Comment on Judgment No. 28558 of 2024: Extinction of the Offence and Court Costs

The recent judgment No. 28558 of July 2, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important food for thought on the management of court costs in cases of extinction of the offence due to prescription. What emerges is a crucial clarification: the first-instance judge cannot order the defendant to reimburse the expenses incurred by the civil party if they have not ordered compensation for damages. This principle is based on Article 541 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which establishes specific prerequisites for such an order.

The Legal Context of the Judgment

The Court's decision is based on a rigorous interpretation of procedural rules. The judge annulled the order for costs without referral, highlighting how the extinction of the offence due to prescription cannot automatically generate the obligation to reimburse legal costs to the civil party, unless there has been an order for compensation. This aspect is fundamental to ensuring fairness and justice in proceedings, protecting the rights of all parties involved.

Extinction of the offence declared by the first-instance judge in the absence of an order for compensation for damages - Order for costs in favour of the civil party - Legitimacy – Exclusion - Reasons. The first-instance judge who declares the extinction of the offence due to prescription cannot order the defendant to reimburse the court costs incurred by the constituted civil party, in cases where they do not order compensation for damages in favour of the latter, as the provisions of art. 541 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicate, as a prerequisite for such a decision, the acceptance of the claim for restitution or compensation for damages.

Implications for Civil Parties

This judgment has direct implications for civil parties who decide to join a criminal proceeding. Here are some key points to consider:

• The need to prove the existence of damage in order to claim compensation.
• The non-automatic nature of the order for costs solely by virtue of being a civil party.
• The crucial role of the judge in assessing whether the prerequisites for compensation exist.

In this context, civil parties must be aware that the absence of an order for compensation for damages may result in the loss of the right to reimbursement of legal costs, which is a significant aspect in complex litigation situations.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 28558 of 2024 represents an important step forward in clarifying the rules concerning the extinction of the offence and court costs. It emphasizes the need for a balanced approach, where the right to compensation and the order for costs are strictly linked. For civil parties, it is essential to carefully evaluate their position and the legal strategy to adopt, in order to avoid incurring unnecessary costs in the absence of an order for compensation for damages.