Commentary on Judgment No. 46037 of 2024: Extensive Effect of Appeals

Judgment No. 46037 of 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, deals with a crucial issue in appeals, particularly regarding the inadmissibility of an appeal due to a lack of specific mandate to appeal. This topic, of significant importance in criminal proceedings, has sparked considerable debate among jurists and legal practitioners. In this analysis, we will seek to clarify the principles expressed by the Court and their practical implications, highlighting the extensive effect of appeal decisions.

Inadmissibility of Appeal and Mandate to Appeal

The Court has confirmed its position regarding the inadmissibility of an appeal due to a lack of a specific mandate to appeal from the defense counsel. According to the New Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 581, paragraph 1, establishes that an appeal must be filed by a defense counsel equipped with a specific mandate. The absence of such a mandate leads to the inadmissibility of the appeal, as highlighted by the Court of Appeal of Palermo.

The main novelty of this judgment lies in its application to the extensive effect. In fact, the acceptance of the appeal to the Court of Cassation not only annuls the challenged decision but also extends its effects to co-defendants who have not appealed, provided that the inadmissibility of the appeal was declared for the same reason. This aspect is of fundamental importance to ensure the fairness of the proceedings and the right to defense.

Reasons for the Extensive Effect

The Court motivated this choice based on the non-exclusively personal nature of the ground for appeal. Essentially, the decision of inadmissibility due to lack of mandate does not only concern the defendant who filed the appeal but can also influence other co-defendants, creating a situation of disparity if the effects of the decision are not extended. Below are some fundamental considerations regarding this principle:

• It promotes the unity of criminal proceedings, avoiding conflicting decisions for the same facts.
• It guarantees broader protection of defense rights for all defendants involved.
• It reinforces the principle of equality before the law, ensuring that no defendant is penalized by the lack of a specific mandate from their lawyer.

Inadmissibility of appeal for lack of specific mandate to appeal - Appeal to the Court of Cassation - Acceptance - Co-defendant not appealing to the Court of Cassation whose appeal was declared inadmissible for the same reason - Extensive effect - Existence - Reason. In matters of appeals, the acceptance of the appeal to the Court of Cassation, filed against the decision with which the appellate judges declared the inadmissibility of the appeal due to the lack of a specific mandate to appeal from the defense counsel, extends its effects also to the co-defendant who has not appealed, whose appeal was declared inadmissible for the same reason, as it is a ground that is not exclusively personal.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 46037 of 2024 represents a significant step forward in Italian jurisprudence on appeals. The extensive effect of an appeal to the Court of Cassation not only offers protection to defense rights but also promotes greater consistency in judicial decisions. It is crucial for lawyers and legal professionals to take note of these provisions to ensure adequate legal assistance to their clients. Justice must be fair and accessible to all, and this judgment clarifies how to ensure this in the context of appeals.