When can crimes committed partly abroad be considered committed in the territory of the Italian State? For further information, we recommend the following volume, which represents a valid operational tool for the professional: Annotated criminal trial form
Court of Cassation – section VI pen.- sentence n. 13063 dated 03.27.2024
Subscribe to the newsletter to be able to download attachments
subscribe
Thank you for subscribing to the newsletter. Now you can download your content.
Thank you for subscribing to the newsletter.
Follow us on social media
1. The issue: the place of commission of the crimes
The Court of Appeal of Venice ordered the surrender of an Albanian citizen to the Judicial Authority of the Federal Republic of Germany, in execution of the European arrest warrant, making the surrender subject to the condition that, once subjected to trial, he was sent back to Italy for serve any sentence imposed on him by the German judicial authority.
Having said this, the defense appealed to the Court of Cassation against this decision, deducing, with a single reason, violation of the art. 18-BIS, paragraph 1, letter a) of law no. 69 of 2005, in consideration of the territorial incompetence of the AG of the State of Germany to judge the criminal facts for which the European arrest warrant was issued. For further information, we recommend the following volume, which represents a valid operational tool for the professional: Annotated criminal trial form
Annotated Criminal Trial Form
This form, updated to Legislative Decree 19 March 2024, n. 31 (so-called Cartabia corrective), represents a valid operational tool of assistance for the criminal lawyer, as well as for the Justices of the Peace or for aspiring lawyers, making available to them all the schemes of the defense documents contemplated by the criminal procedure code , contextualized with the relevant regulatory framework of reference and accompanied by the most significant rulings of the Court of Cassation, as well as by the most appropriate suggestions for their better drafting. The structure of the volume, divided into sections essentially following the structure of the criminal procedure code , allows the rapid identification of the documents related to the different procedural phases: Jurisdiction and competence – Judge – Public prosecutor – Civil party – Civil party – Civilally liable – Offended person – Bodies and associations – Defender – The documents – The notifications – The evidence – Measures personal precautionary measures – Compensation for unjust detention – Real precautionary measures – Red-handed arrest and detention – Defense investigations and defense investigations – Probatory incident – Closing of investigations – Preliminary hearing – Special proceedings – Judgment – Proceedings before the monocratic court – Appeal – Appeal by cassation – Review – Reparation for judicial error – Enforcement – Jurisdictional relations with foreign authorities. Finally, specific sections have been dedicated to legal aid, to precautionary measures against entities (Legislative Decree n. 231 of 2001) and the criminal trial before the Justice of the Peace (Legislative Decree no. 274 of 2000). The work is accompanied by a very useful appendix, containing summary diagrams and regulatory references capable of making the activities of the lawyer. Valerio de Gioia Counselor of the Court of Appeal of Rome. Paolo Emilio De Simone Magistrate at the Court of Rome.
Valerio De Gioia, Paolo Emilio De Simone | Maggioli Editore 2024
2. The solution adopted by the Supreme Court
The above appeal was deemed inadmissible in the light of that nomophylactic orientation according to which, pursuant to art. 6, second paragraph, cod. pen., for the purposes of affirming jurisdiction in relation to crimes committed in part abroad, it is sufficient that even just a fragment of the conduct occurred in the territory of the State, understood in a naturalistic sense, and, therefore, any act of the criminal process, or a part of the event which is a consequence of the action or omission, which allows reconnecting the part of the conduct carried out abroad with that carried out in Italy (Section 4, n. 6376 of 20/01/ 2017; Section 5, no. 570 of 8/11/2016) given that the same principle applies when it comes to verifying the jurisdiction of the issuing State for the purposes of applying the legislation of the art. 18-bis, paragraph 1, letter. a), of law 69/2005 which provides, as an optional reason for refusing surrender, the condition that the crimes considered have been committed outside the territory of the issuing Member State.
You might also be interested in:
3. Conclusions
Without prejudice to the fact that, as is known, art. 6, co. 2, cod. pen. establishes that the “crime is considered committed in the territory of the State, when the action or omission, which constitutes it, occurred there in whole or in part, or the event which is the consequence of the action occurred there or omission”, with the decision in question, the Court of Cassation clarifies when this code rule is applicable.
In fact, this ruling states, in accordance with a previous interpretative guideline, that, to assert jurisdiction in the case of crimes committed partly abroad, it is necessary for at least a fragment of the criminal conduct or an event to occur in the territory of the State resulting from the action or omission, which may be connected to the part of the conduct which occurred abroad; in other words, it is sufficient that there is any act ofprocess criminal or a part of the event that allows us to connect the part of the conduct that occurred abroad with that which occurred in Italy.
This provision, therefore, can be taken into due consideration whenever it is necessary to ascertain whether a crime, partly committed abroad, can be tried in our country.
In any case, the judgment regarding what is established in this ruling, since it contributes to clarifying this legal issue from a jurisprudential perspective, can only be positive.
