Precautionary Measures and the Right to Translation: Cassation Court Ruling No. 10485/2025

The right to a fair trial is a fundamental pillar, and for defendants who do not understand Italian, it translates into the right to have procedural documents translated. The Court of Cassation, with Ruling No. 10485 of 05/03/2025, has provided crucial clarification regarding the omission of translation for personal precautionary measures, outlining the precise consequences of such an omission.

The Relevance of Translation in Criminal Proceedings

Personal precautionary measures, by limiting individual liberty, require the utmost respect for defence guarantees. For a foreign-language defendant, understanding such an incisive measure is a primary right, enshrined in Article 143 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 24 of the Constitution, and Article 6 of the ECHR. Failure to understand the documents can seriously compromise the ability to defend oneself.

The Cassation Court's Pronouncement: No Nullity, Yes Mandatory Translation

The Supreme Court, with ruling No. 10485/2025 (President G. V., Rapporteur A. M. M.), examined a case where the Court of Review of Florence had applied a more severe precautionary measure to J. B., without the order being translated into his language. The question was whether this omission caused the nullity of the measure.

The omission of translation into a language known to the interested party of the order from the court of review, by which, upholding the appeal filed by the public prosecutor, a more severe personal precautionary measure is applied than that originally ordered and not yet executed or executable, does not cause its nullity, but exclusively requires its translation, so that the deadlines for any appeal to the Court of Cassation will run from the notification of the translated measure to the interested party.

The Cassation Court ruled that the omission of translation does not cause the nullity of the precautionary order, but imposes the obligation to proceed with its translation. The consequence is that the deadlines for filing any appeal to the Court of Cassation will only begin to run from the notification of the translated measure to the interested party. This decision balances the need not to invalidate the act with the protection of the right to defence, ensuring full awareness before the deadlines for appeal begin to run.

Implications and Guarantees for Foreign Defendants

This ruling strengthens the guarantees for foreign-language defendants. The main implications are:

• **No nullity of the act:** The precautionary order remains valid, avoiding procedural delays.
• **Obligation to translate:** Translation is an unavoidable duty of the judicial authorities.
• **Postponed commencement of deadlines:** The deadlines for appeal only run from the notification of the translated document, ensuring an effective possibility of defence.

This orientation consolidates the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings, ensuring that even in urgent situations, the right to defence and the understanding of documents are fully safeguarded.

Conclusions: A Key Step Towards Fair Justice

Cassation Court Ruling No. 10485/2025 is an important reference point for linguistic rights in criminal proceedings. It reiterates the importance of translating crucial documents for foreign defendants, without resorting to automatic nullity. The decision ensures a balance between the efficiency of the judicial system and the guarantee of fundamental rights, reaffirming that fair justice is understandable to all.