Criminal Cassation No. 12733/2025: When the Nullity of the Citation Decree Becomes an Abnormality

Judgment No. 12733/2025 of the Second Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation represents an important piece in the jurisprudential mosaic dedicated to abnormal acts. The case originated from a pre-trial hearing before the Court of Bergamo, in which the judge annulled the decree of citation for trial, finding a discrepancy between the charge described therein and that contained in the notice of conclusion of investigations pursuant to art. 415-bis c.p.p. The Court of Cassation, annulling without referral, qualified this measure as abnormal, as it causes "an undue regression of the proceedings" in violation of art. 554-bis, paragraph 5, c.p.p.

The Regulatory Framework: Art. 554-bis c.p.p. and the PM's Corrective Powers

Introduced by the "Cartabia" reform, art. 554-bis c.p.p. governs the pre-trial hearing for crimes requiring direct citation. Paragraph 5 requires the judge, if they find a discrepancy in the charge, to invite the public prosecutor to "make the necessary amendments" before adopting more incisive measures. This mechanism aims to preserve the speed of the procedure without compromising the rights of defense.

• Notice of conclusion of investigations (art. 415-bis c.p.p.)
• Decree of direct citation (art. 552 c.p.p.)
• Corrective pre-trial hearing (art. 554-bis c.p.p.)

The omission of this step, according to the Court, changes the very nature of the annulment measure, transforming it from an ordinary act of case management into an abnormal act capable of irregularly interrupting the procedural flow.

The Ruling's Maxim and Commentary

It is abnormal, as it leads to an undue regression of the proceedings, the measure by which the judge of the pre-trial hearing annuls the decree of citation for trial on the grounds that the alleged offense was charged in terms different from those contained in the notice of conclusion of preliminary investigations, especially if it proceeds without having previously asked the public prosecutor to make the necessary amendments pursuant to art. 554-bis, paragraph 5, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Comment: The Court reaffirms a systemic principle: the judge's control powers are functional to the efficiency of the proceedings, not to their paralysis. If the charge has changed, the judge must first activate the corrective measure provided by the legislator, avoiding taking the case back to the investigation stage. Abnormality, therefore, derives not only from the incorrectness of the act but from its ability to "break" the natural course of the proceedings, generating protection gaps and time extensions.

Practical Implications and Connection with Previous Case Law

The ruling refers to previous judgments such as Cass. nn. 11405/2004, 28548/2007, and 36056/2024, which defined abnormality as "functional eccentricity" of an act with respect to the procedural sequence. However, the novelty of 2025 lies in the precise link to paragraph 5 of art. 554-bis. The message for practitioners is clear:

• The judge cannot use annulment as a corrective shortcut.
• The Public Prosecutor retains a power-duty to adjust the charge at the pre-trial stage.
• Defense rights are protected by a mechanism that avoids regressions but ensures the coherence of the accusation.

Consequently, the incorrect use of a declaration of nullity exposes the measure to immediate appellate remedy, with possible annulment without referral, as happened in this case.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 12733/2025 consolidates the principle that the pre-trial hearing is not a new "filter" of merit, but rather a tool for formal adjustment of the charge. The judge must respect the circuit outlined by the legislator, under penalty of transforming their own act into a procedural abnormality. For lawyers and public prosecutors, this means valuing the procedural dialogue provided for by art. 554-bis c.p.p., minimizing the risks of regression and ensuring the speed and correctness of the judgment.