullity of procedural acts due to procedural irregularities.
- Article 601: Postponement of the hearing.
- Article 179: Notifications and communications.
- Article 178: Principles of procedural correctness and clarity.
Conclusions
In conclusion, judgment No. 37470/2024 represents an important clarification regarding procedural postponements in criminal law. It emphasizes the need to ensure proper communication between the parties involved in the process and the consequent invalidity of acts that do not comply with this obligation. This principle not only protects the rights of the defendants and their defenders but also contributes to ensuring the efficiency and transparency of the judicial system.
