Compensation for damages incurred during criminal proceedings is framed in the context of the responsibility of legal activity carried out by public administration. In administrative law, the concept of “welfarism”, inspired by special regime, is flanked by a model based on the statutory paradigm,with influences arising from the contractor’s liability for risk, or from multiple cases of objective liability. Often the indemnity parameter is confused with non-contractual or pre-contractual compensation. In some cases, the developments of these instances put emphasis on the “protection of legitimacy” in the private sector or the “apparatus of guilt”. Similar forms of responsibility are found in European systems where compensation is derived from the infringement of the principle of equality, in the “rupture de l’égalité devant les charges publique”(within the responsabilité sans faute) or, in the German variant, the “Lastengleichheit”. Alongside traditional assumptions in the compensation process, already identified legally in cases of wrongful imprisonment, violations of the right to a speedy trial, and miscarriage of justice, we can imagine there are many other hypotheses for procedural damages. Slow judicial practice, complex bureaucratic procedures, overcrowding of trials, and media overexposure resulting from strepitus fori, create situations where injuries incurred become eligible for compensation proceedings, even beyond the hypothesis of a dysfunctional use of contract (“abuse of process”). Serious damages incurred in procedural violations are also verified in the field of preventive measures. There is a choice to comply with a procedural indemnity model inspired by the rule of obligation or a more abstract, general model. The first solution already found its prototype in equitable reparation in light of unreasonable length of proceedings under Law n. 89 on 24 March 2001, and it makes possibile a future profiling new assumptions of responsibility on criminal procedural damage, resulting in compensation. A more general paradigm of compensation would instead require an application with extensive regard to similar cases. As we anticipate interventive changes to legislation, the ‘compensation’, inspired by positive performance and impartiality on behalf of the public administration, could represent a kind of general sanctioning against the failure of proceedings, in line with the protection of “legitimate expectations”. “Entrustment”, often applied in case law by the standards of proportionality and rationality, is linked to the principle of equality and ensures the certainty of legal positions of private citizens, which is also in line with the Principle of Solidarity with respect to the powers of the State.

L’indennizzo per i danni del processo penale è inquadrato nell’ambito della responsabilità da attività lecita della pubblica amministrazione. Nel diritto amministrativo la concezione “assistenzialistica”, ispirata a un regime di specialità, si affianca a un modello fondato sul paradigma civilistico, con influenze derivanti dalla responsabilità dell’imprenditore da rischio, ovvero dalle molteplici fattispecie di responsabilità oggettiva. Spesso il parametro indennitario si confonde con quello risarcitorio extracontrattuale o precontrattuale. In alcuni casi, gli sviluppi della fattispecie pongono l’accento sulla “tutela dell’affidamento” del privato o sulla «colpa di apparato». Analoghe forme di responsabilità si riscontrano nei sistemi europei ove l’indennizzo deriva dalla lesione del principio di eguaglianza, nella «rupture de l’égalité devant les charges publique» (nell’ambito della responsabilité sans faute) o, nella variabile tedesca, del «Lastengleichheit. Accanto alle ipotesi tradizionali di indennizzo da processo, già individuate dal legislatore nella l’ingiusta detenzione, nell’irragionevole durata del processo, nell’errore giudiziario, possiamo immaginare molte altre ipotesi di danno processuale. Prassi giudiziarie lente, iter burocratici complessi, sovraffollamento di processi, sovraesposizione mediatica derivante dallo strepitus fori realizzano lesioni da processo indennizzabili, anche al di là delle ipotesi di un utilizzo disfunzionale dell’atto (“abuso” del processo”). Danni da processo molto gravi si riscontrano anche nel settore delle misure di prevenzione. Si può scegliere di aderire a un modello d’indennità processuale ispirato dalla regola della tassatività, oppure di tipo astratto e generale. La prima soluzione trova già il suo prototipo nell’equa riparazione alla durata irragionevole del processo di cui alla legge 24 marzo 2001, n. 89, e rende possibile solo de iure condendo profilare nuove ipotesi di responsabilità da danno processuale penale, con conseguenti indennizzi. Un paradigma indennitario generale consentirebbe, invece, un’ applicazione estensiva riguardo ai casi analoghi. In attesa di un intervento del legislatore, l’‘indennizzo”, ispirato al buon andamento e all’imparzialità dell’amministrazione pubblica, potrebbe rappresentare una sorta di sanzione generale contro il malfunzionamento del processo, in linea con la tutela del “legittimo affidamento”. L’«affidamento», spesso applicato dalla giurisprudenza attraverso i canoni della proporzionalità e della ragionevolezza, si ricollega al principio di uguaglianza e consente di garantire la certezza delle posizioni giuridiche dei privati, in linea anche con il principio di solidarietà rispetto ai poteri dello Stato.

Maggio, P. (2017). Fattispecie indennitaria e danno da processo penale. Torino : Giappichelli.

Fattispecie indennitaria e danno da processo penale

MAGGIO, Paola
2017-01-01

Abstract

Compensation for damages incurred during criminal proceedings is framed in the context of the responsibility of legal activity carried out by public administration. In administrative law, the concept of “welfarism”, inspired by special regime, is flanked by a model based on the statutory paradigm,with influences arising from the contractor’s liability for risk, or from multiple cases of objective liability. Often the indemnity parameter is confused with non-contractual or pre-contractual compensation. In some cases, the developments of these instances put emphasis on the “protection of legitimacy” in the private sector or the “apparatus of guilt”. Similar forms of responsibility are found in European systems where compensation is derived from the infringement of the principle of equality, in the “rupture de l’égalité devant les charges publique”(within the responsabilité sans faute) or, in the German variant, the “Lastengleichheit”. Alongside traditional assumptions in the compensation process, already identified legally in cases of wrongful imprisonment, violations of the right to a speedy trial, and miscarriage of justice, we can imagine there are many other hypotheses for procedural damages. Slow judicial practice, complex bureaucratic procedures, overcrowding of trials, and media overexposure resulting from strepitus fori, create situations where injuries incurred become eligible for compensation proceedings, even beyond the hypothesis of a dysfunctional use of contract (“abuse of process”). Serious damages incurred in procedural violations are also verified in the field of preventive measures. There is a choice to comply with a procedural indemnity model inspired by the rule of obligation or a more abstract, general model. The first solution already found its prototype in equitable reparation in light of unreasonable length of proceedings under Law n. 89 on 24 March 2001, and it makes possibile a future profiling new assumptions of responsibility on criminal procedural damage, resulting in compensation. A more general paradigm of compensation would instead require an application with extensive regard to similar cases. As we anticipate interventive changes to legislation, the ‘compensation’, inspired by positive performance and impartiality on behalf of the public administration, could represent a kind of general sanctioning against the failure of proceedings, in line with the protection of “legitimate expectations”. “Entrustment”, often applied in case law by the standards of proportionality and rationality, is linked to the principle of equality and ensures the certainty of legal positions of private citizens, which is also in line with the Principle of Solidarity with respect to the powers of the State.
2017
Settore IUS/16 - Diritto Processuale Penale
9788892107625
Maggio, P. (2017). Fattispecie indennitaria e danno da processo penale. Torino : Giappichelli.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Fattispecie indennitaria e danno da processo penale libro.pdf

Solo gestori archvio

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale
Dimensione 1.7 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.7 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10447/224449
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact