Commentary on Judgment No. 35630 of 2023: Abnormalities in the Reclassification of the Offense

Judgment No. 35630 of May 16, 2023, by the Court of Cassation offers important food for thought on the subject of reclassifying criminal offenses and procedural abnormalities. In this case, the Court held that a judge's decision to acquit a defendant while simultaneously transmitting the case file to the public prosecutor for a new classification of the offense was not only inadequate but outright abnormal.

Context of the Judgment

The case in question originated from a judgment by the Court of Padua, which acquitted the defendant, SM, of the crime attributed to him. However, it also ordered the return of the case file to the public prosecutor for a possible reclassification of the offense. The Court of Cassation annulled this decision without referral, emphasizing that it entailed an undue regression to the investigative phase, violating the principle of non bis in idem, i.e., the prohibition of double jeopardy for the same offense.

Judgment of acquittal - Simultaneous transmission of the case file to the public prosecutor to proceed with the same offense differently classified - Abnormality - Existence - Reasons. A judgment is abnormal, as it leads to an undue regression of the proceedings to the investigative phase, when the judge, instead of reclassifying the contested offense as permitted by Article 521, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, acquits the defendant of the crime attributed to him and simultaneously orders the return of the case file to the public prosecutor for the potential exercise of criminal action concerning the same offense differently classified, also considering that any new indictment formulated would be destined to conflict with the judgment of acquittal, which has become final, in violation of the prohibition of double jeopardy for the same offense.

Legal Implications of the Judgment

This decision by the Court of Cassation highlights several fundamental aspects of Italian criminal procedural law and offers insights into the interpretation of the rules. In particular, Article 521, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that the judge may reclassify the contested offense but cannot acquit the defendant and simultaneously return the case file to the public prosecutor for a new indictment. The reasons underlying this abnormality lie in the need to ensure the stability of judicial decisions and respect for the defendant's rights.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 35630 of 2023 by the Court of Cassation represents an important clarification on the limits of reclassifying criminal offenses and the prohibition of double jeopardy. It reaffirms the principle that a final acquittal must be respected and cannot be challenged by new indictments for the same offense. This decision contributes to strengthening legal certainty and the protection of defendants' rights, which are fundamental elements for a just and equitable legal system.