The Judge's Capacity and Organisational Tables: Analysis of Supreme Court Ruling No. 8901/2024

The Italian judicial system is founded on cardinal principles aimed at guaranteeing the impartiality and independence of the judge, essential elements for a fair trial. Among these, the principle of the judge established by law, enshrined in our Constitution, stands out. But what happens when the assignment of a case does not comply with the organisational tables of the judicial office? Does this result in a nullity? The recent ruling of the Supreme Court of Cassation No. 8901 of 10/12/2024 (filed on 04/03/2025), with President V. D. N. and Rapporteur G. G., offers a clarifying interpretation on this delicate issue, establishing precise boundaries between mere irregularity and an incurable defect.

The Principle of the Judge Established by Law: A Constitutional Guarantee

Article 25, paragraph 1, of the Italian Constitution states that "No one shall be diverted from their lawful judge established by law." This fundamental principle aims to prevent the creation of ad hoc judges for specific disputes, ensuring that the jurisdiction and composition of the judging body are determined by general and abstract rules, predating the concrete event. It is a cornerstone of our democracy, essential for the protection of individual rights and freedoms, as it ensures that every citizen is judged by an impartial body, whose designation cannot be influenced by external or discretionary logic.

Ruling No. 8901/2024: A Beacon on Absolute Nullity

The Supreme Court of Cassation, in the ruling under examination, addressed the issue of case assignment in violation of the judicial office's organisational tables. This is a crucial aspect, as the tables are not mere administrative acts but tools that give concrete form to the principle of the lawful judge. The ruling clarifies when such a violation can lead to absolute nullity of the issued measures, pursuant to Article 178, paragraph 1, letter c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The assignment of a case in violation of the office's organisational tables affects the judge's capacity, causing, pursuant to Art. 178, paragraph 1, letter c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the absolute nullity of the measures issued by the judge, only in cases where it amounts to an "extra ordinem" assignment, carried out in disregard of the tabular criteria and consequently aimed at evading or violating the constitutionally enshrined principle of the judge established by law.

This maxim is of fundamental importance. The Supreme Court emphasises that not every non-compliance with the tables generates absolute nullity. The most severe sanction, namely nullity due to lack of the judge's capacity, occurs only in the presence of an "extra ordinem" assignment. With this expression, the Court means an assignment that not only deviates from the tabular criteria but does so with a very specific purpose: to evade or violate the principle of the judge established by law. In other words, the violation must be intentional and instrumental, aimed at appointing a judge other than the one who would have been naturally competent according to general rules. Only in these cases is there such a profound alteration of the judge's functional capacity as to compromise the very essence of a fair trial.

The Concrete Case and Its Practical Implications

The situation examined by the Supreme Court concerned the defendant G. G., whose precautionary real measure had been issued by a panel of the Tribunal for the Liberty of Potenza different from the one provided for by the tables. However, the Court excluded the nullity of the measure. Why? The reason lay in the incompatibility of the originally designated panel, which had already ruled on the same res judicata, annulling a previous seizure decree. In this context, the assignment to a different panel was not aimed at evading the principle of the lawful judge, but at ensuring the impartiality of the judgment, preventing the same body from ruling again on the same issue. This demonstrates how the Supreme Court makes a crucial distinction:

• **Not every violation of the tables generates nullity:** A case-by-case assessment is necessary.
• **"Extra ordinem" assignment is the core:** There must be an intent to evade or violate the constitutional principle.
• **The purpose is decisive:** If the deviation from the tables is motivated by guarantees (such as incompatibility), nullity is not established.

The ruling confirms that the judge's capacity is not compromised by every deviation from the tables, but only by those that betray the spirit and letter of Art. 25 of the Constitution and Art. 33, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is its procedural application.

Conclusions: The Guarantee of a Fair Trial

The ruling of the Supreme Court No. 8901/2024 represents a firm point in jurisprudence regarding the judge's capacity and judicial organisation. It reiterates the importance of the principle of the judge established by law, but at the same time clearly delimits the boundaries of absolute nullity, distinguishing it from mere irregularities. For legal professionals and citizens alike, this ruling is a constant reminder that procedural form, while fundamental, must always be interpreted in light of its ultimate function: to guarantee a fair, impartial trial that respects fundamental rights, without deviations justified by superior justice requirements compromising the validity of acts.