Commentary on Judgment No. 24260 of 2023: Guarantees in the Quaestor's Order

Judgment No. 24260 of April 28, 2023, filed on June 6, 2023, offers important insights into the rights of defense and administrative proceedings related to sporting events. In particular, the Court addressed the issue of the validation of the Quaestor's order, highlighting the relevance of procedural deadlines and their influence on the right of defense of the interested parties.

The Case and the Role of the Quaestor

The Quaestor's order, in this case, falls within the context of preventive measures related to sporting events, as established by Law December 13, 1989, No. 401. The Court annulled and remanded the previous decision of the Judge for Preliminary Investigations, emphasizing that the failure to indicate the time of filing of the order does not necessarily lead to the lapse of the measure, provided that it can be verified that the deferral periods have been respected.

• Reference to Law 401/1989 on the prohibition of disturbances in the conduct of sporting events.
• Importance of the 48-hour deferral period for the validation of the order.
• Possibility of verifying compliance with deadlines "ex actis".

The Guiding Principle

Disturbances in the conduct of sporting events - Quaestor's order - Validation - Failure to indicate the time of filing - 48-hour deferral period prescribed under penalty of nullity - Possibility of verifying compliance "ex actis" - Existence. In the matter of validation of the Quaestor's order pursuant to art. 6, paragraphs 1 and 2, of Law December 13, 1989, No. 401, the omission to indicate the time of filing of the order does not entail the lapse of the measure, where it can be inferred from the case file that the judge for preliminary investigations has respected the 48-hour deferral period from the notification of the administrative order to the interested party, prescribed, under penalty of nullity, to protect the effective exercise of the right of defense.

This guiding principle highlights how adherence to procedures is crucial not only for the validity of the adopted measures but also for guaranteeing the right of defense of the interested parties. In particular, the 48-hour period represents a fundamental safeguard for the effective exercise of rights, preventing decisions from being made hastily or arbitrarily.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 24260 of 2023 represents an important reference for all legal professionals, particularly those involved in criminal and administrative law. It reiterates the importance of procedural deadlines and their correct application, emphasizing how their violation can compromise the right of defense. In an era where the protection of fundamental rights is at the center of legal debate, this decision stands as a bulwark in defense of individual guarantees, inviting a broader reflection on how procedures must always respect the principles of justice and legality.