Sentence of the Criminal Court of Cassation section. 6 Num. 30631 Year 2024
Penal Sent. Section 6 Num. 30631 Year 2024
President: SURNAME NAME
Speaker: SURNAME NAME
Hearing Date: 06/20/2024
JUDGMENT
on the appeal brought by
SURNAME NAMEn. COMPANY_REASON BIRTH_DATE regarding ordering No. 6214/23 of the Tribunal Gip of the COMPANY_REASON from 02/22/2024
having read the documents, the appeal and the contested order; having heard the councilor’s report NAME SURNAME; having read the written indictment of the public prosecutor in person NOTARY_ATTORNEY Attorney General NAME SURNAME, which concluded that the appeal was inadmissible
HELD actually
With the contested order the investigating judge of the Court of COMPANY_REASON ordered the dismissal of the proceedings initiated by the public Prosecutor against NAME SURNAME for the crime referred to in art. 388 cod. pen. due to the particular tenuousness of the fact pursuant to art. 131-bis of the code. pen.
The defendant’s defense has lodged an appeal against the order, citing three grounds of complaint.
The defense states that the appellant practices as a lawyer at the Court of COMPANY_REASON for over twenty years and has an interest in obtaining a provision that positively ascertains that she has not committed any crime. On the other hand, the decision-making formula provided for by art. 131-bis of the code. pen. for which the crime exists but is of low gravity,it must be entered in the criminal record and it is indeed true that it only has its effects within the judicial circuit and is no longer indicated in certificates required by private individuals or public administrations,but in the case of a professional subject to compliance with a Code of Conduct,it can lead to notable consequences,exposing him to the risk of the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.
The complaining party could, actually, present a complaint against the appellant for the same facts which, even though not leading to the imposition of a criminal sentence, could take on sanctioning importance in disciplinary proceedings.
The risk of prejudice is, moreover, entirely concrete in the present case, given that the plaintiff NAME SURNAME he is a member of COMPANY_REASON and its legal representative on 4 August 2022 had already filed a complaint against the appellant at the COMPANY_REASON, which was followed by a dismissal order.
Having said all of the above in terms of legitimacy to appeal, with the first reason the appellant in turn complains of an original lack of legitimacy for the presentation of the complaint by a subject, NAME SURNAME, who could not qualify as an offended or damaged person either at the time of the proposition or at the time in which the fact occurred with consequent inadmissibility of the criminal action and violation COMPANY_REASON Art. 336 code. process pen its 120 code. pen.
With the second reason, he alleges violation of the art. 388 cod. pen. and incorrect identification of the type of crime, given that during the access the Judicial Officer had noted the capacity of the compendium of goods found at
the appellant’s home, crossing out the part of the rep