Renewal of Trial Investigation: Analysis of Judgment No. 31694 of 2024

Judgment No. 31694 of June 7, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers significant insights into the renewal of trial investigation, particularly in the context of a change in the individual judge of the second-instance court. This issue is crucial for ensuring the right to evidence and the fairness of criminal proceedings, fundamental elements of our legal system.

The Regulatory Framework

The Court addressed the issue of renewing the investigation based on Article 190-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This article stipulates that, under certain circumstances, it is not necessary to re-collect evidence when there is a change in the judging panel. It is important to note that, in such situations, the burden of proving the necessity of a new investigation falls on the party requesting the renewal.

• Art. 190-bis, Code of Criminal Procedure - Renewal of trial investigation.
• Art. 603, paragraph 3-bis, Code of Criminal Procedure - Provisions on evidence collection.
• Jurisprudential references: Previous summaries and correlations with the Constitutional Court.

Commentary on the Judgment

Art. 190-bis, Code of Criminal Procedure - Renewal of trial investigation pursuant to Art. 603, paragraph 3-bis, Code of Criminal Procedure - Subsequent change of the judge or members of the panel - New examination - Necessity - Exclusion. In the matter of renewal of trial investigation, in the cases provided for by Art. 190-bis, Code of Criminal Procedure, the evidence summarized in compliance with the provision of Art. 603, paragraph 3-bis, Code of Criminal Procedure, does not necessarily have to be collected a second time when the individual judge of the second-instance court or the members of the judging panel change. (In its reasoning, the Court specified that, in any case, the burden is on the party to indicate the reasons underlying the need for renewal).

The Court clarified that the change of a judge or a member of the judging panel does not automatically imply the need for a new examination of evidence already acquired. However, parties have the burden of demonstrating why a renewal is necessary, emphasizing the importance of a streamlined and efficient process, in line with the principles of a fair trial. This decision is part of a broader context in which the Italian legal system aims to balance the right to evidence with the need to avoid procedural delays and inefficiencies.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 31694 of 2024 represents an important reference point for Italian jurisprudence. It clearly establishes that a change of judge, in itself, does not justify the renewal of the trial investigation, unless valid reasons are presented to support such a request. This approach promotes greater certainty and predictability in criminal proceedings, while simultaneously safeguarding the rights of the parties involved.