Analysis of Judgment No. 23275 of 2023: Relevance of Prescription Grounds in the New Exercise of Criminal Action

The recent Judgment No. 23275 of February 15, 2023, filed on May 26, 2023, offers significant insights regarding the transmission of case files to the public prosecutor and the implications arising therefrom for the course of prescription in criminal matters. In particular, the Court of Cassation addressed the issue of the relevance of grounds for interruption and suspension of prescription when a new exercise of criminal action occurs.

Context of the Judgment

The judgment in question, which quashes without referral the decision of the Court of Appeal of Sassari, is situated within a complex legal framework. It is crucial to understand the relevant provisions, particularly Article 521, paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This article establishes that, in cases of return of the case files to the public prosecutor due to the ascertained difference of the fact, a new exercise of criminal action is deemed to have occurred.

The Court reiterated that grounds for interruption and suspension of prescription that occurred before the public prosecutor's new determination have no effect. This implies that these are two distinct proceedings, predicated on the difference of the fact. Below, we analyze the main implications of this decision:

• Confirmation of the distinction between proceedings: The judgment clarifies that each new exercise of criminal action must be considered a standalone proceeding.
• Impact on prescription: Grounds for interruption and suspension of prescription do not apply retroactively in the new proceeding.
• Relevance of the difference of the fact: The difference between the facts is a fundamental element justifying the new criminal action.

TRANSMISSION OF CASE FILES TO THE P.M. - New exercise of criminal action - Grounds for interruption and suspension of the prescription period prior thereto - Relevance - Exclusion - Reasons. In cases of return of case files to the public prosecutor due to the ascertained difference of the fact pursuant to art. 521, paragraph 2, Code of Criminal Procedure, and subsequent new exercise of criminal action, grounds for interruption and suspension of the prescription period that occurred prior to the new determination by the representative of the public prosecution shall have no effect, as these constitute two distinct proceedings, owing to the difference of the fact.

Implications for Criminal Proceedings

This judgment has important repercussions for criminal proceedings, as it clarifies that a new exercise of criminal action can occur without previous grounds for prescription interruption affecting it. This principle strengthens the autonomy of criminal proceedings, allowing for greater flexibility in managing accusations.

In a context where the timelines of criminal proceedings can be lengthy and complex, the clarification offered by the Court serves as a useful reference point for both legal practitioners and citizens involved in criminal proceedings. The decision aligns with the principles of protecting individual rights and ensuring the effectiveness of criminal action, which are cornerstone elements of our legal system.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 23275 of 2023 represents a significant step forward in understanding the dynamics between criminal action and prescription, emphasizing the need to consider each new proceeding as a separate matter. Its implications extend not only to legal practice but also to the protection of defendants' rights, ensuring greater legal certainty in a sensitive area such as criminal law.