District Competence and Unitary Investigations: Commentary on Cass. pen. no. 15037/2025

With the recent ruling no. 15037/2025, the Second Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation returns to the delicate issue of the "establishment" of the competence of the district judge when investigations involve crimes falling under art. 51, paragraph 3-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment – which arises from a case of association for robberies and drug trafficking – offers operational insights of great interest to lawyers, investigating magistrates, and defendants who, despite not having committed the catalogued crimes, find themselves before the District GIP/GUP.

The Heart of the Decision

The legitimacy judges, confirming the rejection of the plea of incompetence raised before the Court of Appeal of Cagliari, establish that the carrying out of a single investigative activity by the District Public Prosecutor's Office establishes the competence of the district judge pursuant to art. 328, paragraph 1-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure *for all* suspects, even if only some are suspected of the crimes referred to in art. 51, paragraph 3-bis. The prerequisite is the unity of the investigation: wiretaps, searches, and financial flow analyses were common to both the crime of criminal association aimed at robberies (art. 416 and 628 of the Criminal Code) and the association for drug trafficking (art. 74 of Presidential Decree 309/1990).

The Supreme Court clarifies that the hypothesis where the "satellite" crime referred to in art. 51, paragraph 3-bis, is dismissed remains valid: only then could competence return to the ordinary court. The principle, moreover, is consistent with similar precedents (Cass. no. 43953/2019, no. 16123/2019, and no. 35788/2024) which emphasize the need to avoid procedural fragmentation and duplication of judgments.

In terms of competence, the carrying out of investigative activity by the Public Prosecutor's Office at the Court of the district capital within whose scope the competent judge for one of the crimes referred to in art. 51, paragraph 3-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure is located, even if related to only some of the suspects, establishes, even with respect to other suspects unrelated to the commission of the indicated crimes, the competence of the district judge pursuant to art. 328, paragraph 1-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the event that the investigative activity is unitary, without prejudice to the hypothesis where dismissal has occurred in relation to the crime referred to in art. 51, paragraph 3-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Commentary: the ruling clarifies that competence follows the investigation, not the individual criminal offense. If the investigative acts – think of wiretaps or surveillance – are inseparable, the case remains before the district judge, averting the risk of paralysis or conflicting decisions. For the defense, this means carefully evaluating the strategy: the plea of territorial incompetence will only have a chance if the investigation into the "quota 51" crimes has been excluded or dismissed.

Operational Impact for Prosecutors and Defenders

• District Prosecutors: Legitimized to coordinate complex "radial" investigations, even when minor or different crimes emerge.
• Defenders: Must scrutinize the actual investigative unity and monitor any partial dismissals to reopen the competence issue.
• Judge for Preliminary Investigations: Invested with decision-making powers over all suspects, resulting in procedural economy but also a greater workload of acts.
• Suspects unrelated to the crimes under art. 51, para. 3-bis: They are removed from the ordinary judge, with effects on alternative procedures and precautionary measures (more frequent at the district level).

Conclusions

Judgment no. 15037/2025 consolidates an orientation aimed at favoring the concentration of proceedings before the district judge when the investigation is unique and inseparable. For legal professionals, it is essential to promptly assess the presence of "driving" crimes under art. 51, para. 3-bis, and any subsequent dismissal, the only real opening to contest competence. The Court's stated objective is the rationalization of the system and the coherence of decisions, but the right to defense of the "minor" defendant, who could suffer the ripple effect of investigations initially conceived for much more serious conduct, must not be forgotten.