Phd in PUBLIC LAW

Thesis title: Metamorfosi dell’immediatezza. Il difficile equilibrio tra efficienza e garanzie nel rapporto del giudice con la prova.

The judge who recives testimonial evidence must coincide with the one who decides. The study of the evolution - more recently, a considerably regressive one - of this principle begins with a historical framework, from classical and Enlightenment foundations to its formal consolidation under the code of 1930. The analysis then turns to the structure of the code of 1988, which was based on a strict separation of procedural phases, precisely to ensure that the formation of evidence would take place exclusively during the trial phase, in accordance with the principle of adversarial proceedings and in the presence of the trial judge. This is followed by a systematic reconstruction of the placement of the principle of immediacy within the constitutional and supranational framework, beginning with the original proposal during the Constituent Assembly and culminating in its codification in art. 111 Cost., which affirms the defendant’s right to confront testimonial sources in front of the judge, as well as in the acknowledgements expressed by the European Court of Human Rights. Starting from the awareness of both the historical foundation and the constitutional and conventional significance of the rule in question, the study aims to critically examine those procedural mechanisms -both longstanding and more recent - that, under the current law and through increasingly flexible interpretative approaches, have progressively undermined its effective scope. Particular attention is dedicated to the most recent legislative innovations, represented by the opening up of the use of remote hearings and the replacement of evidentiary renewal, in the event of a change in the judge, with the viewing of audiovisual recordings: developments that raise profound questions regarding the future scope of the principle of immediacy in contemporary criminal proceedings.