Age Determination in Juvenile Proceedings: The Court of Cassation and the Powers of the Precautionary Judge (Judgment no. 32337/2025)

The Italian juvenile justice system is intrinsically linked to the assessment of the age of the individual involved. Age is not a mere demographic data point, but a crucial element that determines the applicability of specific rules, the capacity to understand and intend, and, ultimately, criminal responsibility. In this context, the Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 32337 of 2025, has provided important clarifications on the powers of the precautionary judge regarding the determination of an age of a minor suspect, especially when doubts exist that could influence the application of coercive measures. Let us analyze together the principles established by this significant ruling.

Age in Juvenile Proceedings: A Determining Factor

In juvenile criminal law, age is a fundamental discriminator. Our legal system, in fact, provides for special provisions for individuals who have not reached the age of majority, with particular attention to the age group between 14 and 18 years. Under 14 years of age, a minor is considered not criminally responsible, meaning incapable of understanding and intending, and cannot be subjected to ordinary criminal proceedings. Between 14 and 18 years of age, however, criminal responsibility is assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account their capacity for discernment. It is precisely at this delicate boundary, where uncertainty about age can have profound consequences on personal liberty, that the intervention of the Supreme Court is relevant.

The judgment under review addresses the case of a suspect, whose name we abbreviate as A. E., for whom the Juvenile Court of Turin had rejected a request, and the matter subsequently reached the Court of Cassation. The central issue concerned the possibility for the judge in the precautionary appeal to order an expert assessment of the suspect's age, when age itself was at the heart of the request for revocation or substitution of a coercive measure.

In matters of juvenile proceedings, the judge in the precautionary appeal, tasked with deciding on a request for revocation or substitution of a coercive measure based on the suspect's age, may order, even "ex officio," an expert assessment, in cases where it is uncertain whether the age is above or below fourteen years and, therefore, whether the person is criminally responsible or not, with the presumption established by art. 8, paragraph 3, of Presidential Decree 22 September 1988, no. 448, being applicable only in cases of permanent uncertainty. (In the reasoning, the Court also affirmed that an age assessment falls within the investigative powers recognized to the judge of precautionary measures by art. 299, paragraph 4-ter, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the purpose of verifying the "personal conditions or qualities of the defendant").

This ruling by the Court of Cassation, presided over by Dr. M. A. and with Dr. L. V. as rapporteur, is of fundamental importance. It clarifies that the judge called upon to decide on a precautionary request, if there is uncertainty about the suspect's age – and this uncertainty concerns the crucial threshold of fourteen years, which separates criminal responsibility from non-responsibility – has the power to order, ex officio, meaning on their own initiative, an expert assessment to determine the age. This power is not limited to requests from the parties but responds to the primary need to ascertain the procedural truth, particularly when the "personal conditions or qualities of the defendant" are at stake, as expressly provided for by art. 299, paragraph 4-ter, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The ruling further emphasizes that the presumption of non-criminal responsibility, established by art. 8, paragraph 3, of Presidential Decree 22 September 1988, no. 448 (the Juvenile Code of Criminal Procedure), applies only in cases of "permanent uncertainty." This means that the judge must first employ all available investigative means, including expert assessment, to dispel any doubt. Only if, despite these investigations, the age remains irremediably uncertain, can the presumption in favor of the minor be invoked.

The Judge's Investigative Powers and the Protection of Minors

The principle affirmed by the Court of Cassation strengthens the active role of the juvenile judge, granting them broad investigative powers aimed at ensuring the correct application of the law and the protection of the fundamental rights of the minor. Age determination is not a mere formal requirement but a substantive prerequisite for the application of the specific guarantees and rehabilitative purposes that characterize juvenile proceedings.

The possibility of ordering an ex officio expert assessment is crucial for several reasons:

• Guarantee of Justice: It ensures that no person is judged or subjected to restrictive measures without an accurate verification of their criminal responsibility.
• Protection of Minors: It shields the most vulnerable individuals from proceedings that are not appropriate for their condition of non-criminal responsibility.
• Prevention of Abuse: It prevents uncertainty about age from being exploited by the parties, ensuring decisions are based on objective evidence.
• Effectiveness of the System: It allows the judicial system to apply the most appropriate rules, whether juvenile or ordinary, depending on the actual age of the suspect.

This approach aligns with international principles and European recommendations on juvenile justice, which emphasize the need for accurate age determination and the application of differentiated treatment for minors.

Conclusions: A Beacon for Juvenile Justice

Judgment no. 32337 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a fundamental reference point for juvenile law practitioners. It clearly reiterates the importance of age determination and grants the precautionary judge essential investigative powers to ensure justice and the protection of minors. The possibility of ordering an ex officio expert assessment, when age is uncertain and crucial for criminal responsibility, is an indispensable safeguard that prevents the application of inappropriate measures and ensures that juvenile proceedings fully respond to their guiding principles of protection and rehabilitation. In a context where every detail can make a difference in a young person's life, certainty about age is the first step towards a fair judicial process that respects fundamental rights.