Judgment No. 26805 of 2024: Nullity and Competence of Lay Judges in the Review Court

The Italian legal system relies on strict rules to ensure the proper administration of justice, especially when it comes to precautionary measures and criminal proceedings. The recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, No. 26805 of May 29, 2024, offers important insights into the competence of lay judges within the context of the review court. In particular, it addresses the issue of the nullity of orders issued by such judges and the legal consequences of such nullity.

The Regulatory Framework

The main issue addressed in this judgment concerns the limitation on the use of lay judges in the panels of the review court, regulated by Article 12 of Legislative Decree No. 116 of July 13, 2017. This decree clearly states that lay judges cannot be assigned to compose the review panel in criminal matters. This provision aims to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of criminal proceedings, preventing decisions of great importance, such as those concerning precautionary measures, from being influenced by jurisdictions that are not adequately qualified.

The Ruling's Headnote

Lay judges - Criminal competence - Assignment to compose the review panel - Nullity - Reasons - Precautionary measure - Effectiveness - Case law. The non-derogable prohibition of assigning a lay judge to compose the panels of the review court, introduced by Article 12 of Legislative Decree No. 116 of July 13, 2017, determines a limitation on the judge's capacity pursuant to Article 33 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the violation of which is a cause of absolute nullity under Article 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Case concerning an order issued, in review, by a panel also composed of a lay judge, in which the Court specified that the measure, although vitiated by nullity, could not be considered non-existent, so that, if issued within the ten-day period from receipt of the documents referred to in Article 324, paragraph 5, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the precautionary measure adopted by it retained its effectiveness).

This headnote emphasizes the importance of the correct composition of the review panel and the consequences arising from the violation of the rule. Even if an order issued by an illegitimate panel is vitiated by nullity, the Court has clarified that such a measure is not considered non-existent. This means that if the interested party appeals within ten days of receiving the documents, the precautionary measure adopted retains its effectiveness.

Practical Implications of the Judgment

• Clarity on competencies: The judgment clarifies that lay judges cannot be involved in sensitive proceedings such as reviews, thus ensuring greater legal certainty.
• Effects of nullities: Even rulings vitiated by nullity can have practical effects, provided that certain deadlines for filing appeals are met.
• Protection of rights: The decision contributes to protecting the rights of defendants, ensuring that precautionary measures are adopted by judges with adequate competence and training.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 26805 of 2024 marks a significant step in protecting the rights of defendants and safeguarding the correctness of criminal proceedings. The strictness of the rules regarding the composition of review court panels not only reflects a commitment to justice but also offers greater legal certainty. It is essential that all legal operators are aware of such rulings to ensure an effective and correct application of the rules.