Judgment in Absentia and Cartabia Reform: The Court of Cassation Clarifies Verification Terms (Judgment No. 31829 of 2025)

Italian criminal proceedings, with the innovations of the Cartabia Reform (Legislative Decree No. 150 of 2022), have strengthened the need to ascertain the defendant's actual knowledge of the proceedings and their voluntary absence to proceed "in absentia." On this delicate balance between procedural efficiency and defense guarantees, the Court of Cassation has intervened with Judgment No. 31829 of September 10, 2025, providing a crucial interpretation on the timing of these verifications.

The Cartabia Reform and Knowledge of Proceedings

The rules governing judgment in absentia have undergone significant changes with the Cartabia Reform. The objective was to reinforce the principle that no one can be tried without real knowledge of the charges and the opportunity to defend themselves, unless the absence is a free and conscious choice. Article 420-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended, establishes the conditions for proceeding in absentia, requiring proof that the defendant was aware of the pending proceedings and that their absence is voluntary or not due to a legitimate impediment.

The Cassation's Clarification: When to Verify Absence?

Judgment No. 31829 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation (President: L. Agostinacchio, Rapporteur: A. Saraco), annulling a decision by the Juvenile Appeals Court of Trento concerning the defendant L. P.M. L., addresses the crucial issue of when the verification of actual knowledge of the proceedings and voluntary absence must be carried out. The ruling establishes a fundamental principle for all criminal trials:

In judgments in absentia, the verification concerning the defendant's actual knowledge of the proceedings and voluntary absence, as a result of the amendments made by Legislative Decree of October 10, 2022, No. 150, must be carried out during the preliminary hearing, where provided, as the dichotomy between this and the trial has ceased to exist in favor of a unitary proceeding in which the latter phase constitutes a continuation of the former, without the need to repeat it, except in cases of impediment or the defendant's departure. (In its reasoning, the Court also affirmed that the indicated verifications will, instead, have to be carried out in proceedings initiated without a preliminary hearing).

This maxim is of paramount importance. The Court clarifies that the verification must occur, primarily, during the preliminary hearing, when it is provided for. This approach stems from the new concept of a "unitary proceeding" post-Cartabia, where the preliminary hearing and the trial are consequential phases. If the verification has already been completed and the absence ascertained as voluntary during the preliminary hearing, it will not be necessary to repeat it at trial, unless new circumstances arise. The Court of Cassation further specifies that in proceedings initiated without a preliminary hearing (e.g., direct summons), the verifications will be carried out during the trial phase, ensuring compliance with the principle in every context.

Implications and Protection of Rights

The practical implications of this interpretation are significant:

• Certainty and Uniformity: It provides clear guidance for judges, reducing uncertainties in the application of the new rules on judgment in absentia.
• Defense Guarantees: The obligation to ascertain actual knowledge already during the preliminary hearing strengthens the defendant's right to be informed and to participate knowingly.
• Procedural Efficiency: By avoiding the repetition of verifications, it contributes to streamlining procedures, in line with the objectives of the Cartabia Reform.
• European Conformity: The ruling aligns with the principles of a fair trial and the directives of the European Court of Human Rights.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 31829 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation is a fundamental piece in the interpretation of the Cartabia Reform regarding judgment in absentia. Clarifying the timing of the verification of the defendant's actual knowledge of the proceedings and voluntary absence is crucial for a correct and uniform application of the new rules. This guidance not only streamlines procedures and provides greater certainty to the judicial system but, above all, consolidates individual guarantees, placing the right to defense at the center of Italian criminal proceedings.