Commentary on Judgment No. 23931 of 2023: Attempted Offense and Territorial Jurisdiction

Judgment No. 23931 of January 24, 2023, represents an important ruling by the Court of Cassation on attempted offenses and territorial jurisdiction. This decision, which focuses on the criteria for identifying the last act aimed at committing a crime, offers fundamental insights for legal practitioners and anyone interested in the dynamics of criminal law.

Context of the Judgment

The Court of Cassation, with this judgment, declared the appeal inadmissible, emphasizing that the last act aimed at committing an attempted offense must be interpreted in its naturalistic dimension. This means that the final act must be considered in its intention to perpetrate the crime, even if the criminal objective was not achieved. The judgment therefore underlines that it is not relevant whether the act can be attributed to an independent offense, but it is essential that it is purposefully directed towards the commission of the offense itself.

Attempted offense - Last act aimed at committing the offense - Identification - Criteria - Configurability of an independent offense - Irrelevance - Case law. In matters of territorial jurisdiction relating to an attempted offense, the last act aimed at committing the offense, to which reference must be made pursuant to art. 8, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, must be understood in its naturalistic dimension and as purposefully directed towards the perpetration of the offense in relation to which the conduct was not completed or the event did not occur, remaining indifferent the circumstance that it is abstractly attributable to an independent category of offense.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has significant implications for judicial practice. In particular, it clarifies that legal practitioners must pay attention not only to the final act but also to its purpose. The analysis of the conduct must be carried out with an overall vision, considering the elements that characterize the attempted offense.

• The purpose of the act: it must be directed towards the commission of the offense.
• The naturalistic dimension of the act: it is fundamental to understand the context and the agent's intentions.
• The irrelevance of the configurability of an independent offense: what matters is the act in relation to the attempted offense.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 23931 of 2023 offers a clear interpretation of the criteria for territorial jurisdiction in cases of attempted offenses. It invites reflection on the importance of considering the teleological dimension of acts and their connection with the attempted offense. This approach not only enriches jurisprudence but also provides useful tools for the correct application of criminal law.