Commentary on Judgment No. 16352 of 2024: Balancing of Circumstances in Continuing Offenses

The recent judgment No. 16352 of February 29, 2024, has sparked a heated debate among criminal law experts, as it addresses a crucial issue: the balancing of circumstances in continuing offenses. In this article, we will analyze the main aspects of this judgment and its impact on Italian jurisprudence.

The Balancing of Circumstances

The Court, in its decision, clarified that the balancing of circumstances must be carried out exclusively with reference to the circumstances of the most serious offense. This means that the circumstances of "satellite" offenses should only be considered for determining the increase in penalty pursuant to Article 81, second paragraph, of the Criminal Code.

• Circumstances must relate to the most serious offense.
• Circumstances of satellite offenses are relevant only for the increase in penalty.
• Balancing must respect the principles of "favor rei" and legality.

It is important to emphasize that if the balancing of opposing circumstances relating to a satellite offense affects the type of penalty applicable, this aspect must be taken into account. This principle is in line with the protection of the offender's rights, as established by the Constitution and European regulations.

Balancing of circumstances - Applicability to circumstances concerning only the most serious offense - Existence - Exceptions - Reasons - Factual case. In the context of continuing offenses, the balancing of circumstances must be carried out with exclusive regard to those relating to the most serious offense, with circumstances pertaining to "satellite" offenses being considered solely for the purpose of determining the penalty increase under Article 81, second paragraph, of the Criminal Code, except where the balancing of opposing circumstances relating to a satellite offense affects the type of penalty applicable, in accordance with the principles of "favor rei" and legality. (Factual case in which the Court annulled the contested decision with referral, limited to the omitted balancing of circumstances relating to the satellite offense under Article 612 of the Criminal Code, on the grounds that the outcome of the balancing judgment determined the possible application, as an increase for continuation, of a monetary penalty or a custodial penalty, respectively provided for simple threat and aggravated threat under the first and second paragraphs of the relevant criminal provision).

Practical Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has significant practical implications for judges and criminal lawyers. The annulment with referral of the contested decision, due to the omitted balancing of circumstances relating to the satellite offense, highlights the need for a thorough analysis of the circumstances in question. This implies that, during the trial phase, each offense must be carefully evaluated, considering not only the seriousness of the main offense but also how the circumstances of the satellite offenses may influence the final penalty.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 16352 of 2024 represents an important step in the evolution of jurisprudence regarding continuing offenses. The clarity provided by the Court on the balancing of circumstances offers a more defined legal framework that may influence future decisions in criminal matters. It is essential for lawyers and judges to adapt to these guidelines to ensure fair justice that respects the rights of all individuals involved.