The decision not to proceed according to article 420-quater of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court. until the expiry of the deadline pursuant to article 159 of the Criminal Code

The Second Criminal Chamber, on the subject of appeals, stated that, in application of the general principle of the mandatory nature of the means of appeal, the sentence of not having to proceed due to the accused's lack of knowledge of the pending trial, referred to in art. 420-quater cod. proc. pen., cannot be appealed to cassation until the deadline provided for by the art. 159, last paragraph, cod. pen., since it is a revocable ruling, of a substantially interlocutory nature, so this does not conflict with the guarantee established by the art. 111, paragraph 7, Constitution.

According to the Court, the sentence referred to in Article 420 quater of the Code of Criminal Procedure, differently from the provisions of Law 103/2014, which imposed, in the event that the conditions for absence in the strict or broad sense were not met, the postponement of the hearing and the attempt to serve the summons for trial by the judicial police (art. 420 bis, paragraph 5, c.p.p.), introduces a system which, only potentially, will lead to the settlement of the trial.

Until the deadline referred to in the paragraph has expired. 3, of the art. 420 quater c.p.p., the measure adopted, in fact, is susceptible to revocation with consequent continuation of the proceedings before the same judge who issued it and does not prevent, pending the deadline, the carrying out of urgent acts, nor precautionary measures (personal or real) adopted, they lose effectiveness (as instead provided for in the case of a sentence not having to proceed "ordinary" pursuant to art. 300 c.p.p.).

From the foregoing it follows that the provision in question, despite formally having the name of a sentence, is destined to take on its characteristics at the expiry of the term referred to in the art. 420 quater, co. 3, c.p.p., with the consequence that until that moment, in application of the general principle of mandatory nature of the means of appeal referred to in art. 568, co.1, c.p.p., being revocable, is not susceptible to appeal to the Supreme Court.

This conclusion is also not in conflict with the parameter set by the art. 1 co. 7, Constitution, according to which "against sentences and measures on personal freedom pronounced by judicial or special bodies, an appeal to the Supreme Court of Cassazione for violation of the law is always permitted", having to underline that the constitutional guarantee concerns jurisdictional measures which have a decision-making and ability to have a definitive impact on legal situations of subjective law, producing, with the effectiveness of res judicata, substantive and procedural law effects on the contentious level of the settlement of conflicting interests (Section U, .n 25080 of 05/28/2003 Rv . 224610).