The Insignificance of the Fact in the Pre-Trial Hearing: The Judge's Autonomy with Ruling No. 9618/2025

Criminal law is a constantly evolving field, where every judicial pronouncement can redefine the boundaries of the application of norms. A recent and significant decision by the Court of Cassation, Ruling No. 9618 of February 19, 2025 (filed on March 10, 2025), fits precisely into this context, providing crucial clarifications on the application of the ground for non-punishability due to the insignificance of the fact, provided for by Article 131-bis of the Criminal Code, within the scope of the pre-trial hearing pursuant to Article 554-ter of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This ruling is destined to significantly impact judicial practice, offering new perspectives for both defendants and legal professionals.

The Regulatory Context: Art. 131-bis c.p. and the Different Procedural Stages

To fully understand the scope of Ruling No. 9618/2025, it is essential to recall the regulatory framework. Article 131-bis of the Criminal Code, introduced in 2015, allows the judge to declare the defendant's non-punishability when, due to the conduct's methods and the insignificance of the damage or danger, the offense is of particular insignificance and the behavior is not habitual. This provision aims to reduce the judicial workload and avoid disproportionate consequences for minor offenses. Its application has raised interpretative questions, especially in relation to the different stages of criminal proceedings.

The Code of Criminal Procedure provides for various "filter" hearings preceding the trial: the preliminary hearing (Art. 425 c.p.p.), the pre-trial hearing (Art. 554-ter c.p.p.), introduced by the Cartabia Reform, and the ruling of non-prosecution before trial (Art. 469 c.p.p.). Although all can lead to an early acquittal, the conditions for applying Art. 131-bis c.p. are not always the same, generating doubts that the Supreme Court intended to resolve.

Ruling No. 9618/2025: The Judge's Role in the Pre-Trial Hearing

The Court of Cassation, with Ruling No. 9618/2025, presided over by Dr. G. V. and reported by Dr. M. M. A., ruled on the appeal filed by the defendant S. R., rejecting the decision of the Court of Appeal of Reggio Calabria. The central issue was whether the judge of the pre-trial hearing (Art. 554-ter c.p.p.) could apply Art. 131-bis c.p. even in the absence of an explicit non-objection from the defendant. The ruling's maxim clarifies this point definitively:

The assimilation of the ruling issued pursuant to Art. 554-ter of the Code of Criminal Procedure to that provided for by Art. 425 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, also through the reference contained in Art. 554-ter, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allows the judge of the pre-trial hearing to apply the ground for non-punishability provided for by Art. 131-bis of the Criminal Code, irrespective of the defendant's non-objection.

This statement is of fundamental importance. The Court recognized that the pre-trial hearing is similar, in its nature and purpose, to the preliminary hearing pursuant to Art. 425 c.p.p. In both these stages, the judge enjoys broader evaluative autonomy and can issue an acquittal based on their own conviction, without the need for consent or non-objection from the parties. This is clearly distinct from other stages, such as the ruling of non-prosecution before trial (Art. 469 c.p.p.), for which the same Court has specified, in the grounds, that "the judge, in order to issue the ruling of non-punishability pursuant to Art. 131-bis of the Criminal Code, must necessarily hear the parties and obtain their non-objection.".

In summary, the crucial distinction is based on the nature of the hearings:

• In the pre-trial hearing (Art. 554-ter c.p.p.) and the preliminary hearing (Art. 425 c.p.p.), the judge can apply Art. 131-bis c.p. ex officio, without the need for the parties' consent.
• In the stage preceding the trial (Art. 469 c.p.p.), the absence of opposition from the parties is essential.

This judicial clarification consolidates the trend according to which the pre-trial hearing, despite being a "filter" stage introduced with the aim of speeding up proceedings, retains the characteristics of an autonomous judgment in which the judge can fully exercise their guarantee function.

Conclusions and Practical Implications

Ruling No. 9618/2025 has significant practical implications. For defendants, it offers greater certainty that the insignificance of the fact can be recognized already in an early stage, without their potential objection precluding such a ruling. This can translate into considerable savings of time and procedural resources. For defense lawyers, the ruling strengthens the strategy of requesting the application of Art. 131-bis c.p. even in the pre-trial hearing, knowing that the decision rests with the judge in full autonomy.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court has provided a clear and consistent interpretation of the criminal procedural system post-Cartabia Reform. Ruling No. 9618/2025 represents an important piece in the mosaic of criminal justice, reiterating the importance of swift and efficient justice, but always in compliance with fundamental principles and the judge's decision-making autonomy.