Commentary on Judgment No. 14873 of 2024: Substitute Sanctions and Judicial Reasoning

The recent judgment No. 14873 of March 12, 2024, filed on April 10, 2024, offers important food for thought on the issue of substitute sanctions for short-term custodial sentences. In particular, the Court annulled a judgment by the Court of Appeal of Reggio Calabria which had determined the daily value of the fine without providing adequate reasoning. This case is part of an evolving legal context, where transparency and justification of judicial decisions are taking on an increasingly central role.

The Regulatory Framework

The issue addressed by the Court is of particular relevance, especially in relation to Article 56-quater of Law of November 24, 1981, No. 689, as amended by Legislative Decree of October 10, 2022, No. 150. This article establishes that, in the case of substitution of short-term custodial sentences with pecuniary sanctions, the judge must consider the economic, asset, and living conditions of the defendant and their family unit.

• Obligation to provide reasoning for the daily value of the pecuniary sanction
• Consideration of the defendant's individual circumstances
• Impact of the judgment on the sanctioning system in Italy

The Role of Reasoning in Judicial Decisions

Substitute sanctions for short-term custodial sentences - Substitute pecuniary penalty - Determination of daily value - Reasoning - Obligation - Existence - Factual situation. Regarding the substitution of short-term custodial sentences with pecuniary penalties, the judge, in determining the daily value of the pecuniary sanction, is required to provide reasoning based on the parameters indicated by Article 56-quater of Law of November 24, 1981, No. 689, introduced by Article 71, paragraph 1, letter d), of Legislative Decree of October 10, 2022, No. 150, such as the overall economic, asset, and living conditions of the defendant and their family unit. (Factual situation relating to the annulment with referral of the judgment of the Court of Appeal which had set the daily value of the fine at one hundred and fifty euros, without indicating the reasons).

The Court, emphasizing the importance of reasoning, reiterated that the judge cannot limit themselves to establishing an abstract value for the pecuniary sanction. The lack of reasoning, as highlighted in this case, not only compromises the legitimacy of the decision but also calls into question the principle of equality before the law, given that each situation must be assessed based on the specific circumstances of the case.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 14873 of 2024 represents a significant step towards a more equitable and personalized justice system that takes into account the real conditions of the individuals involved. The Court, recalling fundamental principles of criminal law, urges judges not to overlook the obligation to provide reasoning, which is essential for ensuring transparency and justice in decisions concerning pecuniary sanctions. This case, therefore, not only clarifies procedural aspects but also contributes to a broader debate on justice and fairness within the Italian criminal justice system.