Analysis of Judgment No. 38126 of 2024: Reasoning and Obligation of Clarity on Appeal

Judgment No. 38126 of June 6, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important insights into the role of the appellate judge and the obligation to provide adequate reasoning. In a legal context where clarity and transparency are fundamental, the Court establishes that referring to the reasoning of the first-instance judgment is not sufficient.

The Legal Context and Relevant Regulations

The principle of reasoning is a cornerstone of criminal procedural law, enshrined in Article 606 of the New Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court, in its ruling, emphasizes that an appeal cannot be deemed inadmissible due to lack of specificity. However, the appellate judge has the obligation to provide reasoning on every point raised, avoiding the risk of apparent reasoning.

The Ruling's Maxim

Appellate judgment - Appeal not inadmissible - Reasoning "per relationem" to the first-instance judgment - Possibility - Exclusion - Obligation to provide reasoning - Necessity. The appellate judge, in the presence of an appeal not deemed inadmissible for lack of specificity, cannot limit themselves to a mere and customary reference to the reasoning of the first-instance judgment, as, even if the appeal reintroduces factual issues already raised and decided in the first instance, they are required to provide reasoning, in a precise and analytical manner, on every point raised, so as not to incur the defect of apparent reasoning.

This maxim highlights the importance of detailed reasoning, calling for a legal practice that aims to ensure respect for the rights of the parties involved. Italian jurisprudence, in fact, has always emphasized the need for clear and complete reasoning, in order to ensure an effective understanding of the reasons that led to a decision.

Implications of the Judgment

The consequences of this judgment are significant for the Italian legal system:

• Obligation to provide reasoning: every appellate judge must provide a precise justification for their decisions.
• Reinforcement of the right to defense: clarity in reasoning strengthens the position of the parties involved, ensuring a fair trial.
• Jurisprudential precedents: the Court refers to numerous precedents, emphasizing the consistency of its position with established jurisprudence.

In this way, the Court of Cassation not only reiterates established principles but also provides useful guidance for legal professionals, enabling them to navigate the complex landscape of appeals.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 38126 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the protection of parties' rights in criminal proceedings. The clear indication of the appellate judge's obligation to provide reasoning not only improves the quality of decisions but also promotes a more attentive and norm-respecting legal culture. In an era where the right to defense is more central than ever, this ruling is part of a reform and improvement process for the Italian judicial system.