Analysis of Judgment No. 3087 of 2024: Nullity and Interrogation in Criminal Proceedings

Judgment No. 3087 of October 30, 2024, published on January 27, 2025, provides important clarifications regarding the nullity of the request for committal for trial following an interrogation not conducted in compliance with current regulations. This ruling by the Court of Cassation is part of an ever-evolving legal context, where adaptation to new communication methods in criminal proceedings plays a crucial role.

The Case and the Regulatory Context

In the case at hand, the defendant had requested an interrogation through impermissible methods, specifically via PEC (certified email), instead of filing it through the telematic proceedings portal (PPT), as required by the transitional provisions of Article 87, paragraph 6-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 150 of October 10, 2022. This irregularity led to the declaration of nullity of the request for committal for trial.

The Court clarified that such a declaration of nullity cannot be considered abnormal, as the regression of the proceedings does not lead to a standstill of the trial itself. In fact, the public prosecutor has the opportunity to reconsider the exercise of criminal action once the interrogation has been conducted in accordance with the law.

Legal Principles Underlying the Judgment

Article 415-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Request for interrogation filed by the defendant through impermissible methods - Declaration of nullity of the request for committal for trial due to failure to conduct the interrogation - Abnormality - Exclusion - Reasons - Case. The declaration of nullity of the request for committal for trial due to failure to conduct the interrogation requested through impermissible methods is not abnormal, given that the consequent regression of the proceedings does not entail any standstill, as the public prosecutor can re-evaluate the exercise of criminal action following the ordered interrogation. (Case where the interrogation had been requested by the defendant via PEC instead of through filing on the telematic proceedings portal (PPT), as provided by the transitional provisions of Article 87, paragraph 6-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 150 of October 10, 2022, in relation to Article 111-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

This summary highlights the importance of following the procedures established by the legislator to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The Court, therefore, confirmed the centrality of communication methods in criminal proceedings and the importance of their observance to guarantee fundamental rights, such as the right to defense.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 3087 of 2024 represents an important precedent for future applications of criminal procedural law. It underscores the importance of adhering to regulatory provisions concerning the methods of submitting requests and respecting procedures, without which the proceedings risk losing effectiveness and justice. It is essential for legal professionals and defendants to scrupulously comply with current regulations to avoid situations of nullity that could compromise the entire criminal proceeding.