Receiving a notice of conclusion of preliminary investigations can raise very concrete questions: does this mean the trial has already begun? Must one reply immediately? Is it better to file a defense brief, ask to be interrogated, or make no statements? I want to help you distinguish these steps, because the notice provided for by Article 415-bis of the code of criminal procedure opens an important, yet time-limited, defensive space.
The act does not equate to a conviction and does not demonstrate that the accusation is well-founded. However, it indicates that the public prosecutor has concluded the investigations and makes the gathered files available. From that moment, the priority is to understand which facts are contested, which evidence supports them, and whether a brief, a document, an investigative request, or the interrogation can concretely impact the subsequent decision.
What the Notice under Article 415-bis c.p.p. Communicates
The notice informs that the investigations have reached their conclusion. The public prosecutor notifies it to the person under investigation and to the defense counsel when not intending to formulate an immediate request for dismissal. It is not yet a committal for trial, nor a judgment: after this phase, the public prosecutor can adopt the determinations provided by law, including the possible choice to exercise the criminal action.
The content of the notice must make the provisional charge recognizable. Article 415-bis requires a summary indication of the contested fact, the provisions allegedly violated, the date and place of the fact, as well as the warning that the documentation of the investigations is deposited and can be examined and copied. The current text of the article can be consulted in the code of criminal procedure, article 415-bis.
The formula of the accusation in the notice is still provisional, but it must be taken seriously. It serves to identify the perimeter on which to set defensive initiatives. A frequent mistake consists in replying solely to the legal qualification of the offense without confronting the indicated fact: who allegedly committed what, when, where, and according to which investigative acts. It is often there that a case of mistaken identity, an incompatible timeline, a neglected document, or an incomplete reconstruction emerges.
The Twenty-Day Term and Access to the File
Defensive prerogatives must be exercised within twenty days from the notification of the notice. Within this term, the suspect can submit briefs, produce documents, deposit the documentation of defensive investigations, request further investigative acts, make statements, or ask to be subjected to interrogation. The term must not be confused with the time necessary to read the file: access to the documents serves precisely to choose with awareness which initiative to adopt.
Consulting the files is the step that gives substance to the defense. The notice reports a synthetic accusatory hypothesis; the file allows seeing upon which elements it is founded. Records, statements, photographs, certifications, acquired messages, telephone records, expert opinions, and judicial police notes can carry a very different weight. It is not enough to note that an act "is unconvincing": it is necessary to understand what fact it aims to prove and whether objective elements exist that contradict it or diminish its meaning.
In Milan, access can also take place remotely or in person, according to the office procedures. The Public Prosecutor's Office of Milan indicates for notices under Article 415-bis the possibility of consulting the file and extracting copies, with differentiated procedures for telematic and physical access. The operational instructions of the office are reported on the page of the Public Prosecutor's Office of Milan – Office 415-bis and file consultation. Practical procedures do not replace the legal term: waiting until the last moment can make it difficult to effectively use the provided prerogatives.
The filing must be traceable and timely. For briefs, documents, and requests, both the content of the document and the proof of its correct presentation to the competent office matter. The technical rules of the telematic criminal trial and the practices of the office can affect the filing channel; for this reason, it is not prudent to rely on informal submissions or a single communication lacking a receipt.
When the Defense Brief is Useful
A defense brief is useful when it adds a verifiable element to the reading of the files. It can clarify an omitted circumstance, point out an inconsistency between statements and documents, correctly place a fact in time, explain the content of a communication, or produce material already available. It is not necessary to write much: an effective brief identifies the contested point, recalls the relevant acts, and shows why the accusatory conclusion does not follow from those elements or requires further verification.
The produced document must be relevant and legible in its context. A receipt, a contract, a certification, an access register, a conversation, or a file can be decisive only if they allow understanding the origin, date, and connection with the fact. A single screenshot devoid of context, an incomplete printout, or a generic statement risk instead failing to resolve the controversial point. If the original document or a complete digital archive exists, it is important not to alter it and to preserve its availability.
Brief, Spontaneous Statements, and Request for New Investigations
The initiatives provided by Article 415-bis do not all have the same effect. The brief sets out arguments and attaches documents; the statements of the investigated person instead introduce their own version of the facts into the proceedings; the request for further investigations asks the public prosecutor to acquire a specific element. The latter is more useful if it identifies a concrete act, such as the acquisition of footage, the hearing of a person, or the recovery of a document, and explains what fact it could clarify.
The public prosecutor is not obliged to order every requested activity. If the request is accepted and new investigations are carried out, the code establishes a term of thirty days from presentation, extendable only once by the judge for preliminary investigations and for no more than sixty days. Statements, interrogation, and new acts performed within the foreseen term are usable. This discipline requires formulating circumscribed requests, not exploratory or merely dilatory ones.
Defensive investigations do not coincide with a simple private collection of information. Counsel can carry out investigative activities within the limits and forms provided by the code to seek elements in favor of the assisted person. When the result is relevant, Article 415-bis allows depositing its documentation. However, the choice to file must be linked to the concrete purpose: proving an alibi, identifying a documentary source, clarifying a technical circumstance, or challenging the reliability of an acquired datum.
