Suspended Sentence and Right to Defence: Cassation No. 10031/2025 on Procedural Nullities

Suspended sentence is a crucial institution in our criminal justice system, offering the defendant the opportunity to extinguish the crime through a path of social reintegration. Its application and any revocations must always respect strict procedural guarantees. The recent Judgment of the Court of Cassation, No. 10031 of January 16, 2025, highlights precisely the importance of the right to adversarial proceedings and full participation of the parties at every stage of the procedure.

Suspended Sentence: An Opportunity with Guarantees

Article 168-bis of the Criminal Code allows those accused of less serious crimes to suspend the proceedings and undergo a treatment program. Success leads to the extinction of the crime, avoiding a criminal conviction. This mechanism, which balances justice and rehabilitation, includes the possibility of revocation (governed by Article 464-octies of the Code of Criminal Procedure), a decision that profoundly impacts individual rights and requires the utmost respect for procedural forms.

The Right to Adversarial Proceedings in Revocation: the Case of Judgment 10031/2025

Judgment No. 10031/2025 addresses a specific aspect: the revocation of the suspended sentence decided in a hearing that the parties believed was set for another purpose, without adequate notification of the actual subject of the discussion. The Supreme Court provided a fundamental clarification, annulling the decision of the Court of Lodi which had revoked the suspended sentence for the defendant A. E.

In the matter of suspension of proceedings with a suspended sentence, the order of revocation referred to in Article 464-octies of the Code of Criminal Procedure, adopted following a hearing set for a different purpose, in the absence of notice containing the indication, even if succinct, of the subject of the proceedings, is affected by a general nullity of intermediate regime pursuant to Article 178, paragraph 1, letter c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure, given the need to allow the parties to participate knowingly in the adversarial proceedings regarding the existence of the prerequisites for adopting the revocation measure.

This maxim, pronounced by the Court presided over by Dr. E. D. S. and with Dr. F. A. as rapporteur, is of paramount importance. It establishes that if a hearing is convened for one reason but then a decision is made on the revocation of the suspended sentence without the parties having been previously notified of the actual subject, such a decision is affected by nullity. The right to adversarial proceedings, a pillar of a fair trial (Art. 111 of the Constitution), requires that parties be put in a position to know the arguments and adequately prepare their defence. A general notice of hearing is not enough; it is essential that it indicates, even in a succinct form, the specific subject to be discussed, especially for a serious measure such as revocation. Without this information, the participation of the parties is not "knowing". This lack constitutes a "general nullity of intermediate regime" within the meaning of Article 178, paragraph 1, letter c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If raised promptly, it leads to the annulment of the flawed act, restoring correct procedures and full protection of the right to defence.

Conclusions: The Importance of Procedural Guarantees

Cassation Judgment No. 10031 of 2025 serves as a warning to all legal professionals. It emphasizes how, even in a rehabilitative institution like the suspended sentence, procedural guarantees must be respected with the utmost attention. The clarity and completeness of hearing notices are not mere formalities but essential tools to ensure that every judicial decision is the result of a full and informed confrontation. This ruling reinforces the awareness that any violation of the right to adversarial proceedings can and must be asserted to protect one's position, reaffirming the inalienable value of a fair trial.

• The right to adversarial proceedings requires clarity on the subject of every hearing.
• The revocation of a suspended sentence cannot be decided "by surprise".
• The absence of specific notice generates an intermediate nullity.
• Transparency and completeness of communications are essential for a fair trial.