Juvenile Probation: The Court of Cassation and the Autonomy of the Procedure (Judgment no. 20150/2025)

Juvenile criminal justice is distinguished by its profound attention to the rehabilitation and social reintegration of minors. A cornerstone of this system is probation, an institution that offers young people the opportunity for an educational path alternative to traditional proceedings. The recent Judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 20150, filed on May 29, 2025, provides a fundamental clarification on the procedures for revoking this measure, strongly reaffirming the autonomy of the juvenile procedure and its specificities compared to the ordinary one.

Probation: An Educational Tool

Governed by Articles 28 and 29 of Presidential Decree no. 448 of September 22, 1988 (Juvenile Code of Criminal Procedure), probation is not a mere suspension but an individualized educational project. The minor, entrusted to social services, follows a program that may include study, work, or volunteer activities, with the aim of fostering responsibility. A positive outcome extinguishes the offense, avoiding the consequences of a conviction and promoting reintegration. This rehabilitative purpose requires a flexible and targeted procedural approach, distinct from that for adults.

The Cassation's Ruling: The Principle of Subsidiarity

Judgment no. 20150 of April 16, 2025, addresses the issue of the applicability of Article 464-octies of the Code of Criminal Procedure (revocation of probation for adults) and the necessity of a hearing pursuant to Article 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the revocation of juvenile probation. The Court provided a clear answer:

In matters of juvenile proceedings, the provisions of Article 464-octies of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs the revocation of the order suspending proceedings with probation "for adults," are not applicable due to the principle of subsidiarity of provisions relating to ordinary proceedings. The same institution finds autonomous and different regulation in Articles 28 and 29 of Presidential Decree of September 22, 1988, no. 448. (Case in which the Court excluded that, in proceedings against minors, the revocation of the suspension order for probation must be preceded by the scheduling of a hearing pursuant to Article 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

The Court of Cassation excluded the application of Article 464-octies of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the obligation of a hearing pursuant to Article 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to juvenile proceedings. This decision is based on the principle of subsidiarity: the rules of ordinary proceedings apply only in the absence of specific provisions. Since Presidential Decree 448/1988 autonomously regulates juvenile probation, adult procedures are not relevant. The Court thus reiterated the specialty of the juvenile procedural system, which must be interpreted in coherence with its educational and protective purposes, ensuring speed and flexibility in decisions.

Practical Implications for Legal Professionals

This ruling has significant implications for all operators in juvenile law, confirming that:

• Juvenile probation has autonomous revocation procedures.
• Article 464-octies of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply for revocation.
• A hearing pursuant to Article 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not necessary before revocation.

This autonomy ensures greater efficiency and specificity to the procedure, allowing for quicker decisions tailored to the minor's educational needs. The assessment of revocation is based on the progress of the program and requires promptness, without the formalities that could delay intervention. The juvenile system is inherently flexible, placing the "best interests of the child" at its center, in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The judgment reinforces the idea of juvenile criminal law as a distinct system.

Conclusions: Tailored Criminal Law

Judgment no. 20150 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation is an important reference in juvenile jurisprudence. It confirms the specific and autonomous approach for minors involved in criminal proceedings, particularly concerning probation. The exclusion of ordinary procedural rules for revocation reiterates the intention to protect the minor through rapid, flexible, and education-oriented procedures. This not only respects developmental age but also makes the justice system more effective in promoting the rehabilitation and social reintegration of young people.