Non Liquet & Constitutionality: No Challenge?

Ruling on an appeal lodged against the provision of the President of the Court of Review which had ordered the “no need to take action” on a request aimed at raising the question of constitutional legitimacy in the matter of non-binary gender, disability (autistic spectrum) and rights of detained persons, with a deduced “regulatory gap” on effective access to justice (art. 24 of the Constitution and art. 13 CRPD), the Criminal Court of Cassation, Section. I, with the sentence of 19 February 2026, n. 6763 – in disregarding the defense thesis which assumed that the request was equipped with the requirements of not being manifestly unfounded and relevant – affirmed the principle according to which the appeal to cassation against the provision, of an administrative and orderly nature, with which the President of the Court of review declares “no need to take action” is inadmissible on a request which requests the referral of a question of constitutional legitimacy relating to an alleged “regulatory gap” in terms of access to justice for people non-binary prisoners and those with disabilities. And indeed, the jurisdiction of the Court of Review, pursuant to articles. 309–310 cpp, is limited to precautionary appeals in the phase prior to the expiation of the sentence, and the question of constitutionality can only be raised in the context of an ongoing trial (art. 23L. 87/1953), as it cannot have as its object a generic complaint of a regulatory gap.