Precautionary Measures and Cumulative Proceedings: The Court of Cassation Clarifies with Ruling No. 30342 of 2025

In the landscape of criminal law, the management of personal precautionary measures represents one of the most delicate and complex aspects, as it directly impacts individual liberty even before a final conviction. The situation becomes even more intricate when a single proceeding involves multiple individuals, investigated for crimes of different natures. It is in this context that the fundamental ruling of the Court of Cassation, Section 5, Ruling No. 30342 of July 24, 2025 (filed on September 5, 2025), is inserted, offering essential clarification on the modalities of applying precautionary measures in so-called "subjectively cumulative proceedings."

The Dilemma of Cumulative Proceedings: Unity vs. Individual Guarantees

The case examined by the Supreme Court, which saw Mr. G. C. as the defendant and Judge P. E. as the rapporteur, rejected an appeal against an order from the Lecce Liberty Tribunal. The central issue concerned the management of proceedings where some defendants are accused of crimes that do not permit a prior interrogation (the so-called "obstructive crimes" under Article 294, paragraph 2-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, such as organized crime or terrorism), while others are investigated for crimes that mandatorily require such interrogation as a fundamental defense guarantee. The crucial point was whether, in such circumstances, it was necessary to separate the procedural positions to ensure full respect for everyone's rights.

In matters of personal precautionary measures, in the case of a subjectively cumulative proceeding in which some individuals are investigated for crimes that obstruct prior interrogation and others for non-obstructive crimes, the judge for preliminary investigations must not proceed with the separation of positions, as the proceeding remains unified and only the precautionary regime is differentiated. However, the judge must avoid, through the issuance of separate orders and the adoption of virtuous practices, that the needs for immediate protection of those investigated for non-obstructive crimes are compromised, by coinciding the notice aimed at the prior interrogation of the latter with the execution of the order applying the measure against the others.

This maxim is of capital importance. The Court of Cassation clarifies that the Judge for Preliminary Investigations (GIP) is not required to separate the proceedings, maintaining the unity of the file. However, this does not mean that individual guarantees must be sacrificed. On the contrary, the precautionary regime must be differentiated. For those investigated for "non-obstructive" crimes, the right to prior interrogation, provided for by Article 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, remains intact and must be ensured through specific "virtuous practices" and the issuance of "separate orders." This implies that the notice for the guarantee interrogation for these individuals must coincide with the execution of the order applying the precautionary measure for the other co-defendants, thus ensuring the right to defense without prejudicing overall precautionary needs.

The Balance Between Procedural Efficiency and the Right to Defense

The Supreme Court's decision is based on a delicate balance between the need for efficiency and speed in criminal proceedings and the indispensable protection of the fundamental rights of the accused. Maintaining a single proceeding, as reiterated by the ruling, aligns with principles of procedural economy and the necessity of evaluating the evidentiary framework as a whole, especially when there are connections between the conduct of different individuals. However, the Court of Cassation emphasizes that such unity can never translate into a curtailment of the right to guarantee interrogation for those for whom the law expressly provides it. Article 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is indeed a bulwark of the right to defense, allowing the accused to provide their version of events and to counter the evidence against them before the precautionary measure becomes fully operational.

Implementation Modalities for the Protection of the Accused

• Unity of the Proceeding: The GIP must not separate the positions of the accused, maintaining a single file.
• Differentiation of the Precautionary Regime: The rules for applying measures must be adapted to the nature of the crime and the position of each accused.
• Issuance of Separate Orders: To ensure the specificity of guarantees, distinct or clearly differentiated orders must be issued.
• Temporal Coincidence: The notice for the prior interrogation of those accused of non-obstructive crimes must occur concurrently with the execution of the precautionary order for others, ensuring timeliness and fullness of the right to defense.

Conclusions: A Beacon for Future Jurisprudence

Ruling No. 30342 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. G. A., stands as an indispensable reference point for jurisprudence on personal precautionary measures. It reaffirms the centrality of the right to defense and guarantee interrogation, even in complex procedural contexts with multiple defendants. For legal practitioners, this ruling is a clear guide on how to balance investigative needs with constitutional and procedural principles, ensuring that every citizen, regardless of the complexity of the proceeding in which they are involved, can enjoy the full guarantees provided by the legal system. Careful application of these principles is fundamental to the legitimacy and fairness of the Italian judicial system.