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

Commentary on Judgment No. 16556 of 2023: The Extraordinary Appeal for Material Error

The judgment No. 16556 of the Court of Cassation, filed on April 18, 2023, provided important clarifications regarding the scope of the extraordinary appeal for material or factual error. In particular, the Court excluded the possibility of submitting this type of appeal to correct any errors contained in decisions related to orders of the execution judge concerning pardons.

The Legal Context of the Extraordinary Appeal

The extraordinary appeal under Article 625-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure represents an extraordinary legal remedy that allows for the correction of material or factual errors in judicial decisions. However, in the judgment under review, the Court clarified that the pardon, being a cause of extinction of the sentence, only affects the execution of the sentence itself and cannot modify an already established judgment.

Extraordinary appeal for material or factual error - Scope of operation - Judgment of the Cassation on orders of the execution judge concerning pardons - Admissibility - Exclusion - Reasons. The extraordinary appeal under Article 625-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be proposed by the convicted person for the correction of the error contained in the decision of the Court of Cassation that rules on orders of the execution judge concerning pardons. (In motivation, the Court clarified that the pardon, falling within the causes of extinction of the sentence, only affects its execution, not intervening to stabilize the already perfected judgment).

The Implications of the Judgment

This position of the Court of Cassation highlights the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between the execution of the sentence and the judgment. The practical implications of this decision are significant:

  • Limitation of the extraordinary appeal: Convicted individuals cannot appeal to correct errors already established by the Court, making the system clearer and more predictable.
  • Protection of the judgment: The stability of judicial decisions is guaranteed, preventing every error from being subject to contestation.
  • Clarity on the pardon: The Court confirmed that the pardon does not modify the conviction judgment but only acts on the execution of the sentence.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 16556 of 2023 represents an important step forward in defining the limits of the extraordinary appeal for material error. It reaffirms the necessity to clearly distinguish between the execution of the sentence and the judgment, thereby protecting the stability of judicial decisions. This ruling is fundamental to ensuring a more equitable and predictable legal system, in which the rights of the convicted are respected without compromising the integrity of the judicial process.