Analysis of Judgment no. 1919 of 2024: Appeal and Obligation of Specific Statement of Grounds

The recent judgment no. 1919 of December 10, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, represents an important reflection on the theme of precautionary appeal in the context of personal measures. In this article, we will analyze the implications of this decision, paying particular attention to the obligation of specific statement of the grounds of appeal, as indicated by Article 310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Context of the Judgment

The Court, presided over by A. Costanzo and with E. Calvanese as rapporteur, annulled without referral a decision of the Tribunal of Liberty of Catanzaro, emphasizing the need for a clear and detailed exposition of the grounds for appeal. In particular, the Court highlighted that the precautionary appeal must follow a structure that allows the judge to understand exactly which points of the decision are being contested.

Appeal - Obligation of specific statement of grounds - Existence - Case law. The precautionary appeal referred to in art. 310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has the structural and instrumental characteristics of ordinary means of appeal, and therefore must identify the points of the decision subject to challenge and state the grounds of fact and law submitted to the appellate judge in specific terms, or at least with a specificity proportional to that of the arguments supporting the contested measure. (Case relating to an appeal merely reiterating the original request for "de libertate").

The Meaning of Specificity in Grounds of Appeal

The above-cited maxim clarifies how an appeal cannot be limited to a mere reiteration of what was already stated in the initial request. It is fundamental that the appellant indicates the controversial points and provides adequate reasoning, otherwise the judge cannot carry out a correct and complete evaluation of the case. This principle is of crucial importance, as it guarantees respect for the right of defense and the correct application of the principle of a fair trial.

• Obligation of specificity: the grounds must be clear and detailed.
• Implications for defense: a lack of specificity can compromise the right of defense.
• Judge's evaluation: the judge must have all the necessary elements for an informed decision.

Not only the Court of Cassation, but also several previous rulings have reiterated this concept, drawing attention to similar cases and the importance of a precise formulation of appeals.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment no. 1919 of 2024 represents an important call to order for all legal professionals. Specificity in the grounds of appeal is not just a formal matter, but an essential element for ensuring a just and fair trial. Lawyers must pay particular attention to this aspect, as an imprecise formulation can lead to negative consequences for their clients. Investing time and resources in preparing a well-structured appeal is, therefore, fundamental for the successful outcome of appeals.