Supreme Court Judgement No.
UD 31416. 10/07/2008 - 25/07/2008 DEPOSIT
Print Close
OPERATION - IMPRISONMENT - PRE-TRIAL AND OTHER CRIMES - COMPENSATION FOR UNJUST IMPRISONMENT - STATEMENT UNDER ART. CPP 657
Sections united stated che, nella determinazione della pena detentiva da eseguire, occorre computare il periodo di custodia cautelare subìto per altro reato, anche nel caso in cui, per detto periodo, il condannato abbia ottenuto l’equa riparazione per ingiusta detenzione.
Testo Completo:
Sentenza n. 31416 del 10 luglio 2008 - depositata il 25 luglio 2008
(Sezioni Unite Penali, Presidente F. Morelli, Relatore G. Ferrua
Vicenda processuale.
Con ordinanza 18-1-07 la Corte di appello di Palermo quale giudice dell’esecuzione, in accoglimento dell’istanza di Cascio Rosario disponeva che, nel determinare per il predetto la pena detentiva da espiare in virtù della sentenza conviction for the crime under Article. 416 bis cp issued by that Court on 8-7-05 (01/18/2007 irrevocable), we compute the pre-trial detention he suffered sine titulo 8-10-95 to 30.6.1996 in Case No. . 434/94 RGNR the Court of Sciacca; purpose noted that the benefit of fungibility, as provided by art. Cpp 657, was applicable even though the offender for the same period sought and obtained (by order 4/18/2000) repair the unjust detention: what in the art. 314 c. 4 Code of Criminal Procedure did not preclude such an eventuality and the state could pursue legal action for unjust enrichment.
against the measure proposed appeal the Attorney General at the Court of Appeal, alleging misapplication of Article. 314, 657 and cpp primarily on the assumption that the provisions of art. 314 c. 4 cpp dell'alternatività principle is obtained between the institution of redress for wrongful imprisonment and that the fungibility of the sentence, so it is possible that a person can achieve both benefits, noted that while the prospect of action to recover the sum at the time bestowed has no bearing, because of the lack of Advocacy estimates of how to enable the State and the possibility of supervening insolvency on the part of him that he had received.
Il ricorso veniva assegnato alla 1° sezione penale ed il collegio, evidenziato che sulla questione prospettata sussiste contrasto giurisprudenziale, rimetteva gli atti alle Sezioni Unite.
Con memoria depositata il 16-6-07 il Cascio precisava che il presupposto per ottenere la fungibilità si era concretato circa 8 anni dopo la di lui domanda avanzata ex artt. 314, 315 c.p.p. e che la sentenza di condanna, alla cui pena si riferiva l’operata detrazione, era stata pronunciata e divenuta irrevocabile successivamente alla decisione avente ad oggetto la liquidazione della riparazione in suo favore.
Motivi della decisione.
Il quesito sottoposto all’esame di queste Sezioni Unite è dunque il follows: if in the determination of punishment should be performed computed in accordance with art. Cpp 657 the period of custody for another offense immediately, even if the offender has obtained for the same period, fair compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
this respect were outlined in the case of two fundamental legitimacy of the Guidelines, opposing each other. Some previous
in negative answer to the question, noted: that the terms of Article. 314 c. 4 cpp (whereby the right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment is excluded for that part of the pre-trial detention has been computed for determining della pena) si deduce l’ulteriore speculare principio secondo cui chi ha ottenuto la riparazione non può più beneficiare della fungibilità con riguardo ad un identico periodo di carcerazione senza titolo; che i due istituti sono alternativi, essendo quindi rimessa all’interessato la facoltà di scegliere quello di cui avvalersi; che occorre evitare un’ingiustificata disparità di trattamento fra chi, avendo ottenuto la fungibilità non potrebbe conseguire la riparazione e chi, invece, avendo ottenuto quest’ultima, avrebbe diritto anche alla fungibilità (Cass. 10-5-99 n. 3488 Rv. 214644; Cass. 16-1-04 n. 18966 Rv. 227968; Cass. 11-2-04 n. 10366 Rv. 227229).
