Wiretaps and Connected Proceedings: Cassation 13309/2025 on Limits to Legality Review

Very often in criminal investigations, the results of a wiretap, ordered in an initial proceeding, are "recycled" into different files. This is where a delicate balance is struck between investigative needs and defence guarantees. The recent ruling no. 13309/2025 by the Fifth Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation provides valuable guidance on the usability margins of such interceptions and the role of the legality judge. Let's see why the decision, rendered in the proceedings against D. B. and concerning an order from the Court of Appeal of Turin, deserves attention.

The Principle Affirmed by the Court

Regarding the use of wiretap results in proceedings other than those in which they were ordered, the review entrusted to the judge of the different proceeding concerning the existence of the necessary prerequisites for the use of the evidence - including the so-called "strong connection" under Article 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - gives rise to a factual assessment that can only be challenged before the Court of Cassation for lack of or manifest illogicality of the reasoning. The meaning is clear: the Court of Cassation cannot substitute itself for the lower courts in assessing whether there is a "strong connection" between the two proceedings as required by Article 270, paragraph 1-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It can only intervene when the reasoning is entirely absent or macroscopically illogical. Thus, the perimeter of a legality review, which remains confined to Article 606, letter e), of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is reaffirmed, reserving the factual assessment to the merits phase.

Strong Connection and Protection of Fundamental Rights

Article 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure defines the "connection" between crimes and proceedings; the reference to a "strong" connection recalls the hypothesis where the crimes were committed by the same persons in the same space-time context. Only in the presence of this requirement does Article 270 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allow wiretaps to be transferred to another file, partially nullifying the prohibition under Article 271 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Constitutional Court, with its notable rulings in 2020, had already established a balance between the secrecy of communications under Article 15 of the Constitution and the functionality of investigations. Ruling no. 13309/2025 follows this line: it confirms that the protection of defence rights is guaranteed at the merits level, while in the Court of Cassation only a "weak" review of the argumentative rationality is permitted.

What Changes for Lawyers and Operators

For those defending an accused involved in "satellite" proceedings, the decision offers operational guidance:

• The verification of the "strong connection" must be raised promptly before the merits judge, with specific indications regarding the extraneousness of the wiretaps.
• The reasoning of the order admitting the use must be analytical; gaps or apodictic statements can form the basis of an appeal to the Court of Cassation.
• The limits of an appeal to the Court of Cassation remain those of Article 606, letter e): it is useless to re-contest the facts, but fruitful to highlight logical contradictions or decisive omissions.

Furthermore, the supranational aspect should not be forgotten: the European Court of Human Rights requires that limitations on the right to privacy be provided for by clear law and that judicial review be effective. The "strong" reasoning required by the merits judges should also be read in this light of conventional compatibility.

Conclusions

Ruling 13309/2025 does not introduce revolutionary innovations but strongly reiterates a systemic principle: the use of wiretaps in different proceedings represents an exception to the ordinary rules and requires careful factual scrutiny. The Court of Cassation has the role of an external guarantor of logical-legal coherence, not a new merits judge. For criminal defence lawyers, this means carefully preparing exceptions regarding the connection from the outset and demanding reasoned decisions: only in this way will it be possible, if necessary, to open a path towards legality review.