The Guarantee Interrogation in Precautionary Measures: Ruling 29649/2025 and the Principle of Actual Execution

In criminal procedural law, the guarantee interrogation is crucial for the rights of the accused. The Court of Cassation, with ruling no. 29649 of 08/07/2025 (filed 08/25/2025), has clarified a fundamental aspect, strengthening defense guarantees. The decision, which involved defendant C. P. and annulled without referral a measure by the Tribunal of Liberty of Naples, establishes that the mere notification of the summons to appear is not sufficient to consider the preliminary interrogation as having been carried out, thus still requiring a subsequent one.

The Right to Defense and Precautionary Measures

Personal precautionary measures, such as detention, are restrictive measures of liberty. Article 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the guarantee interrogation, which allows the suspect or accused to defend themselves and provide clarifications. The legislation distinguishes between a "preliminary" interrogation (Art. 291, paragraph 1-quater c.p.p.), which precedes the issuance of the measure, and a "subsequent" one (Art. 294, paragraph 1 c.p.p.), which takes place after its application.

The Holding of Ruling 29649/2025: Clarity on Actual Execution

The Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. E. Di Salvo and with Dr. M. Cirese as Rapporteur, examined the exclusion of the subsequent interrogation if a preliminary one had been scheduled but not conducted. The Supreme Court ruled that a mere "summons" does not equate to the actual exercise of the right. Here is the holding:

In the context of personal precautionary measures, the provision of Art. 294, paragraph 1, cod. proc. pen., according to which the judge, in order not to dispense with the subsequent guarantee interrogation, must have already proceeded with the preliminary one pursuant to Art. 291, paragraph 1-quater, cod. proc. pen., requires that the latter has been effectively carried out, with the mere notification of the summons to appear to the accused and their defense counsel not being sufficient, in cases where they do not appear at the hearing set for the performance of the act.

This means that the right to an interrogation is not satisfied by a mere formality. The invitation is not enough; the act must have concretely taken place. If the accused and their defense counsel do not appear for the preliminary interrogation, the judge cannot preclude the opportunity for a subsequent interrogation. Instead, they must proceed with the subsequent guarantee interrogation, reinforcing the principle of adversarial proceedings and the substantive nature of the right to defense.

Practical Implications and Constitutional Protection

The ruling has direct consequences: the judge cannot refrain from conducting the subsequent guarantee interrogation if the preliminary one was not *actually* carried out, even in cases of non-appearance. This guarantees the accused an indispensable opportunity for defense, preventing the loss of a formal occasion from prejudicing a constitutionally guaranteed right (Art. 24 of the Constitution) and a fair trial (Art. 6 ECHR). The implications include:

• Full exercise of the right to defense.
• Avoidance of unjustified forfeitures.
• Correct application of precautionary measures.

Conclusions

Ruling 29649/2025 is an important reminder for jurisprudence. It reiterates that the protection of the right to defense, in personal precautionary measures, cannot be compromised by restrictive interpretations. The actual execution of the guarantee interrogation is an indispensable requirement for the lawfulness of the proceedings and for the safeguarding of individual liberties. This pronouncement strengthens a judicial system that places fundamental citizens' rights at its core.