• via Alberto da Giussano, 26, 20145 Milano
  • +39 02 4003 1253
  • info@studiolegalebianucci.it
  • Criminal Lawyer, Family Lawyer, Divorce Lawyer

Analysis of Sentence No. 17038 of 2022: Recusal of the Judge in Appeal

Sentence No. 17038 of October 6, 2022, filed on April 21, 2023, issued by the Court of Cassation, represents an important clarification regarding the recusal of judges in the context of precautionary appeals. In particular, it addresses the issue of the compatibility of a judge who was previously a member of the review court that rules on the ineffectiveness of a coercive measure.

The Context of the Sentence

The case concerns the accused D. P.M. Dinaro Marilia, and the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, confirming that there is no incompatibility, pursuant to Article 34 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the judge who previously participated in the review court. This principle is based on the idea that the continuity of the judging personnel does not compromise the impartiality and correctness of the judgment.

Recusal - Judge already a member of the review court judging in precautionary appeal on a measure concerning the same coercive measure - Incompatibility - Exclusion. There is no incompatibility, ex art. 34 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the judge, already a member of the review court called to judge the ineffectiveness of a coercive measure for the failure to interrogate the suspect, who then participated in the court as a judge of the precautionary appeal against the rejection of the request for declaration of ineffectiveness of the same measure.

Analysis of Legal Principles

The sentence is based on some fundamental principles of Italian criminal procedural law. In particular, Article 34 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regulates the causes of incompatibility of judges. However, the Court clarified that a judge's participation in different procedural phases, such as review and appeal, does not automatically imply a prejudice to the fairness of the process.

  • The judge, in their function, must ensure impartiality and objectivity.
  • The continuity of the judging personnel is not, in itself, a cause of prejudice.
  • There are guarantee procedures to protect the right of defense, even in the case of recusal.

Practical Implications of the Sentence

This sentence has important repercussions in the field of criminal law, as it clarifies that a judge who has already examined a case at the review stage can legitimately participate in the precautionary appeal stage as well. This contributes to ensuring the efficiency of the judicial system, avoiding delays and complications arising from automatic recusals.

Conclusions

In conclusion, sentence No. 17038 of 2022 offers an important interpretation of the regulations concerning the recusal of judges. This clarification not only strengthens the legitimacy of judicial decisions but also promotes a more pragmatic and less formalistic approach to managing criminal proceedings. Legal practitioners will need to take these indications into account to ensure a fair and timely process.