Judgment no. 30440 of 2024: Return of Records to the Public Prosecutor and the Abnormality of the Act

The recent judgment no. 30440 of March 14, 2024, by the Court of Cassation has sparked widespread debate among criminal law experts, as it addresses the fundamental issue of returning records to the public prosecutor by the trial judge. This matter is crucial for ensuring the proper administration of justice and preventing unjustified delays in criminal proceedings.

Context of the Judgment

The Court ruled that an order by the judge returning records to the public prosecutor due to vagueness or indeterminacy of the charge, without first prompting the public prosecutor to supplement or clarify the accusation, is abnormal. This decision is based on the principle of economy and reasonable duration of the proceedings, which is essential for the proper functioning of the Italian judicial system.

Return of records to the public prosecutor by the trial judge due to vagueness and indeterminacy of the charge - Lack of prior prompt to the aforementioned for the supplementation or clarification of the accusation - Abnormal act - Existence - Reasons. The order of the trial judge, which in cases of vagueness or indeterminacy of the charge returns the records to the public prosecutor without previously prompting him to supplement or clarify the accusation, is abnormal due to its potential to cause an undue regression of the proceedings. (In its reasoning, the Court specified that the principle of economy and reasonable duration of the proceedings requires the judge not to declare nullity before having carried out the necessary activity to remove its cause).

Practical Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has significant repercussions on judicial practice. Firstly, it underscores the judge's obligation to act diligently in verifying the completeness and clarity of the charge. The Court, referring to the New Code of Criminal Procedure, highlights that returning the records cannot be the first solution but must be preceded by an attempt at clarification by the public prosecutor.

• Promoting greater clarity in the charge.
• Reducing the risk of procedural abnormalities.
• Respecting the principle of reasonable duration of the proceedings.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 30440 of 2024 represents a significant step towards more efficient and less bureaucratic justice. It calls on judges to exercise their power with care, avoiding decisions that could lead to a regression of the proceedings. It is essential that all legal operators understand the implications of this judgment to ensure that the principle of procedural economy is always respected, thus contributing to a fairer and more functional legal system.