Preventive Interrogation and Precautionary Measures: The Court of Cassation with Judgment no. 27080/2025 Clarifies Limits in Multi-Defendant Proceedings

Criminal justice, with its complexity and guarantees, is a constantly evolving field where jurisprudence plays a crucial role in defining the application of laws. A recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Cassation, Judgment no. 27080 of 27/06/2025, serves as an important beacon regarding personal precautionary measures and, in particular, the obligation for preventive interrogation in proceedings involving multiple defendants. This decision, which annuls without referral the ruling of the Rome Liberty Tribunal of 13/02/2025, once again underscores the judiciary's focus on protecting individual rights, even in complex investigative contexts.

At the heart of the issue is Article 291, paragraph 1-quater, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a provision introduced to strengthen defense guarantees, mandating a "preventive" interrogation before the application of a precautionary measure, barring specific exceptions. But what happens when multiple individuals are involved in a proceeding? Can the reasons that prevent preventive interrogation for one defendant automatically extend to co-defendants? The Court of Cassation has provided a clear answer, reaffirming the principle of individual responsibility and assessment.

The Regulatory Framework: Preventive Interrogation ex Art. 291 c.p.p.

Before delving into the merits of the judgment, it is essential to understand the relevant regulatory framework. Article 291, paragraph 1-quater, of the c.p.p. stipulates that the judge, before issuing an order for precautionary custody, must proceed with the interrogation of the investigated person, unless there are "impeding precautionary needs" or the case involves "prohibited offenses." This provision aims to ensure the adversarial principle and allow the investigated person to present their version of events before a measure restricting personal liberty, such as imprisonment or house arrest, is imposed.

The exceptions to this rule, such as impeding precautionary needs (e.g., imminent risk of flight or destruction of evidence) or prohibited offenses (types of offenses for which the law excludes preventive interrogation, often due to their particular gravity or investigative complexity), were introduced to balance the need to protect rights with the requirements of effective criminal prosecution. The real challenge, as highlighted by the judgment in question, arises when these exceptions manifest in proceedings involving multiple subjects.

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation: A Principle of Individuality

Judgment no. 27080/2025, concerning the case of defendant A. S., addressed precisely this delicate issue, formulating a ruling that represents an indispensable benchmark:

In matters of personal precautionary measures, the judge for preliminary investigations, in multi-defendant proceedings, must not conduct the preventive interrogation ex Art. 291, paragraph 1-quater, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Instead, they must proceed with a post-measure guarantee interrogation solely concerning the investigated person for whom they deem there are impeding precautionary needs or sufficient evidence of guilt for a prohibited offense as per the aforementioned provision. This is because the existence of derogating causes pertaining to co-defendants, even if seriously suspected of the same offense or related or connected offenses, is irrelevant for this purpose.

This ruling is of fundamental importance because it crystallizes a cardinal principle of criminal law: that of personal criminal responsibility and, by extension, the individual assessment of the conditions justifying a restriction of liberty. In simple terms, the Court of Cassation has clarified that, even in a proceeding involving multiple individuals (so-called "multi-defendant proceedings"), any existing reasons that prevent preventive interrogation for a co-defendant (for example, because the latter is accused of a prohibited offense or there are urgent precautionary needs concerning them) cannot be automatically extended to all other investigated persons. Each position must be assessed independently by the Judge for Preliminary Investigations (GIP).

This means that if the same reasons that would justify omitting the preventive interrogation for a co-defendant do not exist for investigated person A. S., then A. S. has the right to be interrogated before the precautionary measure is applied. Only if the impeding precautionary needs or the sufficient evidence of guilt for a prohibited offense specifically relate to him can the preventive interrogation be omitted, and a post-measure guarantee interrogation (ex Art. 294 c.p.p.) will proceed, which occurs after the measure has been executed.

Practical Implications and Protection of Defense Guarantees

The scope of this decision is broad and translates into greater protection for the investigated person. Here are some of the main implications:

• **Individualized Assessment:** The GIP is required to conduct a case-by-case analysis, unable to rely on a "domino effect" of obstructive causes among co-defendants.
• **Strengthening the Right to Defense:** The investigated person has greater opportunities to exercise their right to adversarial proceedings before their liberty is restricted.
• **Prevention of Abuse:** It prevents the exception from becoming the rule, ensuring that preventive interrogation is omitted only when strictly necessary and individually justified.
• **Reference to Art. 274 c.p.p.:** Precautionary needs (risk of flight, tampering with evidence, recidivism) must be assessed in relation to the conduct and position of the individual investigated person, as provided for by Art. 274, paragraph 1, letter A) of the c.p.p.

This ruling aligns with a jurisprudential trend that increasingly values individual guarantees in criminal proceedings, in line with the principles of a fair trial enshrined in the Italian Constitution (Art. 111) and the European Convention on Human Rights (Art. 6).

Conclusions: A Step Forward for Criminal Justice

Judgment no. 27080/2025 of the Court of Cassation, presided over and drafted by Dr. M. R., represents a significant piece in the mosaic of Italian criminal procedure. It strongly reaffirms the principle that exceptions to defense guarantees, such as the omission of preventive interrogation, must be interpreted restrictively and applied on a strictly individual basis, even in complex investigative contexts involving multiple defendants. This not only strengthens the position of the investigated person but also raises the standard of diligence required of judges in assessing precautionary measures, contributing to a fairer judicial system that respects fundamental rights. For those involved in criminal proceedings, understanding these dynamics is essential to best protect their position and fully avail themselves of the guarantees offered by the legal system.