The Court of Cassation and Immediate Judgment: The Abnormality of Transmitting Case Files (Judgment no. 21332 of 2025)

The Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 21332, filed on June 6, 2025, has provided a fundamental clarification on the limits of criminal proceedings, addressing the issue of the abnormality of a measure by which, in immediate judgment, the collegiate court orders the transmission of case files to the Public Prosecutor for the holding of the preliminary hearing. This ruling, presided over by Dr. C. E. and reported by Dr. P. G. A. R., is crucial for understanding the rigorous architecture of our procedural system and the guarantees it aims to protect.

Immediate Judgment: A Special Procedure with Specific Purposes

Immediate judgment (art. 453 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure) is a special procedure aimed at accelerating trial times when the evidence appears clear. Its peculiarity lies in the omission of the preliminary hearing, a filtering phase that verifies the validity of the charges before the trial. The absence of this phase makes immediate judgment a faster path, but it requires strict adherence to its specific conditions and procedures.

The case examined by the judgment concerned an immediate judgment for the offense under art. 316-ter of the Criminal Code (undue receipt of state aid). The single judge had transmitted the case files to the collegiate court, competent under art. 33-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the subject matter. The critical point arose when the collegiate court, in turn, transmitted the case files to the Public Prosecutor of the European Public Prosecutor's Office, invoking art. 33-septies of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the intention of holding a preliminary hearing.

A measure is abnormal when, in immediate judgment, the collegiate court orders the transmission of case files to the public prosecutor, pursuant to art. 33-septies of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the holding of the preliminary hearing, which is not provided for in the aforementioned judgment. (Case relating to immediate judgment for the offense under art. 316-ter of the Criminal Code, within which the single judge had transmitted the case files to the collegiate court, competent under art. 33-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and this had, in turn, transmitted them to the public prosecutor of the European Public Prosecutor's Office).

The summary of the Court of Cassation clarifies that the preliminary hearing is incompatible with the structure of immediate judgment, which by its nature excludes it. Any measure that attempts to reintroduce it, such as the transmission of case files to the Public Prosecutor for this purpose, is "abnormal." Abnormality, in criminal procedural law, indicates an act so deviant from the legal framework as to render it radically extraneous to the system. This decision emphasizes the importance of respecting the established procedural sequences, in order to safeguard procedural efficiency and the defendant's guarantees.

The Decision of the Court of Cassation: The Reasons for Abnormality

The Court annulled without referral the measure of the Court of Nola dated January 15, 2025. The reasons lie in the very nature of immediate judgment and the erroneous application of the rules. Art. 33-septies of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs the transmission of case files to the Public Prosecutor for lack of jurisdiction or connection, but it cannot be used to reintroduce a preliminary hearing that the immediate judgment has, by definition, eliminated.

The principle of procedural legality requires that every judicial act be based on a specific legal provision. In immediate judgment, the law has already chosen to skip the preliminary hearing to expedite proceedings. Reintroducing this phase would distort the procedure, creating an uncontemplated hybrid that could be detrimental to the rights of the parties. In particular, the transmission of case files to the Public Prosecutor for a preliminary hearing in an immediate judgment violates:

• The principle of procedural economy, which inspires the immediate judgment procedure.
• The exclusivity of procedural forms, which prevents atypical procedures.
• Defense guarantees, as the defendant has the right to a specific procedure, without deviations.

The Court of Cassation, referring to previous case law (Sez. U, no. 7 of 1989; Sez. U, no. 19 of 1993), reiterated that an abnormal measure is appealable even outside the expressly provided cases, as it falls outside the exercise of jurisdictional functions.

Conclusions: A Warning for the Proper Administration of Justice

Judgment no. 21332 of 2025 is a warning to all legal operators. It reiterates the need for a rigorous application of procedural rules, especially in special procedures that, while aiming for acceleration, must ensure full respect for the principles of a fair trial. The abnormality of the measure transmitting case files to the Public Prosecutor for the preliminary hearing in immediate judgment is not a mere formal error, but a deviation from the legal path that compromises the validity of the proceeding. This ruling strengthens legal certainty and the protection of procedural guarantees, pillars of a fair and efficient judicial system.