The Supreme Court Defines the Inadmissibility of Evidence in Summary Proceedings: Judgment No. 32019 of 2025

In the complex landscape of Italian criminal law, the issue of evidence inadmissibility is a fundamental pillar for ensuring the fairness and legality of proceedings. The Supreme Court of Cassation, with Judgment No. 32019 of 2025, has provided a highly relevant clarification, specifying the scope of application of evidence inadmissibility within the peculiar context of summary proceedings (giudizio abbreviato). This ruling is essential for understanding which procedural violations can effectively compromise the validity of an evidentiary element in a special procedure that, by its nature, aims for speed.

Summary Proceedings and the Function of Evidence

Summary proceedings are a special procedure in criminal proceedings, governed by Article 438 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.), which allows the defendant to request that the trial be conducted based on the preliminary investigation records, in exchange for a one-third reduction in the sentence in case of conviction. However, its "rewarding" nature and speed cannot disregard the fundamental principles governing the acquisition and admissibility of evidence. Article 191, paragraph 1, c.p.p. generally establishes that evidence acquired in violation of legal prohibitions cannot be used. But what happens when this violation occurs within the context of summary proceedings, which also have their own rules regarding the admission of new evidence?

The Crucial Distinction by the Supreme Court: When is Evidence Truly Inadmissible?

Judgment No. 32019 of 2025 by the Supreme Court, with rapporteur Dr. C. A., addresses precisely this delicate balance. The Court, in rejecting the appeal filed by the defendant S. V. against the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Catania, clarified that not all violations of evidentiary prohibitions lead to the inadmissibility of evidence in summary proceedings under Article 438, paragraph 6-bis, c.p.p. This is the core principle, the heart of the decision, which is worth quoting in full:

In the context of summary proceedings, evidence is inadmissible under Article 438, paragraph 6-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it is affected by a pathology related to the "violation of an evidentiary prohibition," not all evidence admitted in "violation of legal prohibitions" pursuant to Article 191, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but only that acquired in disregard of a substantive rule that deprives the judge of the power to admit it, or in violation of procedural rules expressing constitutional or supranational principles or provisions. (Case in which the Court excluded the deducibility, in summary proceedings, of the violation of Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the face of incriminating statements made by someone who, questioned as a person informed about the facts during the investigation, should have been heard as a suspect).

This ruling is of paramount importance because it draws a clear distinction between the general inadmissibility under Article 191 c.p.p. and the "pathological" inadmissibility referred to in Article 438, paragraph 6-bis, c.p.p. The Supreme Court emphasizes that in summary proceedings, inadmissibility does not arise from every procedural violation. It is limited to very specific cases, namely:

• When the evidence was acquired in violation of a substantive rule that deprives the judge of the very power to admit that evidence (e.g., a wiretap conducted without respecting legal conditions);
• When the violation concerns procedural rules that express principles or provisions of constitutional or supranational rank (such as, for example, the right to defense, the prohibition of torture, or the principles of a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

The specific case examined by the Court concerned incriminating statements made by a person who, initially questioned as a person informed about the facts, should have been heard as a suspect (violation of Article 63, paragraph 2, c.p.p.). The Supreme Court held that such a violation, while a procedural irregularity, did not fall within the categories of "pathological" inadmissibility applicable to summary proceedings. This means that a mere "erroneous qualification" of the person questioned, although censurable, is not automatically sufficient to render the evidence inadmissible in this special procedure, unless it infringes constitutional or supranational principles.

Implications and Legal References

The decision of the Supreme Court has a significant impact on defense and prosecution strategies in summary proceedings. It is no longer sufficient to invoke a general violation of law to request the exclusion of evidence; it is necessary to demonstrate that such a violation falls within the more stringent categories outlined by the Supreme Court. The judgment explicitly refers to Articles 63, paragraph 2, 191, paragraph 1, and 438, paragraph 6-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as constitutional and supranational principles, reinforcing the idea of an evidentiary system that, while aiming for efficiency, can never sacrifice fundamental guarantees.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 32019 of 2025 by the Supreme Court of Cassation represents a firm point in Italian jurisprudence regarding the inadmissibility of evidence in summary proceedings. It clarifies that the protection of evidentiary legality in this special procedure is limited to the most serious violations, those that affect the judge's power to acquire evidence or that infringe upon principles of constitutional and supranational rank. This interpretation offers greater legal certainty, precisely delineating the boundaries within which a procedural irregularity can truly compromise the validity of an evidentiary element, urging legal practitioners to conduct a rigorous and careful assessment of individual cases.