In termini difformi è stato other hand, said that paragraph 4 of Art. 314 Code of Criminal Procedure provides the only case in which the subject has taken advantage of the fungibility and not one in which he has "chosen" the only repairs for which the first benefit of the other must be considered exclusionary, in support of that solution has not shown that is appropriate to speak of true freedom of choice in the hands of the person because the two institutions are ontologically different, as the fungibility of the organ entrusted with the powers of office while executing the request for redress is left entirely to the will of the private and finally it was stressed that whenever possible fungibility being realized after the deadline laid down by Article. 315 c. Cpp it relates in a case of "forced waiver" to either of the benefits and conversely that the difference in treatment, described by that address the contrary, it is surmountable with the remedy of judicial action exercisable by the state for unjust enrichment (Cass. 11/23/2004 n. 358 Rv. 230 723).
An intermediate solution is finally adopted at a more recent decision which, in the face of repair achieved, limits the possibility of deducting the period of detention without suffering under the assumption that, when the question was to promote 'application referred to in art. 314 Code of Criminal Procedure, was not yet applicable fungibility, however, if the subject, "although both options activated, has asked for their choice and awarded the repair, was denied that the same can rely on the operation of the other institution ( Cass. Rv 5/12/2007 No 47001. 238489).
These sections consider United to join the approach taken by the sentence no 358 of 2004 which recognizes, in general, without identifying limitations, the applicability of the benefit of fungibility, even if the offender has obtained redress for the unjust detention: to share all the reasons forming the basis of that decision are held also the following considerations in the interpretation of Articles. Cpp 657 and 314 and the connection between the two standards.
Article. 657 Code of Criminal Procedure, in terms of performance, discipline, the calculation of the pre-trial detention and punishment expiated without reason and in particular states that "the prosecutor in determining the penalty to be enforced calculates the period of detention suffered for the same or for another offense ", the latter wording leaves no room for doubt: the prosecutor, noted a period of deprivation of liberty under custody must make the deduction, the only limit being represented by the fact that the measure was sustained after the commission the offense for which the penalty is determined to run.
the task in question is therefore essential and the same rule should be considered in repair.
highlighted in the optical art to be read. 314 c. 4 Code of Criminal Procedure which provides that "the right to compensation is excluded for that part of the custody to be counted for determining the size of a penalty" and said it was significant that the reference is to be understood as if it said "for that part to be counted "(Cass. 20/11/2001 No 13322, not the maximum point) and it is this provision is to confirm the inevitability of the above and the absence di ogni discrezionalità nella applicazione della fungibilità: i due istituti non sono dunque alternativi e non può con riguardo ai medesimi parlarsi di scelta, essendo destinato a prevalere quello contemplato dall’art. 657 c.p.p.
Il contesto normativo, così interpretato, ha una ben precisa ratio la quale consiste nel privilegiare in via diretta il bene primario nonchè indisponibile della liberà, rendendo legittimo un determinato periodo di detenzione, che originariamente non lo era, così escludendo che l’interessato debba scontare la pena detentiva per un ulteriore pari lasso temporale. La fungibilità, costituendo una reintegrazione in forma specifica, ha invero una ben maggior valenza rispetto ad una repair of a patrimonial nature, which "monetizing the sacrifice of an inviolable freedom constitutes a pale remedy" (literally: Constitutional Court Judgement No. 219/2008).
In fact, the choice-in-chief, at that person referred to in the case that you deactivate it should be denied in one respect, both the conceptual and systematic: first, it is inconceivable that the above is empowered to substitute its freedom with material goods and on the other hand, he can not divest itself of an institution which is applicable to tax prosecutor, to add after this that the demand for repairs is subject to a limitation period (Art. 315 para 1 CCP) and that may occur, as in this case, that the conditions do not exist for fungibility at the time when those who have suffered the unjust detention is entitled to seek reparation.
