Commentary on Judgment No. 29348 of 2024: Nullity and Chamber Procedure during the Covid-19 Emergency

Judgment No. 29348 of April 4, 2024, filed on July 19, 2024, represents an important ruling by the Court of Cassation on the issue of the nullity of an appeal judgment heard in chamber proceedings during the Covid-19 health emergency. In particular, the case concerns the defendant M. T., for whom the question of the legitimacy of the trial held without the presence of the defense counsel was raised, despite a timely request for an oral hearing having been submitted.

The Regulatory and Procedural Context

The judgment falls within a regulatory framework defined by emergency provisions introduced to address the pandemic. These measures have led to significant changes in how trials are conducted, particularly regarding the modalities of holding hearings. However, respect for the rights of defense remains a fundamental principle.

Emergency regulations for the containment of the Covid-19 pandemic - Timely and proper request by the defense counsel for an oral hearing - Trial held with non-participatory chamber procedure - Absolute and incurable nullity - Existence - Reasons. In the context of appeal proceedings, under the emergency regulations for the containment of the Covid-19 pandemic, where the defendant's defense counsel has submitted a proper and timely request for an oral hearing, the trial being held with a non-participatory chamber procedure takes place according to a procedural model entirely different from the one chosen, with the absence of the defense counsel in a case where their presence is mandatory, thus resulting in an absolute and incurable nullity for the purposes of Article 179, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Legal Principles Established by the Judgment

The Court of Cassation has established that holding a trial in the absence of the defense counsel, despite the request for an oral hearing, constitutes a violation of the defendant's fundamental rights. The judgment refers to Article 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for absolute and incurable nullity for such irregularities. This principle is essential to ensure respect for the right to defense and the fairness of the trial.

Implications and Final Reflections

The ruling by the Court of Cassation not only reaffirms the importance of the defense counsel's presence during the trial but also highlights how emergency provisions cannot justify violations of fundamental rights. It is crucial for legal institutions and legal professionals to strive to ensure that trials, even in extraordinary situations, comply with regulations and the rights of defendants.

• Importance of the defense counsel's presence
• Recognition of fundamental rights
• Impact on trial procedures

Conclusions

Judgment No. 29348 of 2024 represents an important step forward in protecting the rights of defense, emphasizing the need to maintain high standards of justice even in emergency situations. Legal operators must always be vigilant and ready to assert the rights of their clients, even in the face of difficulties imposed by extraordinary contexts.