That is to say: the summons issued by the Administration (AAMS) for the presumed offender to appear (whose omission according to the Italian Court of Cassation results in the annulment of the consequent order/injunction), when requested in the submission by the defence, cannot be just a formality or a kind of “sweetener”. In this specific case, the claimant, deemed by the investigators according to comma 6 to be affected by a connectivity deficiency, complained that AAMS had summoned him to appear with a letter that rejected at the same time his request for release from seizure as devoid of merit. Well then, why should I go to the AAMS if they have already decided that I am guilty? (These must have been the thoughts of the unfortunate citizen...). Hence the claim submitted to the Court. The Court has guaranteed the Right of Defence and has ruled in the following terms: “As a first reason for objection, the claimant objects on the basis of the presence of a procedural flaw, i.e. that he has not been given, in compliance with Art. 18 of the Law 689/81, the hearing requested at the same time as his original appeal. As for the objection to administrative sanctions, the issue of a summons to the interested party who has expressed a request made at the same time as the appeal and without any condition attached is deemed to be a clear obligation on the Administration, according to Art. 18 of the Law 689/1981, devised to guarantee the right of defence of the presumed offender, because such summonses are in fact essential as they are aimed at a possible out of court settlement. It follows that the fulfilment of such an obligation is in fact a condition for the validity of the procedure and therefore any omission creates an irremediable fault that makes the injunction issued at the end of such a procedure unlawful. That having been said in principle, one must assess whether in the matter in hand the defendant did comply or otherwise with the clear obligation with which he is charged. AAMS deem to have complied with the requirement via the rejection order of the opposition to the seizure issued on 23/06/2006, protocol no. ***, where it is stated, quoting word for word, that "as requested by the interested parties and in compliance with Art. 18 of the Law of 24 November 1981 no. 689, we wish to let you know that you can obtain an appointment by phoning no. …. “. The choice of words adopted by the defendant and as reported word for word above, does not fulfil the aim required by law because of two separate sets of reasons explained fully below, and therefore the injunction under discussion is deemed to be unlawful, being in itself the result of a procedure vitiated by an irremediable fault, due to the non observance of an expressed requirement. We have already noted that one of the aims of the hearing is the possible out of court settlement of the dispute; in this case the presumed summons is contained in the document issued on 23/06/2006, protocol no. 6619, by which AAMS rejected the opposition to the seizure of device, as stated in the document setting out the official response to the appeal. There is no doubt that, in the light of the aims the lawmakers wanted to give to the hearing, such a hearing must take place before the issue of the document setting out the official response to the appeal. It follows that where the summons, as in this case, is not issued before the official response to the appeal, the summons are devoid of any validity, because it is effectively impossible to realise the objective for which such a summons has been established. On further examination, the actions by the defendant are reprehensible too if they are examined in a purely formal way; although the law does not prescribe any particular wording for the injunction, such an injunction must contain both the invitation to the claimant to appear at a stated time and date, and the consequences deriving from a non appearance. It follows from the aforesaid that the first grounds of the opposition must be deemed to be irrefutably sound and worthy of the acceptance of the appeal, because of the presence of a flaw making unlawful the entire procedure that ended with the issue of the injunction, and a declaratory judgement is requested stating that such an injunction was ineffectual and invalid; in addition, because of its overriding nature, it is superfluous to deal with other aspects of criticism of the defendant." The conclusion: please pay great attention to any summons! A citizen deserves to be heard before any decision is reached and a formal appointment must be given for a hearing. Contacted by us to obtain a confirmation, Dott. Ripamonti obviously declared that he was very satisfied, commenting as follows: "The ruling appears to me correct and in defence of civil rights, and I believe it will even prove useful to Government departments".

Printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend

Bookmark this

---