Neither can be argued that the subject, calling for the repair would remove the duty of the prosecutor to make the deduction: such a rule is not called art. 657 cpp and it is not obtainable from the opposite principle of Article. 314 c. 4 Code of Criminal Procedure because the operational of a particular institution may not enter a limit drawn from the discipline of another, different and not homogeneous.
is therefore no doubt that the person who has been practicing the repair quickly is demand at a time in which lacked the assumption of fungibility (ie a penalty of imprisonment to be executed), is entitled to deduct under Article. 657 c. Cpp occur after 2 as a final sentence to a term of not less than that of pre-trial detention suffered, but that right must be recognized even if the repair has been invoked and granted, although it can of the deduction: This is because, as outlined above, would not be made a configurable option or waiver by the offender, but an unlawful initial failure of the prosecutor.
Certainly the economic relief occurred after the deduction results in an unjust enrichment of the beneficiary against the State and therefore it will have the right to exercise the appropriate action that is residual and not excluded by the existence of a cause of acquisition, which the judge's ruling of the repair (see Cass. Civ. 9.2-87 1334 No Rv. 450809; Cass. Civ. No 30/07/1999 8311 Rv. 529145; Cass. civ 11/08/2005 No 21647 Rv. 586 072); remedies pursuant to art. 2041 cc according to the rules of civil law, does not indicate the failure to include specific procedures for the event in question is the unexpected insolvency of the defendant always conceivable pathological factor in the outcome of any judicial experience.
to prevent such situations must be considered that the repair, in the case where it appears that the petitioner was convicted by a final sentence to a term not exceeding that of the painful custody, may suspend the proceedings until that is defined within which that decision was taken. Neither objection is true that under the current code of ritual "the criminal court resolves all issues to which the decision" (Article 2 cpp), and that only questions relating to family status or citizenship may lead to a suspension of proceedings (Article 3 Code of Criminal Procedure), such provisions relate to the criminal process as it sought to determining whether the crime and its commission by the accused: they are therefore not applicable to the repair process of the unjust imprisonment which the court has no power comparable to that typical of the court nor the execution of cognition (see: Cass. ON 13/12/1995 n. 42 Rv. 203638; Cass. No 04/13/2000 2391 Rv. 217,691), is revealed instead practicable by analogy, is not expected to ban the ritual chamber, a suspension absolutely necessary art. 477 Code of Criminal Procedure, provided that the terms of duration as provided therein are merely officers (on that last point: Cass. 17-2-97 n. 2233 Rv. 207353; Cass. 26-9-07 n. 39784 Rv. 238436).
D’altro canto la procedura de qua, pur svolgendosi dinnanzi al giudice penale, assume connotazioni proprie, anche di carattere civilistico, avendo essa ad oggetto un rapporto patrimoniale tra l’istante ed l’amministrazione del Tesoro, dovendosi altresì considerare che l’intervento del pubblico ministero nella medesima ha natura identica a quella di cui all’art. 70 c.p.p. (Cass. 13-11-07 n. 46777 Rv. 238363): pertanto potrebbe addivenirsi ad una sospensione anche alla luce della normativa processuale civilistica ai sensi dell’art. 337 c.p.c., onde evitare pronunce che vengano a trovarsi in rapporto di conflittualità dal punto of view of their practical effects.
In this regard it should be noted that both remedies mentioned (the effort to remove the economic damage to the state and the suspension of proceedings for recovery) were listed as practicable in the two rulings by the Constitutional Court (Case 348/92 order and 191/02) which made express reference to the Court of Cassation who had specifically provided for (Cass. 04/03/1991 No 1553 Rv. 187 237).
In conclusion it must be stated the following principle of law: the prosecutor in determining the penalty that a person must atone is required to compute in accordance with art. Cpp 657 the period of custody that has been condemned for another offense, even if the same over this period has received fair compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
This calls accordingly dismissed.
PQM
The Court rejects the appeal.
Rome, 10/07/2008.
0 comments:
Post a Comment