Judgment No. 48275 of 2023: Reflections on Nullity in Paper Proceedings

The recent judgment No. 48275 of October 20, 2023, has raised important questions regarding the regulation of paper proceedings in an emergency context. In particular, it examines the relevance of the violation of the appearance term established by Article 601, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which led to a general nullity. This decision is part of the current legal landscape, influenced by the extraordinary measures adopted to contain the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Regulatory Context and the Implications of the Judgment

According to the judgment, in paper appeal proceedings, the failure to comply with the twenty-day term for the defendant's appearance is considered a nullity that can only be raised with the first available opportunity. The rule provides that such an objection can be made through a memorandum or the conclusions pursuant to Article 23-bis of Law December 18, 2020, No. 176. However, in the specific case, the objection was considered late, as it was raised later with an appeal to the Court of Cassation.

Emergency regulations for the containment of the Covid-19 pandemic - Paper proceedings - Violation of the appearance term - Nullity with intermediate regime - Raisability with appeal to the Court of Cassation - Tardiness - Case law. In paper appeal proceedings conducted under the emergency regulations for the containment of the Covid-19 pandemic, the failure to comply with the twenty-day term established by Article 601, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, resulting in a general nullity concerning the defendant's participation, is deductible by the defense counsel only with the first available opportunity, whether it be a memorandum or the conclusions pursuant to Article 23-bis of Law December 18, 2020, No. 176, thus rendering the objection raised with the appeal to the Court of Cassation tardy. (Case in which the Court held that the nullity resulting from the late summons for appeal was remedied, on the grounds that the defense counsel had failed to request an adjournment or oral hearing).

This judgment highlights how, in a period of emergency such as that caused by the pandemic, procedural rules require particularly careful interpretation in order to guarantee the rights of the defendants. The Court held that the lateness of the summons for appeal, in this case, was remedied, as the defense counsel had not requested an adjournment or an oral hearing, indicating a possible lack of attention in managing the proceedings.

Consequences for the Defense Counsel and the Defendant

• Importance of respecting deadlines: The judgment emphasizes that respecting deadlines is crucial to avoid procedural nullities.
• Role of defense counsel: Defense counsel must act promptly to protect the rights of their client, raising any objections within the prescribed terms.
• Effects of the pandemic: Emergency regulations cannot be a pretext for neglecting procedural rules but must be interpreted in a way that protects fundamental rights.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 48275 of 2023 offers food for thought on the delicacy of criminal procedures in times of emergency. It is essential for legal professionals to be constantly vigilant and ready to assert the rights of their clients, even in complex contexts such as the current one. Jurisprudence continues to evolve and provide valuable guidance on how to address legal challenges in compliance with current legislation.