Prescription: Consulta 140-2021 and 278-2020 judgments not in contradiction / Sheet

The sentence 140 filed today in the Consulta, editor Giovanni Amoroso, does not contradict the number 278 of 2020, the same rapporteur, because the constitutional principles to which the two sentences refer are different. In 140 the reference is to the principle of non-retroactivity of the substantive penal provisions, including prescription; while in 278 it is at the principle of legality and determination of criminal offenses. Regarding the suspension of limitation, in the first sentence the rule of the penal code already in force (article 159) was applied, therefore there was no problem of retroactivity. Article 159 of the Criminal Code “has a hinge function”, explained the sentence, because it contains, on the one hand, “a general cause for suspension” which is triggered when the suspension of the proceeding or trial is imposed by a particular provision of law, and, on the other hand, a list of particular cases.In the last sentence, however, the provision of the law for which the head of the judicial office can adopt a provision to postpone the criminal hearing which would also result in the suspension of the prescription, contrasts with the principle of legality and therefore produces constitutional illegitimacy. In fact, the law does not establish specific criteria for these provisions, with the effect that the prescription would be unpredictable as it is not determined by the legislator but by the discretion of the heads of judicial offices. (by Roberta Lanzara)