Supreme Court Criminal Section No. 12445/2025: The Abnormality of the Trial Judge's Order Regarding Notification to the Injured Party

With ruling No. 12445, filed on March 31, 2025, the VI Criminal Section of the Supreme Court – Pres. G. D. A., Rapporteur E. C. – has once again considered the boundaries of the "abnormality" of appealable measures, a topic dear to criminal procedural law practitioners. The case revolves around the nullity of the notification of the summons to the injured party and the functional jurisdiction for its renewal.

The Procedural Fact

During proceedings before the Court of Nola, the trial judge declared the nullity of the notification of the summons to the injured party and, at the same time, ordered its renewal. The defendant – defended by lawyer C. P. M. S. G. – appealed the measure before the Supreme Court, alleging the abnormality of the order. The Supreme Court agreed with him, annulling the order without referral.

The Official Maxim

An order is abnormal when the trial judge, in declaring the nullity of the notification of the summons to the injured party, orders its renewal instead of ordering the return of the case files to the judge of the pre-trial hearing, to whom alone, pursuant to Article 554-bis, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, belongs the renewal of notifications declared null.

The Court clearly recalls the exclusive jurisdiction of the judge of the pre-trial hearing (GUP or single judge in the phase of Article 554-bis) to order the renewal of null notifications. The trial judge, by exceeding this functional limit, issues an "abnormal" measure: an act that completely falls outside the legal framework, lacking ordinary remedy and therefore immediately appealable with a cassation appeal (cf. Section U, 25957/2009).

The Regulatory Framework: Article 554-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Nullity of Notifications

Article 554-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced by the "Cartabia Reform," has granted the judge of the pre-trial hearing the power to remedy – or renew – null notifications. The rationale is to ensure:

• the centrality of the pre-trial phase for verifying the conditions for proceeding;
• the speed of the proceedings, avoiding improper regressions;
• the protection of the adversarial principle, especially for the injured party, to whom the legal system grants increasingly incisive participatory prerogatives (Articles 90-92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Directive 2012/29/EU).

When the trial judge intervenes on matters reserved for the colleague who preceded him, a breach of the principle of procedural legality occurs (Articles 178, 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The only remedy is annulment in the Supreme Court.

Practical Aspects and Operational Guidance

The decision under comment offers useful insights for lawyers and magistrates:

• Attention to Functional Jurisdiction: each procedural phase has its own "natural" judge; exceeding boundaries leads to abnormality and incurable nullity.
• Immediate Cassation Appeal: against abnormal measures, the legislator allows extraordinary appeals, without waiting for the final judgment.
• Protection of the Injured Party: the renewal of notification is not a mere formality: it ensures the right to effectively participate in the proceedings.
• Coordination with Jurisprudence: the conclusion aligns with Supreme Court rulings 41575/2018 and 10718/2016, confirming a now consolidated trend.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 12445/2025 reiterates a core principle: the trial judge cannot substitute the judge of the pre-trial hearing in ordering the renewal of null notifications. Doing so means issuing an abnormal measure, lacking a legal basis and immediately subject to cassation. For legal professionals, the case serves as a warning to ensure respect for functional jurisdictions and to promptly use extraordinary appeal mechanisms to prevent proceedings from developing on flawed bases, with inevitable repercussions on the time and cost of justice.