Court of Cassation: The Structural Abnormality of the GUP's Order in Ruling no. 17789 of 2025

In the complex landscape of Italian criminal procedural law, decisions of the Court of Cassation play a crucial role in guiding the interpretation of norms and ensuring the uniformity of jurisprudence. A recent ruling, Ruling no. 17789 of 04/03/2025 (filed on 12/05/2025), addresses a matter of considerable practical relevance: the structural abnormality of a measure issued by the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing (GUP) declaring a derived nullity of the request for indictment. This ruling, presided over by Dr. G. Andreazza and reported by Dr. A. Galanti, deserves careful analysis for its implications on the efficiency and correctness of the criminal proceedings.

The Context: Defence Guarantees and the Role of the GUP

The procedural case under examination involves the defendant P. P.M. and originates from an order by the GIP of the Court of Bari dated 23/09/2024. The GIP had declared a derived nullity of the request for indictment, finding a violation of the defence guarantees provided for by art. 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relating to the suspect's involvement in guaranteed acts during the preliminary investigation phase. Article 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in fact, protects the suspect's right to participate or be notified of the possibility of participating in unrepeatable acts, thus ensuring the adversarial principle from the earliest stages of the proceedings.

However, the Court of Cassation annulled this decision without referral, classifying the GUP's order as "abnormal". But what exactly does "structural abnormality" mean in the context of criminal proceedings, and what were the reasons that led the Supreme Court to this conclusion?

Structural Abnormality: A Limit to the Regression of Proceedings

The abnormality of a procedural act occurs when a measure, although formally correct, deviates radically from its typical function, altering the logical-chronological sequence of the proceedings or creating a situation not foreseen by the legal system. In this specific case, the Cassation Court held that the GUP's declaration of nullity, while stemming from a legitimate concern for defence guarantees, went beyond the limits imposed by the system.

An order by the judge of the preliminary hearing declaring a derived nullity of the request for indictment, arising from a violation of the provisions concerning the suspect's involvement in guaranteed acts, pursuant to art. 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, during the preliminary investigation phase, is affected by structural abnormality, since the declaration of an invalidity not independently provided for by articles 416 and 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure leads to an undue regression of the proceedings, capable of altering the orderly logical-chronological sequence, in violation of the constitutional principle of the reasonable duration of the trial.

This maxim is the core of the decision. The Court emphasizes that the nullity declared by the GUP was not among those independently provided for by articles 416 (concerning the request for indictment) and 429 (concerning the decree ordering the trial) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The consequence of this improper declaration was an "undue regression of the proceedings", meaning a return to a previous procedural phase without specific legal justification. Such regression is considered capable of altering the "orderly logical-chronological sequence" of the trial, thus violating the fundamental "constitutional principle of the reasonable duration of the trial", enshrined in art. 111 of the Constitution.

The Reasonable Duration of the Trial and Constitutional Guarantees

The principle of the reasonable duration of the trial is not a mere technicality but a pillar of our legal system, essential for the protection of citizens' rights. An excessively long trial can severely prejudice the position of the defendant, who remains in a state of uncertainty for an indefinite period, and of the injured party, who awaits justice. The Court of Cassation, also referring to previous case law (such as Joint Divisions no. 20569 of 2018), has consistently highlighted how procedural regressions not provided for by law are to be condemned precisely because they compromise the speed and efficiency of justice.

The ruling in question balances the right to defence, guaranteed by art. 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the need for a streamlined and swift trial. Although the violation of defence guarantees is a matter of utmost importance, not every irregularity can result in a procedural regression, especially if such a possibility is not expressly contemplated by the norms governing nullities in that specific phase of the proceedings. The criminal procedural system indeed provides specific mechanisms for managing nullities (arts. 180, 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), which must be rigorously applied to prevent the trial from becoming an endless labyrinth.

• **Key points of the decision:**
• The GUP's order declaring a derived nullity not provided for by arts. 416 and 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is abnormal.
• Such a declaration causes an undue regression of the proceedings.
• The regression alters the logical-chronological sequence of the trial.
• This violates the constitutional principle of the reasonable duration of the trial.
• The ruling reaffirms the need to balance defence guarantees and procedural speed.

Conclusions: A Call for the Orderly Conduct of Proceedings

Ruling no. 17789 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents an important warning for legal professionals. It reiterates that, while diligently protecting defence guarantees, the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing must scrupulously adhere to the normative provisions regarding nullities, avoiding decisions that, even if motivated by praiseworthy intentions, end up altering the structure and timing of criminal proceedings. The declaration of structural abnormality serves to preserve the integrity of the proceedings, ensuring that each phase unfolds according to predefined rules and that the right to a fair and reasonably timed trial is effectively respected, to the benefit of all parties involved.