Pre-trial detention and procedural regression: the Criminal Court of Cassation no. 15088/2025 on the time limits under art. 303 c.p.p.

With judgment no. 15088, filed on April 16, 2025, the Fourth Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation returns to address the always delicate issue of the time limits for pre-trial detention in cases of annulment with referral. The case concerns F. C., deemed a qualified participant in an association aimed at drug trafficking, a matter already subject to two consistent judgments on the merits. The Supreme College had to determine whether, after the annulment limited to the defendant's top-tier qualification, the ordinary time limit or the reduced time limit provided for by art. 303, paragraph 4, c.p.p. should apply.

Reference legislative framework

Art. 303 c.p.p. precisely regulates the maximum time limits for pre-trial detention according to the procedural stage and the seriousness of the crime. In particular:

• paragraph 1, letter d): establishes the standard time limits for crimes punishable by severe penalties;
• paragraph 4: provides for reduced time limits when there is a double conviction, i.e., two consecutive decisions that ascertain the defendant's liability;
• art. 304, paragraph 6: allows for an extension in cases of particular complexity, but with strict limits set by the Constitutional Court.

National legislation is part of a supranational context that values the presumption of innocence and the principle of proportionality (art. 5 ECHR), requiring that the precautionary deprivation of liberty be always justified and of limited duration.

In relation to the time limits for pre-trial detention, in the case of a "double conviction" for the crime of qualified participation in an association aimed at drug trafficking, only the time limit indicated in art. 303, paragraph 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies, in the event of procedural regression due to annulment, ordered by the Court of Cassation and limited to the defendant's top-tier qualification within the association.

The ruling, immediately understandable but not trivial, confirms that the double conviction "crystallizes" the judgment of liability: if the annulment does not affect culpability but only the defendant's hierarchical position within the criminal association, the reduced time limits under paragraph 4 remain in effect. In other words, the regression of the proceedings does not turn back the clock on pre-trial detention.

Procedural facts and decision

The Court of Review of Reggio Calabria had already confirmed the detention, deeming art. 74 of Presidential Decree 309/1990 to be fulfilled. The Court of Cassation, presided over by A. M. and rapporteur F. A., rejected the appeal of the Public Prosecutor O. M. against the order of the Court of Review.

Crucial point: the partial annulment previously issued by the Court of Cassation concerned exclusively the "top-tier" qualification of F. C.; this did not affect the existence of the participation offense or its seriousness. Therefore, the situation of double conviction remained intact, with the application of the single time limit provided for by art. 303, paragraph 4.

Practical implications for defense and prosecution

The ruling offers useful insights for both defense counsel and public prosecutors:

• The defense can leverage the reduction of pre-trial detention time limits even in the presence of partial regressions, requesting the immediate termination of the measure once the "short" term has expired.
• The prosecution must carefully assess the appropriateness of appealing only on marginal aspects, as a limited annulment does not reopen the entire detention period.
• The trial judges, in the referral phase, must rule promptly to avoid automatic forfeitures under art. 306 c.p.p.

The judgment aligns with previous rulings from 2019 and 2024 (Cass. nn. 1735/2019 and 30805/2024) and with the United Sections no. 38518/2015, reinforcing an approach aimed at protecting the right to personal liberty against undue extensions of proceedings.

Conclusions

The principle affirmed by the Court of Cassation no. 15088/2025 reiterates that the double conviction remains effective even after an annulment that does not affect the defendant's liability. It follows that, in these cases, the shorter pre-trial detention period provided for by art. 303, paragraph 4, c.p.p. applies. The message is clear: procedural regression cannot translate into an extension of the time of deprivation of personal liberty. This is an important warning for all legal operators, who are called upon to balance the need for security with respect for constitutional and conventional guarantees.