Functional Abnormality in Criminal Proceedings: Ruling 29336/2025 and the Judge's Limits

The Court of Cassation, with ruling no. 29336 of July 8, 2025, reiterated a fundamental principle for the regularity of criminal proceedings: functional abnormality. This decision clarifies the limits of a judge's power to transmit case files to the Public Prosecutor's Office, safeguarding the correct progression of the proceedings and the rights of the accused.

The Case: Anomalous Regression and the Duty to Decide

The case involved D. Z. The Court of Rome, unable to ascertain the predicate offense of money laundering (art. 648 bis of the Italian Criminal Code) and unable to reclassify the crime, had ordered the regression of the proceedings. This meant returning the case files to the P.M. N. L. for new investigations and charges, rather than ruling on the original accusation.

The Supreme Court censured this decision as "affected by functional abnormality." The judge, in fact, has a duty to decide on the indictment. Article 521, paragraph 2, of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure allows for the transmission of case files for new charges, but it cannot be used to avoid a decision on the original facts. This violates the principles of efficiency and due process, prolonging timelines and keeping the accused in uncertainty.

A measure is affected by functional abnormality when the judge, for the purpose of potentially charging further offenses, orders the transmission of the case files to the public prosecutor, pursuant to art. 521, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without ruling on the originally charged offense. (In application of this principle, the Court censured the tribunal's order which, having verified the impossibility of ascertaining the predicate offense for the charged money laundering and deeming it impossible to otherwise qualify such crime, had ordered the regression of the proceedings for further investigation and potential new charges).

The maxim is clear: the judge cannot use the option of transmitting case files to the P.M. for new charges as a pretext to avoid deciding on the main accusation. If the original offense is not proven, the consequence is acquittal. A referral for "further investigation" would unjustifiably prolong the trial, infringing upon the accused's right to a clear and timely decision.

Protected Procedural Guarantees

Ruling 29336/2025 reinforces a jurisprudential trend in defense of procedural guarantees. It is crucial for:

• Procedural Legality: Every stage of the proceedings must adhere to precise rules.
• Right to Defense: The accused must be aware of and able to defend themselves against the charges.
• Reasonable Duration of Proceedings: A trial must conclude within adequate timeframes.
• Role of the Judge: The judge is the guarantor of the legality and correctness of the proceedings.

Conclusions

The Cassation ruling no. 29336/2025 serves as an important warning: while a judge may suggest new investigations, they cannot evade the duty to decide on the original indictment. A contrary measure will be functionally abnormal and annulled without referral. This principle is a cornerstone for transparent and definitive criminal proceedings, respecting the fundamental rights of every citizen.