Criminal Cassation no. 15978/2025: when a single violation causes the suspension of the proceedings to fail

With ruling no. 15978, filed on April 24, 2025, the Court of Cassation, Second Criminal Section, declared inadmissible the appeal filed by A. G. against the revocation of the suspension of proceedings with probation (MAP) ordered by the Preliminary Hearing Judge of La Spezia. The measure, which follows previous decisions in 2018 and 2020, confirms a principle of significant practical relevance: even a single serious breach of the imposed conditions can lead to the termination of the benefit.

The core of the decision

The appellant argued that the single absence from work was justified by the seizure of his mobile phone, which would have prevented him from notifying the UEPE. The Cassation Court, referring to Article 168-quater of the Criminal Code and Articles 464-septies and 464-octies of the Code of Criminal Procedure, rejects the argument: when the non-compliance is serious and objectively proven, the judge has a bound power to revoke, without further balancing the opportunity to continue the probation.

In the matter of suspension of proceedings with probation, the revocation of the suspension order, presupposing the objective demonstration of the defendant's infidelity to the commitment undertaken, may be based even on a single serious transgression of the imposed conditions, with respect to which the judge is required to carry out a discretionary assessment, limited solely to the appreciation of the legal prerequisites contemplated by Article 168-quater of the Criminal Code, which, if found, oblige him to order the revocation, without the need for any further assessment regarding the opportunity to allow the continuation of the probation. (Case in which the Court deemed unimpeachable the revocation of the order suspending proceedings with probation, based on the fact that the defendant had no longer reported for work, without providing any notice to the UEPE, and moreover denying relevance to the seizure of his mobile phone, considered a circumstance unsuitable to justify the interruption of any communication with the UEPE).

The ruling clarifies two fundamental points: infidelity to the commitment must be proven; the judge's discretion is limited to verifying such infidelity. Once ascertained, revocation is no longer optional but mandatory.

Regulatory and jurisprudential aspects

• Article 168-quater of the Criminal Code: regulates the revocation and extension of MAP, providing for mandatory revocation in case of serious or repeated transgression.
• Article 464-septies of the Code of Criminal Procedure: governs UEPE's checks on conditions.
• Article 464-octies of the Code of Criminal Procedure: provides for adversarial proceedings in court on revocation requests.

The ruling is in line with Cass. 28826/2018 and Cass. 19226/2020, which had also affirmed the sufficiency of a serious violation to revoke the suspension.

Practical implications for defendants and lawyers

The decision requires maximum attention to compliance with the conditions, even those considered apparently minor. To protect themselves, the defendant must:

• maintain a constant channel of communication with the UEPE;
• promptly document any impediments (illness, technical problems, device seizures);
• involve their lawyer for any requests to modify the conditions.

On the other hand, the judge cannot resort to discretionary assessments of opportunity: once the transgression is ascertained, revocation becomes a due act. This strengthens the rehabilitative function of MAP, which demands strict adherence to the program.

Conclusions

The Cassation Court, with ruling no. 15978/2025, reiterates that probation is not a "fixed-term benefit" but a path conditional on punctual compliance with the conditions. A single serious violation is enough to make it fail, with no room for equitable assessments. For legal professionals, the message is clear: prevention, documentation, and timeliness are the only antidotes to revocation.