Analysis of Judgment No. 20877 of 21/03/2023: Conflict Between Operative Part and Reasoning in the Enforcement Phase

Judgment No. 20877 of March 21, 2023, issued by the Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, addresses a crucial issue in criminal law: the conflict between the operative part and the reasoning of a judgment and its implications in the enforcement phase. This decision represents an important clarification on how any discrepancies between the two parts of a judgment should be managed, especially when they have not been raised during the cognition phase.

The Legal Context of the Judgment

The Court, presided over by A. Tardio and with V. Galati as rapporteur, established that a conflict between the operative part read in court and the reasoning, if not raised during the cognition phase, cannot be identified in the enforcement phase through a request for correction of a material error. This principle is based on a solid interpretation of the provisions of the New Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly Articles 125, 130, and 544, which govern, respectively, the form of the judgment, the reasoning, and the effects of the judgment itself.

The Ruling of the Judgment

Conflict between operative part and reasoning - Identifiability in the enforcement phase with a request for correction of a material error - Exclusion. The conflict between the operative part read in court and the reasoning, if not raised during the cognition phase, cannot be identified in the enforcement phase through a request for correction of a material error.

This ruling highlights the importance of the cognition phase in criminal proceedings. If a party does not raise the conflict during the trial, they cannot do so later in the enforcement phase. This underscores the need for attentive and timely defense, leaving no room for late challenges.

Implications and Legal References

The implications of this judgment extend beyond the specific case, touching upon the effectiveness of the reasoning and legal certainty. For lawyers and defendants, it is essential to understand that the cognition phase is the last opportunity to challenge any errors or discrepancies. The provisions cited by the Court, particularly Articles 545 and 546, emphasize the need for a correct and complete exposition of the reasoning by the judge, but also the responsibility of the parties to assert their claims in a timely manner.

• Article 125: Form of the judgment.
• Article 130: Reasoning of the judgment.
• Article 544: Effects of the judgment.
• Article 545: Correction of material errors.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 20877 of 2023 represents an important reference point for criminal jurisprudence. It clarifies that conflicts between the operative part and the reasoning cannot be resolved in the enforcement phase if they were not addressed during the cognition phase. This principle not only safeguards legal certainty but also urges lawyers and involved parties to pay close attention to their defenses, thereby ensuring a fair and orderly process.