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

Judgment No. 14238/2023: Plea Bargaining and Accessory Penalties in Italian Jurisprudence

The judgment No. 14238 of 2023, issued by the Court of Cassation, represents an important confirmation of the methods of applying accessory penalties in the context of plea bargaining. This decision is part of the legal debate concerning the sanctions applicable to crimes against public administration and offers insights for professionals and citizens on the legal implications of such measures.

The Regulatory Context

The Court has established that the judge, in the case of plea bargaining for crimes against public administration, can apply the accessory penalties provided for by Article 317-bis of the penal code. This possibility is valid for both ordinary plea bargaining and so-called extended plea bargaining, but with a fundamental condition: the reasons for such application must be explicitly stated.

  • Ordinary plea bargaining: provides for a reduction of the penalty in exchange for a guilty plea.
  • Extended plea bargaining: extends to broader cases, allowing for greater flexibility in handling offenses.
  • Accessory penalties: sanctions that are added to the main penalty and may include disqualification from public office or other limitations.
Ordinary and so-called extended plea bargaining – Possibility for the judge to apply the accessory penalties referred to in Article 317-bis of the penal code – Existence – Conditions. The possibility for the judge who issues a plea bargaining sentence for one of the crimes against public administration referred to in Article 445, paragraph 1-ter, of the code of criminal procedure, to apply the accessory penalties provided for by Article 317-bis of the penal code operates, not only in the case of ordinary plea bargaining but also in that of so-called extended plea bargaining, provided that the reasons for such application are explicitly stated in both cases.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment not only clarifies the position of jurisprudence on a delicate issue but also establishes a fundamental principle: the transparency of the reasons provided by the judge is crucial. In the absence of such explanations, the application of accessory penalties could appear arbitrary and subject to challenges.

Furthermore, the decision reflects the European trend towards greater accountability of public entities and a stronger protection of the interests of the community. Italian jurisprudence, in this context, aligns with European regulations that require clarity and justice in criminal proceedings.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 14238 of 2023 represents an important step forward in defining the methods of applying accessory penalties in plea bargaining. The necessity for the judge to explicitly state the reasons not only ensures greater transparency but also protects the rights of the accused, ensuring a fair trial. This decision, therefore, is not only a reference point for legal professionals but also a signal for all those who find themselves facing the Italian judicial system.