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

Analysis of Judgment No. 34598 of 2023: Intermediate Nullity in Execution Proceedings

Judgment No. 34598, issued by the Court of Cassation on May 18, 2023, provides significant insights regarding execution proceedings, with particular attention to the necessity of the public prosecutor's opinion. This aspect proves crucial for understanding the procedural dynamics and the rights of the parties involved. In this article, we will analyze the content of the judgment, providing clarifications and useful contextualizations.

The Legal Context

The Court of Cassation, in its decision, reaffirmed the principle that, in cases where the decree of inadmissibility of the request is not preceded by the acquisition of the public prosecutor's opinion, an intermediate nullity is established. This nullity, provided for by Article 78, paragraph 1, letter b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can only be invoked by the public prosecutor, who has a direct interest in the establishment of written contradiction.

  • Importance of the public prosecutor's opinion.
  • Intermediate nullity: practical implications.
  • Legal references and related jurisprudence.

The Headnote of the Judgment

Decree of inadmissibility of the request - Failure to acquire the public prosecutor's opinion - Intermediate nullity - Existence - Deducibility at the initiative of the public prosecutor and not the private party - Reasons. In the context of execution proceedings, where the decree of inadmissibility of the request, pursuant to Article 666, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has not been preceded by the acquisition of the required opinion of the public prosecutor, an intermediate nullity exists, pursuant to Article 78, paragraph 1, letter b), of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which cannot be invoked by the private party, but only by the public party, since the public prosecutor is the only one with a concrete interest in establishing written contradiction, to which his hearing is aimed.

This headnote highlights the importance of the role of the public prosecutor in ensuring the regularity of execution proceedings. The failure to acquire their opinion is not merely a simple omission, but generates significant consequences, as the nullity is intermediate and cannot be invoked by the private party.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 34598 of 2023 provides an important point of reflection on the necessity of involving the public prosecutor in execution proceedings. Their absence, as demonstrated by the ruling, leads to the establishment of a nullity that can affect the outcome of the proceedings themselves. It is therefore essential for legal practitioners to pay attention to these aspects to ensure the correct administration of justice.