Requesting Interrogation: A Prerogative Deserving a Conscious Choice
The request for interrogation compels the public prosecutor to proceed. This is an important difference compared to the request for further investigations, which remains subject to the decision of the public prosecutor. The interrogation allows the investigated person to confront the provisional charge and provide explanations, clarifications, or an alternative reconstruction. Precisely because statements enter the file, it is neither an automatic fulfillment nor an occasion to speak without a clear defensive line.
Interrogation can be appropriate when a complete personal explanation complements an objective datum. Consider conduct that, read in isolation, appears suspicious but has a documentable reason; or a relationship between the involved persons that explains otherwise equivocal messages or payments. In these cases, the words of the suspect can connect documents and facts. If instead the accusation is founded on elements to be verified beforehand or if the person cannot reconstruct the steps with precision, a hurried statement can create avoidable contradictions.
Asking for interrogation does not mean having to admit the charge. The person can provide clarifications, contest the fact, indicate documents, or explain why a certain interpretation is inaccurate. It remains essential that what is said is coherent with verifiable data. A version constructed to fill gaps or to respond to every unknown detail can weaken a defense that could have concentrated on a few certain facts.
The choice between brief and interrogation is not necessarily alternative. A brief can prepare the documentary groundwork for the interrogation; an interrogation can make a previously produced document understandable. In other situations, it is preferable to use only one of the two instruments. The decisive question is not which act appears more incisive in the abstract, but whether a precise, controllable, and useful content exists to be inserted before the public prosecutor decides how to proceed.
What Can Happen After the Notice
The conclusion of the investigations does not yet establish what the outcome of the proceedings will be. After receiving any briefs, documents, requests, and statements, the public prosecutor evaluates the available files and adopts the determinations provided by law. Criminal action can be exercised in different forms, according to the contested offense and the applicable procedural path; in other cases, grounds to request dismissal may mature.
The notice must not be read as an already irrevocable choice. A well-founded brief can bring to light an unconsidered fact, make further verification necessary, or highlight a different qualification of the affair. However, no automatism exists: producing a document or asking for an interrogation does not guarantee dismissal and does not replace the overall evaluation of the acts by the competent authority.
Since 2024, the discipline of subsequent timelines has been reorganized. Legislative Decree No. 31 of March 19, 2024, repealed paragraphs 5-bis and following of Article 415-bis and modified the rules on the stasis of proceedings, intervening on Article 415-ter c.p.p. The practical fact remains simple: the notice preserves the function of allowing the suspect to know the acts and use, within the assigned term, the defensive prerogatives of Article 415-bis. The modifications are reported in Legislative Decree No. 31 of 2024 published in the Official Gazette.
Which Elements Should Be Focused On Immediately
It is necessary to distinguish certain facts from interpretations. The date indicated in the notice, the place, the mentioned persons, and the deposited acts are points to be verified one by one. An objective fact can be refuted or specified with evidence; an interpretation can be contested by showing that different conclusions are possible from that datum. This distinction helps avoid briefs that limit themselves to denying the accusation without offering controllable elements.
Chronology is often decisive. A payment made before or after a meeting, the availability of a telephone in a certain time slot, access to a place, communication subsequent to an event: each datum can change the meaning of the reconstruction. However, the defense must be based on reliable dates and identifiable sources. Approximate memories can guide the research, but they do not replace a document, technical data, or a formally acquirable statement.
It is useful to gather from the beginning what must not be lost. Full copies of communications, original documents, indications of any witnesses, calendar data, and digital material may require timely attention. This does not mean indiscriminately sending every element to the public prosecutor: it means identifying what can prove a precise fact. If you have received the notice, you can contact me to evaluate the content of the act and the initiatives compatible with the elements already available.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the notice of conclusion of investigations mean that I am already committed for trial?
No. The notice under Article 415-bis c.p.p. closes the investigative phase and allows knowing the acts prior to the public prosecutor's determinations. Committal for trial requires a subsequent step, when provided by the type of proceeding. The notice is therefore a relevant defensive moment, but not a decision of guilt.
Can I file a brief without asking for interrogation?
Yes. The brief and the interrogation are distinct prerogatives. You can choose to set out arguments and produce documents without making personal statements. This choice is useful when the point to be clarified already results from objective elements or when speaking before adequately knowing the file would risk creating inaccuracies.
If I ask to be interrogated, must the public prosecutor hear me?
Yes, if the request is presented within the foreseen term. Article 415-bis establishes that, when the suspect asks to be subjected to interrogation, the public prosecutor must proceed with it. This does not mean that interrogation must always be requested; statements rendered can be used in the proceedings.
Must the public prosecutor carry out the investigations I request in the brief?
No. You can request specific investigative acts, but the decision to order them rests with the public prosecutor. The request has greater utility if it indicates concrete activity, the source to be acquired, and the fact it could clarify. A vague or exploratory request hardly offers a verifiable reason for further investigation.
Can I present documents that I already had before the notice?
Yes. Article 415-bis allows producing documents within the twenty-day term. Their value depends on relevance to the contested fact and the possibility of verifying origin, date, and integrity. A useful document must not only exist: it must explain how it confirms or refutes an element of the accusation.
Essential References
For the discipline of prerogatives subsequent to the notice, the main reference is Article 415-bis of the code of criminal procedure on Normattiva. For the procedures of consultation and copying of the file at the Milan office, the institutional page of the Public Prosecutor's Office of Milan remains useful.