Judgment 30445 of 2025: Limits on the Use of Evidence Acquired from Other Criminal Proceedings

In criminal procedural law, rulings by the Court of Cassation are fundamental in defining the boundaries of judicial action. Judgment no. 30445, filed on September 9, 2025, clarifies the usability of evidence originating from final judgments acquired in a different proceeding. A matter of great importance that directly impacts the principle of a fair trial and defense guarantees.

Article 238-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Acquisition of Judgments

Article 238-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.) allows for the acquisition of final criminal judgments in a trial, valuing facts already ascertained. However, a question arises: does the acquired judgment also include the evidentiary elements (expert reports, wiretaps) on which it was based? On this point, judgment 30445 of 2025, with rapporteur Counselor C. F. and president D. M. G., provided a clear answer.

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation: A Crucial Distinction

The core of the ruling is contained in its headnote:

A final judgment acquired pursuant to Article 238-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure constitutes evidence of the historical facts ascertained therein, while the evidentiary elements of that judgment, even when textually transcribed in the acquired judgment, may only be used in compliance with the rules concerning the usability of evidence formed in another proceeding. (Case concerning the censured use in the "ad quem" proceeding of the expert report transcribing wiretaps conducted in the "a quo" proceeding, without its acquisition having been ordered, deeming its integral transcription in the judgment acquired pursuant to Article 238-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be sufficient).

The Supreme Court distinguishes between the final judgment and the evidentiary elements that formed it. The acquired judgment serves as proof of the ascertained "historical facts." The "evidentiary elements" (expert reports, wiretaps), even if reported in the judgment, are not automatically usable. Independent acquisition, following specific rules, is essential. In the specific case, the defendant P. had contested the use of an expert report transcribing wiretaps. The Court of Cassation censured this practice, reiterating the need for formal and independent acquisition.

Practical Implications and Protection of a Fair Trial

This ruling has significant practical implications:

• Independent Acquisition: Evidentiary elements mentioned in a judgment acquired under Article 238-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure require a specific request for acquisition in the new proceeding, with legal guarantees.
• Guarantee of Contradictory Proceedings: The distinction strengthens the adversarial principle, allowing parties to fully exercise their right to defense on the original evidentiary elements.
• Prevention of Nullities: The absence of formal acquisition and full adversarial proceedings could lead to procedural nullities or violations of the right to defense (Article 111 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the ECHR).

Conclusions: A Bulwark for Procedural Guarantees

Judgment no. 30445 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation, presided over by D. M. G., stands as a bulwark for the cardinal principles of our criminal procedural system. By reiterating the clear distinction between the evidentiary value of the "historical facts" ascertained by a final judgment and the usability of the "evidentiary elements" on which it is based, the Supreme Court has drawn a clear and necessary boundary. This ensures that the recourse to Article 238-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not compromise the guarantees of adversarial proceedings and the right to defense, but is harmoniously integrated into the framework of a fair trial. A fundamental reminder to preserve the integrity and fairness of every criminal proceeding.