Rome, 8 July 2021 – Il cabinet approved tonight unanimously government amendments to the bill proposed by the Minister of Justice, Marta Cartabia: “delegation to the Government for the efficiency of the criminal trial and provisions for the rapid definition of judicial proceedings pending in the courts of appeal “(AC 2435).
The Prime Minister Mario Draghi: “I would like to thank Minister Cartabia for this beautiful text and I thank all of you: the subject is complex and of high dignity for the significance of government. I ask you to support this important measure with loyalty in Parliament”. The premier explained: “We come from different political experiences, we express flags of identity, the effort was to move away from these flags a little but in such a way” that everyone can recognize themselves in the text of the reform.
The main node was represented from the stop to the prescription that the Five Star Movement he initially wanted to extend it to all levels of judgment. Minister Cartabia mediated by focusing on the inclusion of crimes against the Public Administration, such as corruption and extortion, among those with extended procedural times, and the inclusion of the conditions of ‘inadmissibility’ for the second and third degree, if they exceed certain times.
The main points:
Prescription
The current discipline is confirmed, which provides for the stop to the prescription after the first degree sentence (both in the case of conviction and in the event of acquittal). Furthermore, a maximum duration of two years is established for appeal processes and one year for those of the Supreme Court. There is the possibility of a further extension of one year on appeal and of six months in the Supreme Court for complex trials relating to serious crimes (for example simple criminal conspiracy, mafia-type, drug trafficking, sexual violence, corruption, extortion). . Once these terms have elapsed, the impossibility of proceeding occurs. Prescribable offenses (punishable with life imprisonment) are excluded.
Digitization and electronic criminal trial, filing of documents and notifications
The Government is delegated to make criminal justice more efficient and swift through digitalization and information technologies. Among other things, it is envisaged that the filing of documents and notifications can be made electronically, with a considerable saving of time.
Preliminary investigations
It is established that the public prosecutor may request the indictment of the suspect only when the elements acquired allow a “reasonable prediction of conviction”. The terms of maximum duration of the investigations are reshaped with respect to the seriousness of the crime. Furthermore, upon expiry of the maximum duration of the investigations, without prejudice to the specific needs for the protection of investigative secrecy, a mechanism for the discovery of the documents is envisaged, to guarantee the suspect and the victim, also to avoid the prescription of the crime associated with an intervention by the investigating judge for preliminary investigations and in case of stagnation of the proceedings.
Priority criteria
The offices of the public prosecutor, in order to guarantee the effective and uniform exercise of the criminal action, within the general criteria indicated by law by the Parliament, must identify transparent and predetermined priorities, to be indicated in the organizational projects of the Public Prosecutors and to be submitted to the approval of the Superior Council of the Judiciary.
Effects of registration of crime news
In line with the constitutional principle of the presumption of innocence, it is envisaged that the mere registration of the person’s name in the register of crime reports cannot cause prejudicial effects on a civil and administrative level.
Preliminary hearing
The provision of the preliminary hearing is limited to particularly serious crimes and, at the same time, the hypotheses of direct summons to trial are extended. The judge will have to pronounce a sentence of no place to proceed when the elements acquired do not allow a reasonable prediction of sentence.
Appeal
The possibility – both of the public prosecutor and of the accused – to appeal against the sentences of conviction and acquittal is generally confirmed. The jurisprudential principle of the inadmissibility of the appeal due to non-specific reasons is acknowledged. There are limited cases of non-appeal of first-degree sentences, for example in the event of acquittal for crimes punishable with a monetary penalty and conviction to work in the public utility.
Cassation
A new extraordinary means of appeal is introduced before the Supreme Court, to execute the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Furthermore, the appeals will be dealt with by written cross-examination, without prejudice to the request made by the parties for oral discussion in a public hearing or shared council chamber.
Special proceedings
On the plea bargain, it is envisaged that, when the custodial sentence to be applied exceeds two years (so-called extended plea bargain), the agreement between the accused and the public prosecutor may extend to the accessory penalties and their duration, as well as to the optional confiscation and determination of its object. and amount. As for the abbreviated judgment, it is envisaged, among other things, that the penalty imposed will be further reduced by one sixth, in the event that the accused fails to appeal. Furthermore, in the event of a change of the judge or of the college in an ordinary judgment, it is envisaged that, in the event of a change of the judge or of one or more members of the panel, the judge will order, in the event of testimony acquired by video recording, the reinstatement of the try only when it deems it necessary on the basis of specific needs.
Lawsuit
The Government is delegated to extend the prosecution of a lawsuit to specific crimes against the person and against the property with a penalty not exceeding a minimum of two years, without prejudice to the prosecution ex officio, if the victim is incapable of age or infirmity.
Financial penalty
The aim is to rationalize and simplify the procedure for the execution of financial penalties, to review, according to criteria of fairness, efficiency and effectiveness, the mechanisms and procedure for converting the pecuniary penalty in the event of non-payment due to the insolvency or insolvency of the convicted person and to provide for procedures effective administrative measures, which ensure the effective collection and conversion of the pecuniary penalty in the event of non-payment.
Penalties in lieu of short prison sentences
The Government is delegated to carry out an organic reform of Law 689 of 1981, providing for the application, by way of alternative penalties, of public utility work and some alternative measures to detention, currently under the jurisdiction of the Supervisory Court. The new substitutive sentences (home detention, semi-liberty, public utility work and pecuniary penalty) will be directly enforceable by the judge of cognition, within the limit of four years of sentence imposed. Conditional suspension is excluded. In this way, greater effectiveness is guaranteed in the execution of the sentence.
Particular tenuousness of the fact
To avoid holding trials for bagatellar facts, the Government is delegated to extend the scope of the cause of non-punishment, referred to in Article 131 bis of the Criminal Code, to crimes punishable with a legal penalty not exceeding a minimum of two years. .
Suspension of proceedings with probation
To enhance an institution that has been successfully applied in practice (22,271 applications as of June 2021), the Government is delegated to extend the scope of application of Article 168 bis of the Criminal Code to specific crimes, punished with a prison sentence of no more than 6 years. , which lend themselves to repair paths. It is expected that the request for probation of the accused may also be proposed by the prosecutor. Testing involves the performance of public utility work and participation in restorative justice paths.
Private justice
The Government is delegated to regulate restorative justice in an organic way, in compliance with a European directive (2012/29 / EU) and in the interest of both the victim and the perpetrator of the crime. Access to restorative justice programs is envisaged at every stage of the procedure, on a voluntary basis and with the free and informed consent of the victim and the perpetrator and the positive evaluation of the judge on the usefulness of the program in the criminal field. The retractable consent, the confidentiality of the statements made during the restorative justice program and their unusability in the criminal proceedings are expected.
© All rights reserved