Commentary on Judgment No. 17091 of 2024: Ten-Day Period and Intermediate Nullity Regime

The recent Judgment No. 17091 of January 31, 2024, by the Court of Cassation, which addresses the issue of non-compliance with the ten-day period for the notification of the hearing notice, serves as an important reference for Italian criminal law. In particular, the Court has established that this non-compliance results in an intermediate nullity, which must be raised within the specific deadlines provided by the law. This article aims to analyze the salient points of the judgment and its practical implications.

Regulatory Context and the Judgment

The case examined by the Court refers to an execution proceeding, where the observance of notification deadlines provided by the New Code of Criminal Procedure was highlighted. The judgment clarifies that the ten clear days’ period, provided for by art. 666, paragraph 3, is fundamental to guarantee the right of defense of the parties involved. Non-compliance with this period does not result in an absolute nullity, but rather an intermediate nullity, as specified in the headnote of the judgment:

Ten-day period between the notification of the notice and the hearing – Non-compliance – Consequences – Intermediate nullity – Existence. In matters of execution proceedings, non-compliance with the ten clear days’ period for notifying parties and their counsel of the hearing date results in an intermediate nullity, which must be raised within the deadlines set forth in art. 182, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and not an absolute nullity, as the latter follows from omitted summons.

This distinction is crucial: an intermediate nullity does not lead to the automatic invalidity of the proceeding but requires that the interested parties raise the objection within the prescribed deadlines, as established by art. 182, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Practical Implications of the Judgment

The implications of this judgment are manifold and concern not only legal professionals but also citizens involved in criminal proceedings. Here are some key points to consider:

• Protection of Defense Rights: The judgment reiterates the importance of ensuring adequate prior notice to the parties, which is fundamental for effective defense.
• Flexibility of Nullity: The distinction between absolute nullity and intermediate nullity allows for greater flexibility in the judicial system, preventing formal errors from compromising the entire proceeding.
• Need for Attention from Lawyers: Professionals must pay attention to deadlines and notification methods to avoid procedural defects being raised against them.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 17091 of 2024 represents an important reflection on the rights of parties in criminal proceedings and the need to scrupulously observe notification deadlines. It not only clarifies the regime of nullity in case of non-compliance but also encourages legal operators to ensure adequate adherence to procedures, for the benefit of the legal system as a whole. Jurisprudence continues to be a beacon for the interpretation of norms and for the protection of fundamental rights in the criminal context.