Commentary on Judgment No. 32098/2024: Summary Proceedings and Nullity of Judgment

Judgment No. 32098 of July 5, 2024, of the Court of Cassation, filed on August 6, 2024, offers important insights into the irregular initiation of summary proceedings for offenses where such a procedure is not permitted. In particular, the ruling analyzed clarifies how a declaration of nullity does not necessarily lead to the suspension of the proceedings but can be followed by the return of the case files to the public prosecutor, allowing the resumption of ordinary proceedings.

Summary Proceedings and Their Limitations

Summary proceedings are a simplified criminal procedure that allows for the rapid judgment of particularly serious offenses, but not all offenses can be handled through this procedure. In fact, Article 12-bis of Decree-Law No. 306/1992 establishes the limits within which this procedure can be used. In the case examined by the Court, it concerned an offense of aggravated injury using an iron bar, for which the judge deemed the adoption of summary proceedings inadmissible.

• The nullity declared pertains to a ruling proposed through summary proceedings for an offense where it is not permitted.
• Nullity does not imply the abnormality of the ruling.
• The return of the case files allows for the resumption of ordinary proceedings without a standstill in the proceedings.

Court's Maxim and Practical Implications

Irregular initiation of summary proceedings for an offense where such a procedure is not permitted - Declaration of nullity - Return of case files to the public prosecutor - Abnormality - Exclusion - Reasons - Factual situation. A ruling by which the judge, having declared the nullity of proceedings initiated through summary proceedings pursuant to Article 12-bis of Decree-Law No. 306 of 1992 for an offense where such procedure is not permitted, orders the return of the case files to the public prosecutor is not affected by abnormality, as the proceedings can resume with the initiation of ordinary proceedings, without any standstill in the proceedings themselves. (Factual situation concerning aggravated injuries caused by the use of an iron bar, in which the Court highlighted that the notion of "offenses concerning weapons and explosives," for which summary proceedings are provided, includes only those directly related to activities such as possession, carrying, transport, and importation, having weapons as their object, and not also those where the weapon is relevant merely as a circumstantial factor).

This maxim highlights how the Court does not consider the ruling of nullity to be abnormal, as the continuation of the proceedings is guaranteed by the possibility of initiating ordinary proceedings. This represents an important clarification on the functioning of criminal proceedings and the interpretation of current laws.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 32098 of 2024 clarifies important aspects concerning summary proceedings and their application in relation to specific offenses. The Court reiterated that the nullity of a ruling does not lead to an interruption of the process but rather to a possibility of resumption through ordinary proceedings. This approach ensures greater fluidity in the criminal justice system, avoiding unjustified pauses in proceedings and ensuring that justice can be administered effectively and promptly.