Judgment No. 24256 of 2023: Reflections on Precautionary Res Judicata and Change in Procedural Situation

The recent judgment No. 24256 of April 21, 2023, published on June 6 of the same year, has raised important questions regarding precautionary res judicata and the possibility of re-evaluation in the presence of changes in the procedural situation. This article aims to analyze the key points of the decision, clarifying the meaning and implications for parties involved in precautionary proceedings.

The Scope of Precautionary Res Judicata

The Court of Cassation has highlighted that the preclusion arising from decisions issued in the incidental appeal proceeding has a narrower scope than that of res judicata. This means that precautionary res judicata covers only the issues raised and decided in the proceeding, being limited to the state of the records at the time of the decision. This aspect is crucial, as it allows for a certain flexibility should new elements emerge.

• Precautionary decisions do not a priori preclude a re-evaluation of the procedural situation.
• The presence of new elements may justify a review of the case.
• The Court has recognized that decisions of inadmissibility of previous appeals do not prevent a new analysis.

Change in Procedural Situation

A fundamental element that emerged from the judgment is the importance of a change in the procedural situation. The Court stated that the assertion of a significant change in the situation requires a new examination of the precautionary case. This principle is based on the idea that the right to justice must be guaranteed even in the presence of new facts that may influence the precautionary decision.

Precautionary res judicata - Scope and extent - Change in procedural situation - Re-evaluation of the precautionary case - Necessity - Factual case. In terms of precautionary res judicata, the preclusion resulting from decisions issued in the incidental appeal proceeding has a narrower scope than that determined by res judicata, covering only the issues raised and effectively decided and being limited to the state of the records, so that the assertion of a change in the procedural situation requires a new examination of the case. (Factual case relating to the appeal against the decree rejecting the request for preventive seizure to prevent, in which the Court held that the declaration of inadmissibility, due to tardiness, of the public prosecutor's previous appeal against the order denying the validation of the preventive seizure ordered urgently could not preclude the re-evaluation of the case, in light of the new elements put forward by the investigators, capable of demonstrating the persistence of the crime).

Conclusions

Judgment No. 24256 of 2023 represents an important step forward in understanding precautionary res judicata and the possibility of re-evaluation in case of procedural changes. It emphasizes the importance of ensuring that precautionary decisions can be updated based on new evidence, thus avoiding injustices arising from static situations. Jurisprudence continues to evolve, and this judgment fits into a context of increased protection of the rights of parties involved in precautionary proceedings.