Minor Immediate Judgment: The Public Prosecutor's Assessment of Educational Prejudice (Cass. Pen. n. 17797/2025)

The Italian judicial system, in proceedings involving minors, balances the ascertainment of truth with the protection of the young person's educational needs. The juvenile criminal procedure has peculiarities, including "immediate judgment," an accelerated procedure that, for young people, must consider the risk of serious prejudice to their development. The Court of Cassation ruled on this with judgment no. 17797 of April 23, 2025, providing a crucial interpretative clarification.

Immediate Judgment and the Minor's Interest

Immediate judgment (artt. 453 ss. c.p.p.), also applicable in juvenile proceedings (D.P.R. n. 448/1988), allows for skipping the preliminary hearing. However, art. 25, paragraph 2-ter, D.P.R. n. 448/1988 prohibits such a request if there is serious prejudice to the minor's educational needs, in line with the principle of the "best interests of the child." The method of assessing this prejudice, especially regarding the Public Prosecutor's obligation to initiate specific investigations (ex art. 9 D.P.R. n. 448/1988), has generated uncertainties.

Judgment No. 17797/2025: The Role of the Public Prosecutor

The Supreme Court, with Judge D'Andrea A. as rapporteur, intervened to resolve these doubts, declaring the appeal of the Preliminary Hearing Judge of the Juvenile Court of Bologna inadmissible. The judgment clarifies whether the Public Prosecutor is required to conduct investigations into the minor's personality (art. 9 D.P.R. n. 448/1988) before requesting immediate judgment. The core principle is expressed in the following maxim:

In matters of juvenile proceedings, the assessment of whether there is serious prejudice to the minor's educational needs, which obstructs the request for immediate judgment ex art. 25, paragraph 2-ter, d.P.R. 22 September 1988, no. 448, is entrusted to the public prosecutor, based on a prognostic judgment according to the state of the proceedings, as the latter is not required to activate, for this purpose, the investigative tool provided for in art. 9 of the aforementioned d.P.R.

This ruling is fundamental: the decision on serious educational prejudice rests with the Public Prosecutor and is based on the elements already present in the file ("according to the state of the proceedings"). The Public Prosecutor is not obliged to conduct further specific investigations into the minor's personality (art. 9 D.P.R. n. 448/1988) before requesting immediate judgment. It is configured as a "prognostic judgment" based on the available information.

Balancing Efficiency and Protection

Judgment no. 17797/2025 emphasizes the Public Prosecutor's discretion in the preliminary assessment. This approach balances two needs:

• Procedural Efficiency: Accelerating justice timelines.
• Protection of the Minor: Shielding the young person from procedures potentially harmful to their educational path.

The Public Prosecutor's decision, although "according to the state of the proceedings," requires careful reasoning. The minor's defense, through their lawyer, retains the right to object, highlighting any educational prejudice and protecting the young person's interests.

Conclusions: Clarity in Juvenile Criminal Law

The judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 17797/2025 offers decisive guidance for legal professionals. It clarifies the boundaries and responsibilities of the Public Prosecutor in juvenile criminal proceedings, reiterating that the assessment of serious educational prejudice for immediate judgment is a prognostic judgment "according to the state of the proceedings." This balances the protection of the minor with the need for procedural speed. Understanding these dynamics is crucial to ensuring the best possible assistance to the minors involved, always with a view to their best interests.