Judgment No. 22053 of 2023: Implications on the Connection of Criminal Proceedings

The recent judgment No. 22053 of April 18, 2023, filed on May 22, 2023, offers important insights regarding territorial jurisdiction and the connection of criminal proceedings. In particular, the Court of Cassation has clarified that a merely subjective connection between proceedings is not sufficient to determine a transfer of jurisdiction, especially when defendants are involved in multiple proceedings for crimes committed in concert.

Merely Subjective Connection

The judgment under review focuses on the distinction between subjective and objective connection. A subjective connection occurs when defendants, although accused of different crimes, are linked by a common denominator, such as the same illicit conduct. However, the Court has pointed out that a mere subjective connection cannot justify a transfer of jurisdiction, as this could infringe upon the right of co-defendants to be judged by their "natural judge."

Implications of the Judgment

Based on the provisions of the judgment, the following key points are highlighted:

• The prevalence of the co-defendants' interest in remaining under the jurisdiction of their natural judge.
• The importance of ensuring fair and just treatment of criminal proceedings, preventing subjective connection from undermining defense rights.
• Reference to previous case law supporting the Court's position, confirming the validity of its interpretation.

Connection of proceedings - Merely subjective connection concerning a defendant also involved in proceedings for crimes committed in concert - Transfer of jurisdiction - Exclusion - Reasons. In matters of territorial jurisdiction, a merely subjective connection between proceedings is not sufficient to determine transfers of jurisdiction if it concerns a defendant against whom proceedings are also underway for other crimes committed in concert, since, in such cases, the interest of co-defendants in not being removed from their natural judge according to ordinary rules and jurisdiction prevails over the individual's interest in a unified handling, elsewhere, of the proceedings concerning them. (Conf.: No. 479 of 1989, Rv.180960-01; No. 950 of 1987, Rv.175730-01; and No. 2442 of 1984, Rv.167048-01).

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 22053 of 2023 represents an important clarification regarding territorial jurisdiction in criminal proceedings. The Court of Cassation has reiterated the importance of defendants' right to be judged according to ordinary rules, preventing a merely subjective connection from compromising their legal position. It is therefore crucial for lawyers and legal professionals to be aware of these provisions to ensure adequate defense and protect the rights of their clients.