Commentary on Judgment No. 16351 of 2024: Reform of Res Judicata and Prohibition of Reformatio in Peius
The recent judgment No. 16351 of February 29, 2024, filed on April 18, 2024, by the Court of Appeal of Milan, has raised important issues regarding the prohibition of "reformatio in peius" in the context of a trial following the acceptance of a request for rescission of res judicata. This legal principle, fundamental in our procedural system, prevents a party that has appealed from finding itself in a worse position than that already obtained in the first instance.
The Prohibition of Reformatio in Peius: Context and Legal References
The prohibition of "reformatio in peius" is governed by Article 597 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which establishes that, in appeal proceedings, the judge cannot worsen the defendant's position. However, the judgment in question clarifies that this prohibition does not apply in cases of rescission of res judicata. Indeed, the Court highlighted that the nullity of the declaration of absence results in a situation of absolute and incurable invalidity, which invalidates the entire previous trial.
- Art. 629-bis, paragraph 3, Code of Criminal Procedure - Legislation on rescission of res judicata.
- Art. 597, paragraph 3, Code of Criminal Procedure - Legislation on the prohibition of reformatio in peius.
Analysis of the Judgment and Practical Implications
The maxim of the judgment clearly states that, in the new independent trial following the acceptance of the rescission, the judge's discretionary power has no limits. This statement is crucial as it allows the judge to freely assess and establish a new sanctioning treatment, without the restrictions normally provided for in an appeal proceeding. The Court emphasized that the new trial, pursuant to Article 629-bis, should not be considered an appeal phase, but a completely new trial.
REFORMATIO IN PEIUS - Applicability in the trial following the rescission of res judicata - Exclusion - Reasons. The prohibition of "reformatio in peius" does not apply in the trial following the acceptance of the request for rescission of res judicata, as the deemed nullity, absolute and incurable, of the declaration of absence invalidates the entire trial and the judgment by which it was concluded, so that in the new and entirely independent proceeding there are no limits to the judge's discretionary power in determining the sanctioning treatment. (In its reasoning, the Court specified that the new trial ordered pursuant to Article 629-bis, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unlike that referred to in Article 597, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, does not constitute an appeal phase).
Conclusions
In conclusion, judgment No. 16351 of 2024 represents an important clarification on the principle of the prohibition of "reformatio in peius." It not only offers a clear interpretation of current regulations but also highlights the autonomy of the new trial following the rescission of res judicata. This decision could have a significant impact on the defense strategies of defendants and on judicial decisions, contributing to greater justice and fairness in criminal proceedings.
