Inammissibilità: la Cassazione muta natura, ora Corte auto-regolatrice che dissimula la denegata giustizia “purgando” i ricorsi

The two Courts, of laws and legitimacy, in the common circuit of nomofilachia "re-read" the system, first rejecting the accusatory painstakingly born from the womb of the great reform of 1988 and then ab extrinseco the applicants' requests, declared inadmissible without examining the reasons , therefore, sine glossa. In both cases, we are faced with a kind of spoils system, practiced in the submerged of the applied law that attests its hegemony over the codified one. A light came on with an important decision of the European Court of Human Rights, in 2020, but after the Supreme Court it continued along its "main road" of sanctioning inadmissibility, which penalizes lawyers in a position of subjection and " disqualification "professionally (inadmissibility is the equivalent of a drastic and humiliating rejection, a deminutio). The question remains whether this nebulous category, considered by the Supreme Court with a magnifying glass and therefore without specific boundaries, is not hidden, for the accused, a rite in absentia, and for the criminal lawyer if the time has not come for his redemption, rediscovering the natural vocation in the furrow traced by Francesco Carnelutti, writing as a lawyer about the "beautiful fight in defense of public honesty" (Controvento). An urgent signal to the Piazza Cavour headquarters (stop and go), which will also try to react: a new regulatory barrier which, with an expressed and calibrated provision, denies citizenship to the autonomy of the Supreme Court (or self-regulating court in position of self-declaration, first only regulator in accordance with art.65 ord. Giud.) that declares the appeal inadmissible for formal reasons (in the wake of the choice of ECtHR 2020, crystallized as a paradigm or model). The novel would take away ground, for example, from the ambiguous figure ("patent") of the so-called self-sufficiency of the appeal which, working in the council chamber as a rule, marginalizes it and "expels" by placing additional burdens on the applicant's defense counsel, the latter heavily condemned to pay the costs