Territorial Jurisdiction and Judicial Police: The Cassation Court Ruling no. 31906 of 2025 and Article 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

The impartiality of judgment and correct territorial jurisdiction are essential pillars in criminal procedural law. The Supreme Court of Cassation, with ruling no. 31906 of September 25, 2025, provided a crucial clarification on the application of Article 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.). This decision rejected the extension of the derogation from territorial jurisdiction, provided for magistrates, to judicial police officers and agents, marking a fundamental distinction between the different functions within the justice system.

Article 11 c.p.p.: A Specific Derogation for Magistrates

Article 11 c.p.p. is a safeguard provision for magistrates, transferring territorial jurisdiction in criminal proceedings involving them within their district. The objective is to prevent conditioning or the appearance of partiality, given the delicate nature of the judicial role.

The case, examined by the Cassation Court upon appeal against a decision by the Court of Appeal of Milan and concerning the defendant G. S., raised the question of the constitutional legitimacy of Article 11 c.p.p. for alleged conflict with Articles 3 and 111 of the Constitution. It was questioned whether the exclusion of judicial police from this derogation was unjustified.

Ruling no. 31906/2025: The Non-Comparability of Roles

The Supreme Court (President Dr. A. E., Rapporteur Dr. C. P.) declared the question "manifestly unfounded." The maxim is unequivocal:

The question of the constitutional legitimacy of Article 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for conflict with Articles 3 and 111 of the Constitution, in the part where it does not provide for the derogation from ordinary rules of territorial jurisdiction to also apply to judicial police agents and officers, is manifestly unfounded, given that the positions of magistrates and judicial police operators are heterogeneous and not comparable to each other, with the derogating provision being justified only towards the former, as it is aimed at satisfying, also in terms of appearance, the impartiality of the judgment.

The Cassation Court emphasized the "heterogeneity and non-comparability" between magistrates and judicial police. Magistrates judge, deciding on personal liberty and the application of the law, a role that requires enhanced protection of impartiality, even perceived impartiality. Judicial police perform investigative and support functions, not adjudicatory ones. The principle of equality (Art. 3 of the Constitution) allows for different treatments for intrinsically different situations. This interpretation is consolidated in jurisprudence (No. 19070 of 2015, No. 26998 of 2007, No. 18110 of 2018).

The reasons for this distinction include:

• Functional Difference: Judgment vs. investigation.
• Constitutional Protection: Independence and impartiality of the judiciary (Art. 107 and 111 of the Constitution).
• Public Perception: Guarantee of judicial impartiality, even in appearance.

Conclusions: A Fundamental Legal Balance

The Cassation Court's ruling no. 31906 of 2025 reiterates the specificity of Article 11 c.p.p. and the logic that guides its introduction. The decision confirms the constitutional legitimacy of the provision, highlighting the importance of distinguishing roles and functions within the justice system to ensure a fair trial and safeguard the rule of law.