Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Ordinanza — n. 13264/2026 — snpen AI generated

Italian court dismisses vague local disturbance claim as inadmissible under criminal procedure code.

Case Number Ordinanza — n. 13264/2026 — snpen
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Italy (IT)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court declared the remittal request inadmissible de plano without hearing the opposing party. The applicant argued local circumstances disturbed the trial, but the court found her facts vague and indeterminate. Consequently, the request was rejected and the applicant ordered to pay procedural costs.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 46 cod. proc. pen.; A remittal request based on vague allegations of local disturbance is inadmissible de plano if it fails to demonstrate a concrete threat to the trial's progress.

Keywords

AI generated
criminal procedure code remittal request local disturbance inadmissible de plano procedural costs trial disruption vague allegations

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 46 cod. proc. pen.
Visti gli atti, l'istanza di rimessione (art. 46 cod.
art. 46 cod. proc. pen
Visti gli atti, l'istanza di rimessione (art. 46 cod.
AI generated
Ordinanza — n. 10835/2025 — snpen
Cassation appeal dismissed for inadmissibility due to failure to allege admissible grounds and reliance on waived liability issues.
Ordinanza — n. 19293/2023 — snpen
Italian Court dismisses appeal against plea bargain as it lacks statutory grounds for review.
Ordinanza — n. 32436/2025 — snpen
Criminal appeal dismissed as inadmissible due to late filing and irrelevant subject matter.
Ordinanza — n. 25249/2025 — snpen
Cassation court dismisses appeal as inadmissible for challenging a non-appealable material correction order.
Ordinanza — n. 14656/2023 — snpen
Italian Court dismisses appeal on criminal continuability, citing lack of unitary criminal program and incongruous sentencing.

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

BOHRER EVA ULRIKE nato il 20/11/1972 avverso il provvedimento del 02/10/2025 del TRIBUNALE di TERMINI IMERESE dato avviso alle parti; udita la relazione svolta dal Consigliere OMBRETTA DI GIOVINE;RITENUTO IN FATTO E

CONSIDERATO IN DIRITTO

Visti gli atti, l'istanza di rimessione (art. 46 cod. proc. pen.) e la memoria presentate personalmente da Eva Ulrike Beihrer; ritenuto che le circostanze dedotte nell'istanza appaiono vaghe e indeterminate, come tali non idonee a configurare l'esistenza di una situazione locale tale da turbare lo svolgimento del processo; ritenuto, dunque, che l'istanza va dichiarata inammissibile con procedura de plano, e conseguente condanna del ricorrente al pagamento delle spese processuali e della somma di euro tremila in favore della Cassa delle ammende P. P.Q.M