The Omission of Interrogation Under Art. 415-bis c.p.p. and its Condonation in the Abbreviated Proceedings: Analysis of Cassation Ruling 30358/2025

The right to defense is one of the fundamental pillars of our legal system, guaranteed by Article 24 of the Constitution. In the context of criminal proceedings, this right is realized in various phases, including that of preliminary investigations. One of its most significant expressions is the accused's right to request to be interrogated after receiving notice of the conclusion of investigations, pursuant to Article 415-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But what happens if this interrogation, although requested, is not carried out? And what are the consequences if, despite this omission, the accused chooses to proceed with an alternative procedure such as the abbreviated trial? The Court of Cassation, with ruling no. 30358, filed on September 5, 2025, offers important clarifications on these delicate issues, outlining the boundaries between procedural nullities and implicit waivers.

The Regulatory Framework: Notice Under Art. 415-bis c.p.p. and the Right to Defense

Article 415-bis c.p.p. is a cornerstone provision that marks the transition from the preliminary investigation phase to the exercise of criminal action. With the notice of conclusion of investigations, the Public Prosecutor informs the accused and their defense counsel of the possibility to submit briefs, produce documents, request investigative acts, or, indeed, to be interrogated within twenty days. This provision aims to ensure the full exercise of the right to defense for the accused, offering them a final opportunity to clarify their position or provide useful elements before the Public Prosecutor decides whether to request indictment.

The interrogation requested at this stage is not a mere formal act; it is a crucial moment where the accused can directly confront the charges, fully exercising their right to reply. Its omission, therefore, is not without consequences, as it can compromise the procedural balance and defense guarantees.

Nullity for Omitted Interrogation and Ruling 30358/2025

The central issue addressed by the Court of Cassation in ruling 30358/2025, in the case involving defendant S. F., concerns precisely the omission of the interrogation requested by the accused after the notice under Art. 415-bis c.p.p. The Court of Assizes of Appeal of Naples had rejected the appeal, and the Supreme Court, presided over by D. M. G. and rapporteur S. V., confirmed this stance. The headnote of the ruling unequivocally clarifies the nature and effects of such an omission:

The omission of the interrogation requested by the accused following the notification of the notice referred to in Art. 415-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure results in a general nullity of intermediate regime that cannot be raised following the choice of the abbreviated proceedings, as the request for the special procedure operates a condoning effect pursuant to Art. 183 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This statement is of fundamental importance. The Court of Cassation recognizes that the omission of the requested interrogation constitutes a