Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Ordinanza — n. 2972/2026 — snpen AI generated

Cassation appeal dismissed for being generic; no specific facts alleged regarding the ordinance's abnormality.

Case Number Ordinanza — n. 2972/2026 — snpen
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Italy (IT)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible due to its lack of specific factual allegations regarding the alleged abnormality of the lower court's ordinance. The appellant failed to provide any concrete details to support the claim that the decision was arbitrary or unlawful. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, and the appellant was ordered to pay procedural costs and a fine.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 366 c.p.p.; Art. 367 c.p.p.: An appeal against an ordinance of non-prosecution is inadmissible if it is merely generic and fails to deduce specific facts from which the alleged abnormality of the decision can be inferred.

Keywords

AI generated
inadmissible appeal generic grounds abnormality of decision non-prosecution ordinance procedural costs Cassation review specific facts required

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 366 c.p.p.
Art. 367 c.p.p.
AI generated
Ordinanza — n. 5343/2026 — snpen
Cassation appeal against archiving order dismissed for lack of admissibility and absence of abnormality grounds.
Ordinanza — n. 42951/2022 — snpen
Cassation Court dismisses appeal against indictment dismissal as proper remedy is complaint under Art. 410-bis CPP.
Ordinanza — n. 8688/2023 — snpen
Italian court dismisses appeal as inadmissible due to lack of specific grievance regarding sentencing and substantive law errors.
Ordinanza — n. 33867/2022 — snpen
Criminal appeal dismissed as inadmissible because the archived order is not appealable under ordinary review rules.
Ordinanza — n. 4368/2025 — snpen
Italian Court dismisses drug trafficking appeal arguing marijuana lacked potency, ruling merit issues barred in cassation.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

seguente ORDINANZA sul ricorso proposto da: FARINELLA ALESSANDRO nato a GENOVA il 30/12/1975 parte offesa nel procedimento c/ MALUCELLI DANIELE nato a FERRARA il 04/10/1949 GASPARINI MARCO nato a FERRARA il 07/05/1955 GARDELLA MAURO nato a RAVENNA il 14/11/1978 avverso l'ordinanza del 17/03/2025 del GIP TRIBUNALE di FERRARAdato avviso alle parti; udita la relazione svolta dal Consigliere PIETRO SILVESTRI; R.G. n. 17802/2025 CONSIDERATO IN FATTO E IN DIRITTO Visti gli atti, l'ordinanza di archiviazione impugnata; Esaminato il motivo di ricorso, relativo alla ritenuta abnormità del provvedimento impugnato;

Ritenuto il motivo inammissibile perché del tutto generico, non essendo stato dedotto alcunchè da cui inferire la denunciata abnormità del provvedimento impugnato; Ritenuto, pertanto, che il ricorso deve essere dichiarato inammissibile, con la condanna del ricorrente al pagamento delle spese processuali e della somma di euro tremila in favore della Cassa delle ammende; P. Q. M. Dichiara inammissibile il ricorso e condanna il ricorrente al pagamento delle spese processuali e della somma di euro tremila in favore della Cassa delle ammende. Così deciso il 6 ottobre 202