The Insignificance of the Fact in the Pre-Trial Hearing: The Judge's Autonomy with Ruling No. 9618/2025

Criminal law is a constantly evolving field, where every judicial ruling can redefine the boundaries of norm application. A recent and significant decision by the Court of Cassation, Ruling No. 9618 of February 19, 2025 (filed on March 10, 2025), fits precisely into this context, providing crucial clarifications on the application of the cause for non-punishability due to the particular insignificance of the fact, provided for by Article 131-bis of the Criminal Code, within the framework of the pre-trial hearing pursuant to Article 554-ter of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This ruling is destined to significantly impact judicial practice, offering new perspectives for both defendants and legal professionals.

The Regulatory Context: Art. 131-bis c.p. and the Different Procedural Stages

To fully understand the scope of Ruling No. 9618/2025, it is essential to recall the regulatory framework. Article 131-bis of the Criminal Code, introduced in 2015, allows the judge to declare the defendant's non-punishability when, due to the conduct's modalities and the insignificance of the damage or danger, the offense is of particular insignificance and the behavior is not habitual. This provision aims to reduce the judicial workload and avoid disproportionate consequences for minor offenses. Its application has raised interpretive questions, especially concerning the different stages of criminal proceedings.

The Code of Criminal Procedure provides for various "filter" hearings preceding the trial: the preliminary hearing (Art. 425 c.p.p.), the pre-trial hearing (Art. 554-ter c.p.p.), introduced by the Cartabia Reform, and the ruling of non-prosecution before trial (Art. 469 c.p.p.). Although all can lead to an early acquittal, the conditions for applying Art. 131-bis c.p. are not always the same, generating doubts that the Supreme Court intended to resolve.

Ruling No. 9618/2025: The Judge's Role in the Pre-Trial Hearing

The Court of Cassation, with Ruling No. 9618/2025, presided over by Ms. G. V. and reported by Mr. M. M. A., ruled on the appeal filed by the defendant S. R., rejecting the decision of the Court of Appeal of Reggio Calabria. The central issue was whether the judge in the pre-trial hearing (Art. 554-ter c.p.p.) could apply Art. 131-bis c.p. even in the absence of an explicit non-objection from the defendant. The ruling's summary definitively clarifies this point:

The assimilation of the ruling issued under Art. 554-ter of the Code of Criminal Procedure to that provided for by Art. 425 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, also through the reference contained in Art. 554-ter, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allows the judge in the pre-trial hearing to apply the cause for non-punishability provided for by Art. 131-bis of the Criminal Code independently of the defendant's non-objection.

This statement is of fundamental importance. The Court recognized that the pre-trial hearing is similar, in its nature and purpose, to the preliminary hearing under Art. 425 c.p.p. In both these stages, the judge enjoys broader evaluative autonomy and can issue an acquittal based on their own conviction, without the need for consent or non-objection from the parties. This is clearly distinct from other stages, such as the ruling of non-prosecution before trial (Art. 469 c.p.p.), for which the same Court specified, in its reasoning, that "the judge, in order to issue the ruling of non-punishability under Art. 131-bis of the Criminal Code, must necessarily hear the parties and obtain their non-objection."

In summary, the crucial distinction is based on the nature of the hearings:

• In the pre-trial hearing (Art. 554-ter c.p.p.) and the preliminary hearing (Art. 425 c.p.p.), the judge can apply Art. 131-bis c.p. ex officio, without the need for the parties' consent.
• In the stage preceding the trial (Art. 469 c.p.p.), the absence of opposition from the parties is indispensable.

This judicial clarification consolidates the trend according to which the pre-trial hearing, despite being a "filter" stage introduced with the aim of speeding up proceedings, retains the characteristics of an autonomous judgment in which the judge can fully exercise their guarantee function.

Conclusions and Practical Implications

Ruling No. 9618/2025 has significant practical implications. For defendants, it offers greater certainty that the insignificance of the fact can be recognized at an early stage, without their potential opposition precluding such a ruling. This can translate into a considerable saving of time and procedural resources. For defense lawyers, the ruling strengthens the strategy of requesting the application of Art. 131-bis c.p. even in the pre-trial hearing, knowing that the decision rests entirely with the judge.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court has provided a clear and consistent interpretation of the criminal procedural system post-Cartabia Reform. Ruling No. 9618/2025 represents an important piece in the mosaic of criminal justice, reaffirming the importance of swift and efficient justice, but always in compliance with fundamental principles and the judge's decision-making autonomy.