Revocation of the Abbreviated Judgment: A Limited Power. Analysis of Judgment No. 31869 of 2025 of the Court of Cassation

The Italian judicial system, particularly the criminal justice system, is replete with mechanisms aimed at balancing the need for speed with the right to a fair trial. Among these, the abbreviated judgment represents a fundamental tool, often chosen by the defendant to obtain a reduced sentence. But what happens when an order admitting to this procedure is revoked? Is it always a legitimate possibility? The Court of Cassation, with Judgment No. 31869 of 2025, has provided essential clarifications, outlining the boundaries of this judicial power and reiterating the importance of procedural compliance.

The Abbreviated Judgment: A Procedural Opportunity

The abbreviated judgment, primarily governed by Article 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.), is a special procedure that allows the defendant to request that the trial be decided based on the existing evidence, without a full hearing. The main advantage for the defendant is a one-third reduction in the sentence in case of conviction, in addition to the speed of the proceedings. Admission to this procedure, which occurs upon the defendant's request and with the judge's consent, is a crucial moment that defines the procedural trajectory.

When Revocation Becomes "Abnormal": The Cornerstone Principle of the Judgment

The issue at the heart of the Court of Cassation's ruling concerns the legitimacy of revoking admission to the abbreviated judgment. The Supreme Court, presided over by L. P. and with E. M. as rapporteur, examined the case of an order by which the Preliminary Hearing Judge (G.U.P.) had revoked admission to the ordinary abbreviated judgment, in order to allow the Public Prosecutor (P.M.) to amend the indictment. An action that the Court of Cassation deemed "abnormal."

The order revoking admission to the ordinary abbreviated judgment, issued outside the cases expressly provided for by Article 441-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is abnormal due to a lack of concrete power (Case in which the Court deemed abnormal the order by which the preliminary hearing judge had revoked the admission to the ordinary abbreviated judgment in order to allow the public prosecutor to amend the indictment).

This summary encapsulates the core of the decision. The Court ruled that the revocation of an order admitting to an abbreviated judgment is possible only in the cases "expressly provided for" by Article 441-bis of the c.p.p. The rule, in fact, lists specific situations where revocation is permitted, mainly related to the discovery of new evidence or the lack of conditions for the procedure. In the case at hand, the revocation was ordered to allow the P.M. to amend the charges, a reason that falls outside the statutory provisions. The G.U.P.'s action was therefore considered "abnormal" because it was taken "due to a lack of concrete power," meaning without a legal basis to justify it. This is a fundamental principle that protects the stability of procedural decisions and the defendant's expectations, ensuring that the rules of the game cannot be arbitrarily altered.

Implications of Lack of Power and Guarantees for the Defendant

The Court of Cassation's decision is a clear warning: judicial power, although broad, is always bound by law. The qualification of "abnormal" attributed to the revocation order is not a mere formal reference but has significant practical consequences. An abnormal act is, in fact, a void act, devoid of legal effect, which can be annulled by the Supreme Court without referral, as happened in the case of the Tribunal of Santa Maria Capua Vetere.

This ruling reinforces several fundamental procedural guarantees for the defendant D. P.M. C. L. and for all parties involved in a criminal proceeding:

• Principle of Legality: Every judicial action must be based on a legal provision. The absence of such a basis renders the act illegitimate.
• Legal Certainty: Procedural rules must be clear and predictable, allowing parties to plan their defense strategies with full knowledge.
• Protection of Legitimate Expectations: Once admitted to the abbreviated judgment, the defendant has a legitimate expectation of the conditions and benefits derived from it. This expectation cannot be frustrated except for exceptional and legally provided reasons.
• Role of the Public Prosecutor: The judgment indirectly also delimits the power of the P.M. to influence the abbreviated procedure, preventing late amendments to the indictment from "forcing" the judge to revoke a procedure already granted, outside of the specific circumstances.

The Court referred to consistent precedents (such as Judgment No. 13969 of 2020) and articles of the c.p.p. such as 438 and 568, highlighting consolidated case law on the matter. Article 441-bis of the c.p.p. remains the guiding principle for understanding the limits of revocation.

Conclusions: A Bulwark in Defense of Procedures

Judgment No. 31869 of 2025 of the Court of Cassation stands as an important bulwark in defense of the correct application of criminal procedures. By reiterating the exhaustive nature of the grounds for revoking an abbreviated judgment, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the judge's discretion can never exceed the limits imposed by law. This ruling is fundamental not only for legal professionals but also for every citizen, as it strengthens confidence in the stability and predictability of the judicial system, essential elements for the protection of individual rights and freedoms in a fair and equitable criminal proceeding.