Nullity of 'Surprise' Dismissal: Cassation Ruling 24704/2025 and the Right to Adversarial Proceedings

The Court of Cassation, with Ruling No. 24704 of June 11, 2025 (filed July 4, 2025), has clarified a fundamental point regarding dismissal for particular insignificance of the act. By annulling an order from the Judge for Preliminary Investigations (GIP) of Padua concerning defendant C. R., the Supreme Court reiterated the unavoidable importance of adversarial proceedings, especially when the victim opposes the dismissal request.

Dismissal for Insignificance of the Act: The Crux of Adversarial Proceedings

During preliminary investigations, the Public Prosecutor (P.M.) may request dismissal, including for particular insignificance of the act (Art. 131-bis of the Criminal Code), which excludes punishability for offenses of minimal offensiveness. The victim has the right to oppose such a request. The ruling addresses the case where the GIP decides to dismiss for insignificance of the act, even though the opposition was filed against a dismissal request due to lack of evidence. This is where the cardinal principle of adversarial proceedings comes into play.

In the context of preliminary investigations, an order of dismissal for particular insignificance of the act, issued following the victim's opposition to a dismissal request based on the absence of elements sufficient to support the prosecution in court, is null and void if the judge for preliminary investigations issued the order "by surprise," failing to invite the parties to engage in dialogue on the matter before making the decision.

The maxim of Ruling No. 24704/2025 is unequivocal. If the P.M. requests dismissal due to lack of evidence and the victim opposes it, the GIP cannot dismiss for "insignificance of the act" (Art. 131-bis of the Criminal Code) without first hearing the parties on this specific ground. Such a "surprise" decision violates adversarial proceedings, preventing the victim from arguing on a basis different from the lack of evidentiary support. The order is, therefore, null and void.

The Constitutional Value of Adversarial Proceedings

The principle of adversarial proceedings, a cornerstone of a fair trial (Art. 111 of the Constitution, Art. 6 of the ECHR), is indispensable. The Cassation Court, in line with previous precedents (including the United Sections, such as No. 13681 of 2016 and No. 38954 of 2019), establishes that a change in the grounds for dismissal requires the GIP to invite the parties to engage in dialogue. This ensures:

• Full knowledge of the reasons for the decision.
• The opportunity for the victim to contest the insignificance of the act.
• Respect for the right to defense.

Articles 178, 408, 410, and 411, paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure support these guarantees.

Conclusions: Protection and Transparency in Proceedings

Ruling No. 24704/2025, presided over by L. P. and authored by R. G., strengthens procedural guarantees. The annulment of the "surprise" dismissal order for insignificance of the act is not a mere formality but a reaffirmation of the unavoidable right to adversarial proceedings. Even when applying Art. 131-bis of the Criminal Code, the GIP must ensure that the parties, particularly the victim who has opposed, can express their views on the specific grounds. This pronouncement protects the victim and guides the conduct of judges, ensuring that speed never compromises the correctness and completeness of the guarantees of a fair trial.