Immediate Proceedings and Rights of the Injured Party: Curing Nullity According to Judgment 20343/2025

In the complex landscape of Italian criminal procedural law, the balance between the efficiency of the judicial system and the protection of the fundamental rights of the parties is a constant challenge. In this context, the Court of Cassation has ruled with the significant Judgment no. 20343 of 2025 (filed on June 3, 2025), addressing a matter of primary importance concerning immediate proceedings and the position of the injured party. This ruling offers clarity on how procedural nullities, particularly omitted notification, can be cured, outlining a path that balances the need for speed with guarantees.

Immediate Proceedings: Speed and Procedural Guarantees

Immediate proceedings represent one of the special procedural routes provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Articles 453 et seq.) to accelerate justice. It is ordered when the evidence appears evident and the defendant has been interrogated or, despite being summoned, has not appeared, or when they have made statements from which the evidence is clear. The objective is to bypass the preliminary hearing, moving directly to the trial, with a significant saving of procedural time. However, precisely because of its accelerated nature, it is essential that all guarantees are respected, including the correct notification of all interested parties.

Omitted Notification to the Injured Party and the Risk of Nullity

One of the crucial aspects in criminal proceedings is the protection of the victim of the crime. The Code of Criminal Procedure grants them the right to be informed about the progress of the proceedings and, in particular, to be able to join as a civil party to seek compensation for damages suffered (Art. 79 c.p.p.). The omitted notification of the decree for immediate proceedings to the injured party constitutes, according to Art. 456, paragraph 3, c.p.p., a general nullity of intermediate regime, pursuant to Art. 180 c.p.p. This nullity, if not cured, could invalidate the entire proceeding, compromising the validity of subsequent acts and delaying the final outcome. The issue brought to the attention of the Cassation concerned precisely a case of this type, where the initial omitted notification had led to an appeal by the defense counsel of the injured party, in the case involving defendant Z. Z. and injured party L. B., against a sentence of penalty application.

In the context of immediate proceedings, the proper notification to the injured party of the notice of the scheduled hearing, pursuant to Art. 458 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to decide on the request for penalty application made by the defendant, placing the injured party in a position to file the declaration of civil party constitution at that hearing, cures the nullity arising from the previous omitted notification of the immediate proceedings decree.

The Cassation's Solution: Curing through Art. 458 bis c.p.p.

With judgment no. 20343 of 2025, the Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. G. De Marzo and with Dr. P. Valiante as rapporteur, has offered a highly significant interpretative solution. The above summary clarifies that the nullity arising from the omitted notification of the immediate proceedings decree to the injured party can be cured. This occurs if the injured party receives a proper notification of the notice of the hearing scheduled pursuant to Art. 458 bis c.p.p., i.e., the hearing to discuss the request for penalty application by agreement of the parties (the so-called "plea bargain").

The Supreme Court's reasoning is based on the principle that, although the initial omission is a defect, the subsequent notification of the hearing for the plea bargain nevertheless places the injured party in a position to fully exercise their right to join as a civil party. In other words, the ultimate purpose of the notification – to ensure the injured party has the opportunity to participate and protect their interests – is still achieved, even if at a later stage than the notification of the immediate proceedings decree. This interpretation prevents a mere formal irregularity, however significant, from paralyzing the proceedings when the substance of the right to defense of the injured party is otherwise guaranteed.

• **Guarantee of the right to join as a civil party:** The subsequent notification allows the injured party to submit their declaration for compensation for damages.
• **Principle of procedural economy:** Curing avoids the regression of the proceedings, promoting speed and efficiency.
• **Balancing of interests:** The decision balances the protection of the injured party with the need for swift and effective justice, especially in the context of special proceedings.

Conclusions and Practical Implications

Judgment 20343/2025 of the Court of Cassation represents an important reference point for legal professionals. It reiterates the importance of protecting the injured party in criminal proceedings, but at the same time provides a pragmatic interpretation of the rules on nullity, preventing formal defects, which can be cured in substance, from unnecessarily hindering the course of justice. For lawyers, this means greater attention to the notification phases, but also the awareness that not every initial omitted notification is irrevocable, as it can be cured by subsequent acts that nevertheless guarantee the effective exercise of rights. A decision that strengthens the balance between guarantees and the functionality of the criminal justice system.