Precautionary Measures and Connected Offences: Cassation Ruling 19068/2025 on the Preliminary Interrogation

In the complex landscape of Italian criminal procedural law, personal precautionary measures are a tool of fundamental importance, aimed at ensuring justice requirements pending the conclusion of the proceedings. However, their application often raises delicate issues, balancing the need to protect the investigation with the defendant's sacred right to defence. One such issue was recently addressed by the Court of Cassation with ruling no. 19068, filed on 22 May 2025, which provided essential clarifications on the preliminary precautionary interrogation in the presence of a plurality of connected offences.

The Preliminary Precautionary Interrogation: A Pillar of Defence Protection

The precautionary interrogation is a crucial moment in the precautionary proceedings. Provided for by Article 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.), it allows the person subjected to a precautionary measure to present their reasons and defend themselves against the charges. Article 291, paragraph 1-quater, c.p.p. then introduces a specific provision for the 'preliminary' precautionary interrogation, establishing that in certain cases the judge must proceed with the interrogation even before applying the precautionary measure, in order to ensure an early and strengthened adversarial process. This provision reflects the legislator's intention to further enhance defence guarantees, allowing the suspect to provide their version of events at a time prior to the coercive application.

Ruling 19068/2025: An Exception to the General Rule

The Cassation ruling no. 19068 of 2025, presided over by L. Ramacci and drafted by F. Zunica, fits precisely into this context, analysing a particular case in which the Court of Appeal of Naples had rejected an appeal concerning precautionary measures. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the compatibility of the preliminary precautionary interrogation when the precautionary request concerns a plurality of connected offences, for some of which a derogation from the aforementioned rule is provided.

In the context of personal precautionary measures, the general rule of the preliminary precautionary interrogation referred to in art. 291, paragraph 1-quater, cod. proc. pen. does not apply when the judge is seized with a precautionary request concerning a plurality of connected offences, for some of which a derogation is provided, as prevalence must be given to the more serious offence deemed to be an obstacle by the legislator, in function of the prevailing need to maintain the secrecy of the unitary precautionary initiative.

This maxim is of extreme relevance. It establishes that, although the preliminary interrogation is a fundamental guarantee, it can be sacrificed in the presence of certain conditions. Specifically, when there are multiple connected offences (according to the criteria of art. 12 c.p.p.) and for one of these a derogation from the preliminary interrogation is already provided, such derogation extends to the entire precautionary initiative. The reasoning behind this choice lies in the 'prevailing need to maintain the secrecy of the unitary precautionary initiative', especially when it concerns the 'more serious offence' for which the legislator has already provided such an exception. This means that the need not to compromise the investigation, maintaining its secrecy and effectiveness, can prevail over the guarantee of an early adversarial process, especially in complex investigative contexts.

Practical Implications and Balancing of Interests

The Cassation ruling has a significant impact on judicial practice. It clarifies that the judge, faced with a request for a precautionary measure for connected offences, must carefully assess the nature of the offences and any derogations provided. This approach reflects a balance between:

• The protection of the suspect's rights, guaranteed by the preliminary interrogation.
• The effectiveness of criminal proceedings and the need to maintain the confidentiality of investigations, especially in cases of organised crime or complex offences where premature disclosure could seriously compromise the investigative outcome.
• The prevalence of the more serious offence: the seriousness of the offence for which the derogation is provided justifies the extension of the exception to the entire connected precautionary framework.

The ruling therefore emphasizes how the principle of the unity of the precautionary initiative is fundamental, preventing the presence of a 'minor' offence for which no derogation is provided from nullifying the need for secrecy for a 'major' offence connected to it.

Conclusions

Ruling no. 19068 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents an important piece in the jurisprudence on precautionary measures. It reaffirms the complexity of balancing individual rights and the interests of justice, providing a clear interpretation of Article 291, paragraph 1-quater, c.p.p. in situations involving a plurality of connected offences. For legal professionals, this decision is a reminder to carefully assess every single aspect of the precautionary request, taking into account the connection between the offences and specific legislative derogations, always with the aim of ensuring a fair and effective trial. For citizens, it offers a glimpse into the challenges that justice faces in reconciling investigative needs with the protection of fundamental freedoms.