The Abnormality of an Act in Criminal Proceedings: The Court of Cassation and the Return of Acts to the Public Prosecutor (Judgment No. 27298/2025)

The proper conduct of criminal proceedings is guaranteed by a series of procedural rules aimed at ensuring justice, the protection of rights, and efficiency. However, what happens when an act, even if performed by a judicial body, deviates so significantly from regulatory provisions as to be considered "abnormal"? It is precisely on this delicate issue that the Court of Cassation has ruled with its recent judgment no. 27298, filed on July 24, 2025, offering fundamental clarifications on the management of generic or indeterminate charges and on the role of the trial judge. This ruling is of particular interest to lawyers, legal professionals, and anyone wishing to better understand the mechanisms governing our judicial system.

The Clarity of the Charge: A Pillar of Criminal Proceedings

At the heart of the case examined by the Court of Cassation is the issue of the charge, i.e., the accusation brought against the defendant by the Public Prosecutor. The charge must be clear, specific, and complete, so as to enable the defendant to fully understand the accusations against them and, consequently, to effectively exercise their right to defense. The Code of Criminal Procedure, in various provisions (e.g., Articles 429, paragraph 2, 552, paragraph 2, and 456, paragraph 1, c.p.p., which respectively govern the decree ordering trial, the decree of direct summons to trial, and the request for immediate trial), imposes precise requirements for the determinacy of the accusation. A generic or indeterminate charge, in fact, severely prejudices the defendant's ability to formulate an adequate defense, undermining the principles of a fair trial at its root.

The Abnormality of an Act and the Principle of Procedural Economy

The Court of Cassation's judgment no. 27298/2025 focuses on a crucial aspect: the conduct of the trial judge when faced with a charge that is generic or indeterminate. The Court held that:

An order by the trial judge, which in cases of generic or indeterminate charges returns the acts to the public prosecutor without first urging them to supplement or clarify the charge, is abnormal due to its potential to cause an undue regression of the proceedings. (In its reasoning, the Court clarified that the principle of economy and reasonable duration of proceedings requires the judge not to declare a nullity before having carried out the necessary activity to remove its cause).

This maxim is extremely significant. An "abnormal act" is a measure that, while formally falling within judicial acts, is so atypical or flawed as to interrupt the logical-legal sequence of the proceedings, causing an unforeseen and illegitimate regression. In this specific case, the Court of Cassation censures the judge's conduct, who, instead of inviting the Public Prosecutor to remedy the defect in the charge through supplementation or clarification, directly decides to return the acts. Such a return entails a regression of the proceedings to an earlier stage, with evident waste of time and resources.

The Court emphasizes that the principle of procedural economy and the principle of reasonable duration of proceedings (the latter also enshrined in Article 111 of the Italian Constitution and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights) require the judge not to declare an act null and void before attempting to remove its cause. In other words, the judge must act as a "facilitator" of justice, seeking to correct procedural defects where possible, rather than abruptly interrupting the procedural path.

Practical Implications for Defense and Prosecution

This ruling has important practical implications:

• For the Public Prosecutor: It serves as a warning to formulate charges as precisely as possible from the outset. In case of challenges from the judge, it requires active collaboration to supplement or clarify the charge, avoiding procedural regressions.
• For the Defense: It offers a tool to contest not only the generality of the charge but also any procedural "leap" by the judge who has not previously urged the Public Prosecutor. Clarity of the charge is a fundamental right of the defendant to best prepare their defense strategy.
• For the Judge: It recalls the duty to adopt a collaborative and proactive approach in managing the proceedings. Before resorting to drastic measures such as returning the acts, the judge must explore all possibilities to remedy the defect in the charge, in compliance with the principles of procedural fairness and efficiency.

Judgment no. 27298/2025 is part of a line of case law aimed at optimizing justice times, reducing causes of regression and nullities that are not strictly necessary. Consider, for example, the numerous rulings that have reiterated the need to avoid excessive formalism in favor of the substance and effectiveness of judicial protection.

Conclusions: A Step Towards More Efficient and Fair Proceedings

The judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 27298 of 2025 represents an important clarification in the field of criminal procedural law. By reiterating the principle that the trial judge cannot return the acts to the Public Prosecutor for a generic charge without first offering them the opportunity to supplement or clarify it, the Supreme Court strengthens the principles of economy and reasonable duration of proceedings. This decision not only helps to avoid unnecessary delays and waste of resources but also ensures that the defendant's right to defense is fully protected through a clear and defined charge. In an increasingly efficiency-oriented judicial system, judgments like this are fundamental to promoting procedural management that is both rigorous in terms of guarantees and streamlined in its process, benefiting all parties involved and fostering trust in justice.