Commentary on Judgment No. 15141 of 2024: Necessary Remand and the Prohibition of Double Jeopardy

Judgment No. 15141 of March 26, 2024, offers significant insights into the correct application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly regarding the dynamics of remand to the court of first instance. In this judgment, the Court addressed the issue of the erroneous assessment of the identity of the fact by the appellate judge, establishing that such an error prevents denying the defendant a degree of merit. Let us therefore examine the implications of this decision in more detail.

The Legal Context of the Judgment

The Court highlighted how Article 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that, if the appellate judge recognizes the existence of a repeated offense in violation of the prohibition of double jeopardy (bis in idem), they must annul the appealed judgment with a remand to the court of first instance. This principle is fundamental to ensuring respect for the defendant's rights, as they cannot be deprived of a degree of merit that has not taken place.

Analysis of the Judgment's Headnote

Erroneous assessment of the identity of the fact - Appellate judge annulling the judgment pursuant to Article 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Necessary remand to the court of first instance - Reasons - Case law. The appellate judge, ruling following the return of the case to the public prosecutor pursuant to Article 521 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, who deems that criminal proceedings have been reinstituted for the same fact in violation of the procedural prohibition of "bis in idem," is required to order the annulment of the appealed judgment under Article 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with remand to the court of first instance. Otherwise, the defendant would be deprived of a degree of merit that has never been considered. (Case in which the Court annulled without remand the decision of the appellate judge who, instead of annulling the appealed ruling with remand to the court of first instance, had declared that no proceedings should take place, believing that the public prosecutor had reinstituted the original charge for which the order of return had been issued pursuant to Article 521 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

This headnote emphasizes the importance of a correct interpretation of the relationship between the prosecution and the judgment. Indeed, the appellate judge has the obligation to carefully examine the conditions under which criminal proceedings were initiated, to prevent situations that could infringe upon the defendant's rights from recurring.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 15141 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the protection of defendants' rights. It underscores how adherence to the fundamental principles of a fair trial and the prohibition of double jeopardy (bis in idem) is essential to ensuring a just process. Lawyers and legal professionals must therefore pay particular attention to these aspects, so that every stage of criminal proceedings is conducted in compliance with current regulations, thereby guaranteeing the full protection of the rights of the parties involved.